The physiological demand of a task simulation varies when developed by independent groups of experiential experts. (July 2022)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- The physiological demand of a task simulation varies when developed by independent groups of experiential experts. (July 2022)
- Main Title:
- The physiological demand of a task simulation varies when developed by independent groups of experiential experts
- Authors:
- Hayes, Adam C.
Groeller, Herbert
Drain, Jace R.
Delbridge, Kent
Caldwell, Joanne N. - Abstract:
- Abstract: Objective: To investigate the disparity in the specification and physiological demand of a task simulation when developed by two independent panels of experiential experts. Design: Independent groups design. Methods: Two groups of experiential experts from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) worked independently to design, and then complete a simulation of a generic occupational task; the establishment of a security control point. Task duration, oxygen consumption, and cardiac frequency were measured whilst each panel completed the task simulation. Maximal acceptable work duration (MAWD) and the percentage of MAWD (%MAWD) were also calculated. Independent t-tests were used to determine differences ( P < 0.05) between the measured variables. Results: No differences were observed in the average oxygen consumption (1.26 ± 0.25 L min −1 and 1.28 ± 0.29 L min −1 respectively; P = 0.84), or cardiac frequency (134 ± 16.4 beats·min −1 and 125 ± 8.5 beats·min −1 respectively; P = 0.12) between Panel 1 and Panel 2. However, there was a significant difference between panels with respect to task duration (Panel 1: 15.5 ± 3.68 min; Panel 2: 34.20 ± 9.60 min; P < 0.01), and the %MAWD (Panel 1: 5.32 ± 3.17%, Panel 2: 12.15 ± 9.40%, P = 0.04). Conclusions: The physiological demand of a task simulation is dependent upon the group of experts consulted to develop the simulation. It is critical that input from a wide representation of experiential experts is considered whenAbstract: Objective: To investigate the disparity in the specification and physiological demand of a task simulation when developed by two independent panels of experiential experts. Design: Independent groups design. Methods: Two groups of experiential experts from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) worked independently to design, and then complete a simulation of a generic occupational task; the establishment of a security control point. Task duration, oxygen consumption, and cardiac frequency were measured whilst each panel completed the task simulation. Maximal acceptable work duration (MAWD) and the percentage of MAWD (%MAWD) were also calculated. Independent t-tests were used to determine differences ( P < 0.05) between the measured variables. Results: No differences were observed in the average oxygen consumption (1.26 ± 0.25 L min −1 and 1.28 ± 0.29 L min −1 respectively; P = 0.84), or cardiac frequency (134 ± 16.4 beats·min −1 and 125 ± 8.5 beats·min −1 respectively; P = 0.12) between Panel 1 and Panel 2. However, there was a significant difference between panels with respect to task duration (Panel 1: 15.5 ± 3.68 min; Panel 2: 34.20 ± 9.60 min; P < 0.01), and the %MAWD (Panel 1: 5.32 ± 3.17%, Panel 2: 12.15 ± 9.40%, P = 0.04). Conclusions: The physiological demand of a task simulation is dependent upon the group of experts consulted to develop the simulation. It is critical that input from a wide representation of experiential experts is considered when developing task simulations to avoid bias towards the perceptions of the experts consulted. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Applied ergonomics. Volume 102(2022)
- Journal:
- Applied ergonomics
- Issue:
- Volume 102(2022)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 102, Issue 2022 (2022)
- Year:
- 2022
- Volume:
- 102
- Issue:
- 2022
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2022-0102-2022-0000
- Page Start:
- Page End:
- Publication Date:
- 2022-07
- Subjects:
- Task -- Physical requirements -- Simulation -- Employment standards -- Health -- Well-being
Human engineering -- Periodicals
620.82 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00036870 ↗
http://www.elsevier.com/journals ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103715 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0003-6870
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 1572.500000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 21457.xml