The Effects of Tablet-Based Electronic Grading on Airline Evaluator Performance

IF 1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED International Journal of Aerospace Psychology Pub Date : 2020-12-05 DOI:10.1080/24721840.2020.1841563
Michael C. Elsenrath
{"title":"The Effects of Tablet-Based Electronic Grading on Airline Evaluator Performance","authors":"Michael C. Elsenrath","doi":"10.1080/24721840.2020.1841563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective: This experimental study assessed the effects of an Apple iPad (Apple and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries) grading instrument on airline evaluator performance. Background: Extant research exploring the effects of grading formats on evaluator performance focused on pen and paper modalities. This research investigated how a contemporary iPad-based grading format affected airline evaluator performance. Method: Forty-five evaluators from a major U.S. airline graded a Boeing 767 (Boeing is a wordmark of The Boeing Company, registered in the U.S. and other countries) flight crew experiencing an engine failure during takeoff. Three grading formats were used: pen and paper, a paper-based equivalent of the iPad grading format designed to replicate the function of the iPad, and the iPad. The effects of the grading formats were measured using the following dependent variables: recorded technical criteria, recorded non-technical criteria, and correlation and inter-rater agreement with a referent score. Results: Members of the iPad paper-based equivalent and iPad groups recorded significantly more technical and non-technical criteria compared to participants using pen and paper (p < .001). Members of the iPad paper-based equivalent and iPad groups had significantly higher correlation (p = .01) and inter-rater agreement levels (p < .01) compared to participants using pen and paper. Conclusion: The results of the study failed to support the iPad as a superior grading format. Research outcomes suggested structured grading may be a more important factor in predicting airline evaluator performance than the type of grading format used.","PeriodicalId":41693,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","volume":"31 1","pages":"25 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24721840.2020.1841563","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2020.1841563","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: This experimental study assessed the effects of an Apple iPad (Apple and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries) grading instrument on airline evaluator performance. Background: Extant research exploring the effects of grading formats on evaluator performance focused on pen and paper modalities. This research investigated how a contemporary iPad-based grading format affected airline evaluator performance. Method: Forty-five evaluators from a major U.S. airline graded a Boeing 767 (Boeing is a wordmark of The Boeing Company, registered in the U.S. and other countries) flight crew experiencing an engine failure during takeoff. Three grading formats were used: pen and paper, a paper-based equivalent of the iPad grading format designed to replicate the function of the iPad, and the iPad. The effects of the grading formats were measured using the following dependent variables: recorded technical criteria, recorded non-technical criteria, and correlation and inter-rater agreement with a referent score. Results: Members of the iPad paper-based equivalent and iPad groups recorded significantly more technical and non-technical criteria compared to participants using pen and paper (p < .001). Members of the iPad paper-based equivalent and iPad groups had significantly higher correlation (p = .01) and inter-rater agreement levels (p < .01) compared to participants using pen and paper. Conclusion: The results of the study failed to support the iPad as a superior grading format. Research outcomes suggested structured grading may be a more important factor in predicting airline evaluator performance than the type of grading format used.
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
基于平板电脑的电子评分对航空公司评估员绩效的影响
摘要目的:本实验研究评估了Apple iPad(Apple和iPad是Apple股份有限公司的商标,在美国和其他国家注册)评分工具对航空公司评估员绩效的影响。背景:关于评分形式对评估者绩效影响的现有研究主要集中在纸笔评分方式上。这项研究调查了当代基于iPad的评分格式如何影响航空公司评估员的表现。方法:来自美国一家主要航空公司的四十五名评估人员对一架波音767(波音是波音公司的一个商标,在美国和其他国家注册)机组人员在起飞时出现发动机故障进行了评分。使用了三种评分格式:笔和纸,这是一种纸质的iPad评分格式,旨在复制iPad的功能,以及iPad。评分形式的影响使用以下因变量进行测量:记录的技术标准、记录的非技术标准,以及与参考分数的相关性和评分者之间的一致性。结果:与使用笔和纸的参与者相比,iPad纸质等价物和iPad组的成员记录了更多的技术和非技术标准(p<0.001)。与使用笔或纸的参与者相比较,iPad纸质等效物和iPad小组的成员具有更高的相关性(p=0.01)和评分者之间的一致性水平(p<0.01)。结论:该研究的结果未能支持iPad作为一种优越的评分格式。研究结果表明,在预测航空公司评估员绩效方面,结构化评分可能比所使用的评分格式更重要。
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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Qualitative Analysis of General Aviation Pilots’ Aviation Safety Reporting System Incident Narratives Using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Effective Monitoring for Early Detection of Hypoxia in Fighter Pilots The Effects of Aeronautical Decision-Making Models on Student Pilots’ Situational Awareness and Cognitive Workload in Simulated Non-Normal Flight Deck Environment The Relationship between Preparation, Impression Management, and Interview Performance in High-Stakes Personnel Selection: A Field Study of Airline Pilot Applicants It Was This Wing Wasn’t It? Identifying the Importance of Verbal Communication in Aviation Maintenance
×
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