This is the most up-to-date version of this scale.

Construct Summary

The authors define the construct of fluency as follows (adding to test commit on VS codes):

“When humans collaborate on a shared activity, and especially when they are accustomed to the task and to each other, they can reach a high level of coordination, resulting in a well-synchronized meshing of their actions. Their timing is precise and efficient, they alter their plans and actions appropriately and dynamically, and this behavior emerges often without exchanging much verbal information. We denote this quality of interaction the fluency of the shared activity.” (p. 209)

Rating = 46%

Check?	Guideline Item
✓	Is the construct defined?
✖	Does the final version of the items capture the construct as it has been defined by the authors?
✖	Is the item generation process discussed (e.g., literature review, Delphi method, crowd-sourcing)?
✓	Person to items 10:1 for the initial set of items?
✖	Did they perform an EFA, PCA, Rasch, or similar test to determine the item to factor relationship?
✖	Did they describe how they determined number of factors?
✓	Did they report the full initial set of items?
✖	Did they provide loadings (EFA) or item fits (Rasch) of all items?
✖	Is there a description of the item removal process (e.g., using infit/outfit, factor loading minimum value, or cross-loading values)?
✓	Did they list the final number of items included in the scale?
✖	Did they include a factor structure test (e.g., second EFA, CFA, DIF, test for unidimensionality when using Rasch, or similar)?
✓	Was a measure of reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, McDonalds Omega_h or Omega_t, Tarkkonen’s Rho) reported?
✓	Was a test of validity (e.g., predictive, concurrent, convergent, discriminant) reported?

Comments None

Reviewed by Experts ✓

Downloads

PAPER
Hoffman, G. (2019). Evaluating fluency in human–robot collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 49(3), 209-218.

PDF of scale as well as instructions for administration and scoring are not readily available. Check the paper for more details or click here to submit this information if you are the author of this scale.

Final Scale Items (8 total):

the human-robot team worked fluently together
the human was the most important member of the team
the robot was unintelligent
the robot was untrustworthy
the robot was uncooperative
the robot contributed to the fluency of the collaboration
the robot was committed to the success of the team
the robot had an important contribution to the success of the team