Volume 3, Issue 3 (Autumn 2016)                   johe 2016, 3(3): 24-31 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Charkhandaz Yeganeh R, Alimohammadi I, Abolghasemi J, Damiri Z, Parsazadeh B, Rahmani N. Validity and reliability of Verbal Online Subjective Opinion (VOSO) and Modified Cooper-Harper scales in measuring of mental workload. johe 2016; 3 (3) :24-31
URL: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-211-en.html
Validity and reliability of Verbal Online Subjective Opinion (VOSO) and Modified Cooper-Harper scales in measuring of mental workload
Reza Charkhandaz Yeganeh1 , Iraj Alimohammadi * 2, Jamileh Abolghasemi1 , Zabiolah Damiri1 , Bahar Parsazadeh1 , Negar Rahmani3
1- faculty of public health, iran university of medical sciences, tehran, iran
2- faculty of public health, iran university of medical sciences, tehran, iran , irajrastin1@gmail.com
3- faculty of health, Mazandaran university of medical sciences, Sari, iran
Abstract:   (8256 Views)

Introduction: High mental workload is one of the important factors that results in errors in safety and occupational health scope and its measurement has high importance. So, this study aimed to determine validity and reliability of Verbal Online Subjective Opinion (VOSO) and Modified Cooper-Harper (MCH) scales in measuring mental workload.

Methods: This study was conducted on 90 male students of Iran University of Medical Sciences. In this study, the Forward-Backward translation was used for translation of scales. Moreover, Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index (CVI) were calculated by having suggestion of 6 Ergonomics and Occupational health experts. The Hybrid Memory Search Task software was used to create mental workload. Convergent validity of scales was calculated using correlation of scales with reaction time and then Test-Retest method was used to determine the reliability of scales.

Results: Content and convergent validity of scales were confirmed and correlation of both scales with reaction time were higher than 0.8. Moreover for determination of scales reliabilities, Pearson correlation coefficient between scales values in test and retest trials were 0.86 and 0.91 for VOSO and MCH respectively.

Conclusion: It seems that in regard to confirmation of validity and reliability of VOSO and MCH in this study and their high correlation with reaction time, it can use these scales in measurement of mental workload.

Keywords: Mental workload, Verbal Online Subjective Opinion scale, Modified Cooper-Harper scale
Full-Text [PDF 237 kb]   (2416 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research Article | Subject: Ergonomics
References
1. Young G, Zavelina L, Hooper V. Assessment of workload using NASA Task Load Index in perianesthesia nursing. Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing. 2008;23[2]:102-10. [DOI:10.1016/j.jopan.2008.01.008] [PMID]
2. Owens JA. Sleep loss and fatigue in healthcare professionals. The Journal of perinatal & neonatal nursing. 2007;21[2]:92-100. [DOI:10.1097/01.JPN.0000270624.64584.9d] [PMID]
3. Cantin V, Lavallière M, Simoneau M, Teasdale N. Mental workload when driving in a simulator: Effects of age and driving complexity. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2009;41[4]:763-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.019] [PMID]
4. Rubio S, Díaz E, Martín J, Puente JM. Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA‐TLX, and workload profile methods. Applied Psychology. 2004;53[1]:61-86. [DOI:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00161.x]
5. Wickens C, Hollands J. Engineering Psychology And Human Performance", 1992. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foreman, and Co.
6. Rouse WB, Edwards SL, Hammer JM. Modeling the dynamics of mental workload and human performance in complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, & Cybernetics. 1993.
7. Wickens CD. Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2008;50[3]:449-55. [DOI:10.1518/001872008X288394] [PMID]
8. Hancock P, Meshkati N. Human mental workload: Elsevier Amsterdam; 1988.
9. O'Donnell RD, Eggemeier FT. Workload assessment methodology. 1986.
10. Meister D. Behavioral foundations of system development. 1976.
11. Ryu K, Myung R. Evaluation of mental workload with a combined measure based on physiological indices during a dual task of tracking and mental arithmetic. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2005;35[11]:991-1009. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2005.04.005]
12. Wierwille WW. Physiological measures of aircrew mental workload. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1979;21[5]:575-93. [DOI:10.1177/001872087902100504] [PMID]
13. Williges RC, Wierwille WW. Behavioral measures of aircrew mental workload. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1979;21[5]:549-74. [DOI:10.1177/001872087902100503]
14. Johnson A, Widyanti A. Cultural influences on the measurement of subjective mental workload. Ergonomics. 2011;54[6]:509-18. [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2011.570459]
15. Gopher D, Donchin E. Workload: An examination of the concept. 1986.
16. Byers JC, Bittner A, Hill S. Traditional and raw task load index [TLX] correlations: Are paired comparisons necessary. Advances in industrial ergonomics and safety I. 1989:481-5.
17. Hill SG, Iavecchia HP, Byers JC, Bittner AC, Zaklade AL, Christ RE. Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1992;34[4]:429-39. [DOI:10.1177/001872089203400405]
18. Gopher D, Braune R. On the psychophysics of workload: Why bother with subjective measures? Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1984;26[5]:519-32. [DOI:10.1177/001872088402600504]
19. Miller S. Workload measures. National Advanced Driving Simulator Iowa City, United States. 2001.
20. Wierwille WW, Eggemeier FT. Recommendations for mental workload measurement in a test and evaluation environment. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1993;35[2]:263-81. [DOI:10.1177/001872089303500205]
21. Kang J, McGinley J, McFadyen G, Babski-Reeves K, editors. Determining learning level and effective training times using thermography. Proceedings of Army Science Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA; 2006.
22. Wierwille WW, Casali JG, editors. A validated rating scale for global mental workload measurement applications. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; 1983: Sage Publications. [DOI:10.1177/154193128302700203]
23. Or CK, Duffy VG. Development of a facial skin temperature-based methodology for non-intrusive mental workload measurement. Occupational Ergonomics. 2007;7[2]:83-94.
24. Antin JF, Wierwille WW, editors. Instantaneous measures of mental workload: an initial investigation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; 1984: Sage Publications. [DOI:10.1177/154193128402800104]
25. Marchitto M, Benedetto S, Baccino T, Ca-as JJ. Air traffic control: Ocular metrics reflect cognitive complexity. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2016;54:120-30. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2016.05.010]
26. Widyanti A, Johnson A, de Waard D. Adaptation of the rating scale mental effort [RSME] for use in Indonesia. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2013;43[1]:70-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2012.11.003]
27. Arghami S, Kamali K, Radanfar F. Task Performance induced Work Load in Nursing. Journal of Occupational Health Engineering. 2015;2[3]:45-54.
28. Zakerian SA, Abbasinia M, Mohammadian F, Fathi A, Rahmani A, Ahmadnezhad I, et al. The Relationship between Workload and Quality of Life among Hospital Staffs. Journal of Ergonomics. 2013;1[1]:43-56.
29. Wierwille WW, Rahimi M, Casali JG. Evaluation of 16 measures of mental workload using a simulated flight task emphasizing mediational activity. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1985;27[5]:489-502. [DOI:10.1177/001872088502700501]
30. Casali JG, Wierwille WW. A comparison of rating scale, secondary-task, physiological, and primary-task workload estimation techniques in a simulated flight task emphasizing communications load. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1983;25[6]:623-41. [DOI:10.1177/001872088302500602] [PMID]
31. Liu D, Wasson R, Vincenzi DA. Effects of system automation management strategies and multi-mission operator-to-vehicle ratio on operator performance in UAV systems. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems. 2009;54[5]:795-810. [DOI:10.1007/s10846-008-9288-4]
32. Skipper JH, Rieger CA, Wierwille WW. Evaluation of decision-tree rating scales for mental workload estimation. Ergonomics. 1986;29[4]:585-99. [DOI:10.1080/00140138608968293] [PMID]
33. Kilmer KJ, Bateman R, Malzahn D, editors. Techniques of subjective assessment: A comparison of the SWAT and modified Cooper-Harper scales. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; 1988: SAGE Publications. [DOI:10.1177/154193128803200233]
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb