Trust in Automation (TiA)
This is the most up to date version of this scale.
Construct Summary
The authors define trust in automation as:
“the attitude of a user to be willing to be vulnerable to the actions of an automated system based on the expectation that it will perform a particular action important to the user, irrespective of the ability to monitor or to intervene.” (p. 4)
Rating = 62%
| 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 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 The authors added two items after the whole analysis. Therefore, checks given for item and scale development guideline criteria does not include these additional items.
Reviewed by Experts ✓
Downloads
PAPER
Körber, M. (2019). Theoretical considerations and development of a questionnaire to measure trust in automation. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) Volume VI: Transport Ergonomics and Human Factors (TEHF), Aerospace Human Factors and Ergonomics 20 (pp. 13-30). Springer International Publishing.
A blank scale, scoring instructions, and administration information can be found in the online Github repository
Final Scale Items (19 total):
The system is capable of interpreting situations correctly.
The system state was always clear to me.
I already know similar systems.
The developers are trustworthy.
One should be careful with unfamiliar automated systems.
The system works reliably.
The system reacts unpredictably.
The developers take my well-being seriously.
I trust the system.
A system malfunction is likely.
I was able to understand why things happened.
I rather trust a system than I mistrust it.
The system is capable of taking over complicated tasks.
I can rely on the system.
The system might make sporadic errors.
It is difficult to identify what the system with do next.
I have already used similar systems.
Automated systems generally work well.
I am confident about the system’s capabilities.