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

Construct Summary

The authors aimed to develop a measure that can

“evaluate the workload that is attributed to the overall human-robot system configuration.” (p. 305)

Mental workload is defined as:

“an inferred construct that mediates between task difficulty, operator skill, and observed performance” (p. 304)

They report 5 dimensions and define them as follows:

Task: the individual elements that are involved in the mission at hand. System: The system is comprised of the robot, operator control unit, interface, and, but not limited to, the payload (camera) Team Process: Processes involved with working with team members. A team can be defined as 2 or more entities (human and/or robot) working together. Processes can include communication, coordination, backup, etc. Team configuration: Human-to-robot ratio during the mission. Relative spatial location of each team member (human and/or robot) during the mission. Context: The environment, mission scenario, and other external factors that may contribute to workload.

Rating = 31%

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?
NA	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 Link for measure reported in paper does not work. No items were removed.

Reviewed by Experts ✓

Downloads

PAPER
Yagoda, R. E. (2010, September). Development of the human robot interaction workload measurement tool (HRI-WM). In Proceedings of the human factors and Ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 304-308). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

PDF of instructions for administration and score not readily available. Check the paper for more details or email hriscaledatabase@gmail.com to submit this information if you are the author of this scale.

Final Scale Items (5 total):

Task
System
Team Process
Team Configuration
Context

Figure 3 from the paper (below) depicts a visualization of the task.