Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT)
This scale has additional, shortened versions that are not currently included in this database. See comments for more information.
Downloads
PAPER
Reid, G. B., & Nygren, T. E. (1988). The subjective workload assessment technique: A scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 185-218). North-Holland.
Construct Summary
The authors aimed to develop a measure to measure mental workload. They define workload as consisting of three main factors: time load, mental effort load, and psychological stress load. Time load refers to time available and task overlap, mental effort load refers to mental capacity and includes factors such as task difficulty, complexity, and effort, and psychological stress load refers to anything that contributes to an operators confusion, frustration, or anxiety.
Final Scale Items (3 total):
Scale items are not publicly available at this time. We are reaching out to the authors to obtain appropriate permissions to share scale items. If you are the author of this scale and would like to provide such permission, please email us at hriscaledatabase@gmail.com
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? |
| 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 Score reflects assessment only on the Likert scale analysis reported in the paper. The initial conjoint scaling procedure outlined in the paper is a somewhat outdated approach to measurement (though it was the best available approach at the time of publication). To find more information on the shortened versions see Luximon & Goonetilleke (2001).
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.