2019ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University)Open access

The Effects of Automation and Task Difficulty on Crew Coordination, Workload, and Performance

Ruth Coleen Thornton

Open full text 13 citations

Abstract

The purposes of this research were two-fold: (1) to assess the reliability and utility of the Aircrew Coordination Observation and Evaluation scales in describing crew coordination behaviors exhibited during flight and (2) to investigate the effects of automation on crew coordination, workload, and performance. Two levels of automation (i.e., presence or absence of an autopilot) and two levels of task difficulty (i.e., presence or absence of wind and turbulence) were combined to yield a 2 x 2 design. Twenty-four two-person crews performed in both levels of automation and one of two levels of task difficulty. The results of the reliability assessment demonstrated that the training procedures and behavioral summary scale anchors that were developed produced adequate levels of interrater reliability in this investigation. The results of the crew coordination analyses revealed differences in the frequency and quality of crew coordination behaviors between levels of automation. Ratings of crew coordination were also shown to be related to performance. The results also indicated that although crews in the automated condition reported less workload, only one of the three measures of flight performance was improved. In addition, under high task difficulty, problem solving performance was worse in the automated condition than in the manual condition. Interpretation and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The purposes of this research were two-fold: (1) to assess the reliability and utility of the Aircrew Coordination Observation and Evaluation scales in describing crew coordination behaviors exhibited during flight and (2) to investigate the effects of automation on crew coordination, workload, and performance. Two levels of automation (i.e., presence or absence of an autopilot) and two levels of task difficulty (i.e., presence or absence of wind and turbulence) were combined to yield a 2 x 2 design. Twenty-four two-person crews performed in both levels of automation and one of two levels of task difficulty. The results of the reliability assessment demonstrated that the training procedures and behavioral summary scale anchors that were developed produced adequate levels of interrater reliability in this investigation. The results of the crew coordination analyses revealed differences in the frequency and quality of crew coordination behaviors between levels of automation. Ratings of crew coordination were also shown to be related to performance. The results also indicated that although crews in the automated condition reported less workload, only one of the three measures of flight performance was improved. In addition, under high task difficulty, problem solving performance was worse in the automated condition than in the manual condition. Interpretation and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 13 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The purposes of this research were two-fold: (1) to assess the reliability and utility of the Aircrew Coordination Observation and Evaluation scales in describing crew coordination behaviors exhibited during flight and (2) to investigate the effects of automation on crew coordination, workload, and performance. Two levels of automation (i.e., presence or absence of an autopilot) and two levels of task difficulty (i.e., presence or absence of wind and turbulence) were combined to yield a 2 x 2 design. Twenty-four two-person crews performed in both levels of automation and one of two levels of task difficulty. The results of the reliability assessment demonstrated that the training procedures and behavioral summary scale anchors that were developed produced adequate levels of interrater reliability in this investigation. The results of the crew coordination analyses revealed differences in the frequency and quality of crew coordination behaviors between levels of automation. Ratings of crew coordination were also shown to be related to performance. The results also indicated that although crews in the automated condition reported less workload, only one of the three measures of flight performance was improved. In addition, under high task difficulty, problem solving performance was worse in the automated condition than in the manual condition. Interpretation and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Key concepts: Crew, Workload, Automation, Task (project management), Computer science, Aeronautics, Engineering, Systems engineering

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Effects of Automation and Task Difficulty on Crew Coordination, Workload, and Performance — Research Paper | ScholarLens