skip to main content
10.1145/2970930.2970954acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Confidence Ratings in Nuclear Process Control: A Pilot Study with a Simplified Task

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 September 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper we describe a pilot study where we explore the potential of self-rated confidence judgments in the context of control room human performance evaluation. Response time, accuracy, and confidence data were obtained in a simplified task in a simulator environment of a nuclear control room. Licensed operators were presented with blocks of questions regarding specific images portraying recognizable displays with relevant process information -- after answering the primary task they were requested to evaluate their confidence in the response. The images included either benchmark (e.g. numerical values) or innovative (e.g. numerical values plus graphs and figures) design features. Overall results show that: a) there is not a complete correspondence between response accuracy and confidence ratings; b) participants took longer to reply to the confidence ratings when answers to the primary task were incorrect; c) level of confidence seems to be discriminative, with the innovative displays showcasing higher levels of certainty.

References

  1. Donald A. Curtis, Samuel L. Lind, Christy K. Boscardin, Mark Dellinges. 2013. Does student confidence on multiple-choice question assessments provide useful information? Medical Education, 47(6), 578--584. http://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12147Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Hildebrantdt, M. & Eitrheim, M.H.R. (2015). A micro-task method for assessing performance effects of innovative interface elements. Proceedings of the 59th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Los Angeles, 26-30 October, 2015, pp. 1759--1763.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Hildebrantdt, M. & Fernandes, A. (accepted). Micro Task Evaluation of Analog vs. Digital NPP Control Room Interfaces. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society International Conference, Washington DC, 19-23 September, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Joshua Klayman, Jack, B. Soll, Claudia Gonzalez-Vallejo, Sema Barlas. 1999. Overconfidence: It depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 216--247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Roger Ratcliff, Jeffrey J. Starns. 2013. Modeling confidence judgments, response times, and multiple choices in decision making: Recognition memory and motion discrimination. Psychological Review, 120(3), 697--719. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0033152Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Mark T. Spence, Merrie Brucks. 1997. The Moderating Effects of Problem Characteristics on Experts' and Novices' Judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 233. http://doi.org/10.2307/3151861Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Thomas A. Ulrich, Steffen Werner, Ronald L. Boring. 2015. Studying Situation Awareness on a Shoestring Budget: An Example of an Inexpensive Simulation Environment for Theoretical Research. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59th Annual Meeting, 1--6. http://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591329Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Nick Yeung, Christopher Summerfield. 2012. Metacognition in human decision-making: confidence and error monitoring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1310--1321. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0416Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ECCE '16: Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics
    September 2016
    193 pages
    ISBN:9781450342445
    DOI:10.1145/2970930

    Copyright © 2016 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 5 September 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • short-paper
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    ECCE '16 Paper Acceptance Rate27of37submissions,73%Overall Acceptance Rate56of91submissions,62%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader