Comparison of mental workload with N-Back test: A new design for NASA-task load index questionnaire

Mahdi Malakoutikhah, R. Kazemi, H. Rabiei, M. Alimohammadlou, Asma Zare, Soheil Hassanipour
{"title":"Comparison of mental workload with N-Back test: A new design for NASA-task load index questionnaire","authors":"Mahdi Malakoutikhah, R. Kazemi, H. Rabiei, M. Alimohammadlou, Asma Zare, Soheil Hassanipour","doi":"10.4103/iahs.iahs_126_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: A most widely used tool for measuring the workload is the NASA-task load index (TLX) questionnaire, in which various studies have reported numerous problems. The present study aimed to improve the NSAS-TLX mental workload questionnaire using the fuzzy linguistic variables instead of the virtual rating scale, and multicriteria decision-making Fuzzy Best-Worst method (FBWM) instead of pair-wise comparison. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out among students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. In order to compare the traditional NASA-TLX and FBWM NASA-TLX questionnaire, participants performed a standard N-Back task with three low, medium, and high workload, subsequently, they completed the two questionnaires. Finally, results were examined using the researcher-made software and SPSS 16. Results: With regard to the reaction time to response the N-Back test, the mean of correct responses were 107.43 and 85.86 responses at levels 1 and 3, respectively. The mean score of the subscales and the final score in the two questionnaires at different levels of the N-Back test were independent as follows: the two questionnaires had a significant difference on mental demand at level 3 with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 18.09 (6.39) in the FBWM-NASA-TLX questionnaire and mean (SD) of 22.64 (8.15) in the NASA-TLX questionnaire ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: In this study, the FBWM-NASA-TLX questionnaire was designed and studied with regard to the problems and limitations of the NASA-TLX questionnaire. Results of this study showed that the FBWM-NASA-TLX questionnaire can estimate more realistic scores and decisions of workload in the studied task.","PeriodicalId":160562,"journal":{"name":"International Archives of Health Sciences","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Archives of Health Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/iahs.iahs_126_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Aims: A most widely used tool for measuring the workload is the NASA-task load index (TLX) questionnaire, in which various studies have reported numerous problems. The present study aimed to improve the NSAS-TLX mental workload questionnaire using the fuzzy linguistic variables instead of the virtual rating scale, and multicriteria decision-making Fuzzy Best-Worst method (FBWM) instead of pair-wise comparison. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out among students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. In order to compare the traditional NASA-TLX and FBWM NASA-TLX questionnaire, participants performed a standard N-Back task with three low, medium, and high workload, subsequently, they completed the two questionnaires. Finally, results were examined using the researcher-made software and SPSS 16. Results: With regard to the reaction time to response the N-Back test, the mean of correct responses were 107.43 and 85.86 responses at levels 1 and 3, respectively. The mean score of the subscales and the final score in the two questionnaires at different levels of the N-Back test were independent as follows: the two questionnaires had a significant difference on mental demand at level 3 with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 18.09 (6.39) in the FBWM-NASA-TLX questionnaire and mean (SD) of 22.64 (8.15) in the NASA-TLX questionnaire ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: In this study, the FBWM-NASA-TLX questionnaire was designed and studied with regard to the problems and limitations of the NASA-TLX questionnaire. Results of this study showed that the FBWM-NASA-TLX questionnaire can estimate more realistic scores and decisions of workload in the studied task.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脑力负荷与N-Back测验的比较:nasa任务负荷指数问卷的新设计
目的:最广泛使用的测量工作负荷的工具是nasa任务负荷指数(TLX)问卷,其中各种研究报告了许多问题。本研究旨在以模糊语言变量代替虚拟评定量表,以多准则决策模糊最佳-最差法代替两两比较,对NSAS-TLX心理工作量问卷进行改进。材料与方法:以设拉子医科大学学生为研究对象进行横断面研究。为了比较传统的NASA-TLX问卷和FBWM的NASA-TLX问卷,被试先完成低、中、高三种工作量的标准N-Back任务,然后完成两份问卷。最后,使用研究者自制的软件和SPSS 16对结果进行检验。结果:在回答N-Back测验的反应时间上,第一、三级的平均正确回答数分别为107.43和85.86。两份问卷在不同水平的N-Back检验中各分量表的均分和最终得分均独立存在:两份问卷在第三水平的心理需求差异显著,FBWM-NASA-TLX问卷的均分(标准差[SD])为18.09 (6.39),NASA-TLX问卷的均分(SD])为22.64 (8.15)(P < 0.05)。结论:本研究针对NASA-TLX问卷存在的问题和局限性,设计并研究了FBWM-NASA-TLX问卷。本研究结果表明,FBWM-NASA-TLX问卷能更真实地评估被研究任务的得分和工作量决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effect of E-Learning on appropriate antibiotic prescribing by medical students: A quasi-experimental study during COVID-19 pandemic The effect of swedish massage combined with exercise therapy on nonspecific low back pain in the elderly: A randomized controlled clinical trial Clinician satisfaction and experience using teleconsultation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan: A cross-sectional study Treatment outcomes of acceptance and commitment therapy on severity of internet gaming disorder comorbid with ADHD in adolescents Bioecology of sandflies (Diptera: Psychodidae: Phlebotominae) in Khorramshahr County, the endemic focus of zoonotic cutaneous leishmaniasis in Khuzestan Province, Iran (2017–2018)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1