TY - GEN
T1 - Discussion panel
T2 - 58th International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2014
AU - Roth, Emilie M.
AU - O'Hara, John
AU - Bisantz, Ann
AU - Endsley, Mica R.
AU - Klein, Gary
AU - Militello, Laura
AU - Pfautz, Jonathan D.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright 2014 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) has become part of the standard tool set of cognitive engineering. CTAs are routinely used to understand the cognitive and collaborative demands that contribute to performance problems, the basis of expertise, as well as the opportunities to improve performance through new forms of training, user interfaces, or decision aids. While the need to conduct CTAs has become well established, there is little in the way of available guidance with respect to 'best practice' for how to conduct a CTA or how to evaluate the quality of a CTA that has been conducted by others. This is an important gap as the range of consumers of CTAs is expanding to include program managers and regulators who may need to make decisions based on CTA findings. This panel brings together some of the leaders in development and application of CTA methods to address the question: Given the variety of methods available, and the lack of rigid guidance on how to perform a CTA, how does one judge the quality of a CTA?" The goal of the panel is to explore points of consensus with respect to 'best practice' in conducting and evaluating a CTA, in spite of differences in particular CTA methods, as well as to draw insights from unique and provocative perspectives.
AB - Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) has become part of the standard tool set of cognitive engineering. CTAs are routinely used to understand the cognitive and collaborative demands that contribute to performance problems, the basis of expertise, as well as the opportunities to improve performance through new forms of training, user interfaces, or decision aids. While the need to conduct CTAs has become well established, there is little in the way of available guidance with respect to 'best practice' for how to conduct a CTA or how to evaluate the quality of a CTA that has been conducted by others. This is an important gap as the range of consumers of CTAs is expanding to include program managers and regulators who may need to make decisions based on CTA findings. This panel brings together some of the leaders in development and application of CTA methods to address the question: Given the variety of methods available, and the lack of rigid guidance on how to perform a CTA, how does one judge the quality of a CTA?" The goal of the panel is to explore points of consensus with respect to 'best practice' in conducting and evaluating a CTA, in spite of differences in particular CTA methods, as well as to draw insights from unique and provocative perspectives.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84957648293
U2 - 10.1177/1541931214581066
DO - 10.1177/1541931214581066
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:84957648293
T3 - Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
SP - 320
EP - 324
BT - 2014 International Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, HFES 2014
PB - Human Factors an Ergonomics Society Inc.
Y2 - 27 October 2014 through 31 October 2014
ER -