Predicting battlefield vigilance: a multivariate approach to assessment of attentional resources

Abstract

Technological innovation increasingly requires operators in various applied settings to maintain vigilance for extended periods. However, standard psychometric tests typically predict less than 10% of performance variance. The present study (N = 462) aimed to apply the resource theory of sustained attention to construct a multivariate test battery for predicting battlefield vigilance. The battery included cognitive ability tests, a high-workload short vigilance task and subjective measures of stress response. Four versions of a 60- min simulated military battlefield monitoring task were constructed to represent different operational requirements. The test battery predicted 24–44% of criterion variance, depending on task version, suggesting that it may identify vigilant operators in military and other applied contexts. A multiple-groups path analysis showed that relationships between ability and vigilance were moderated by working memory demands. Findings are consistent with a diffuse theoretical concept of ‘resources’ in which performance energisation depends on multiple, loosely coupled processes.

Abstract

Practitioner Summary: Assessment of operators' competence in vigilant monitoring is increasingly important as automation technology becomes more prevalent. This study investigated the validity of a battery of measures of attentional resources in predicting vigilance on a military display monitoring task. Findings confirm that the multivariate approach substantially enhances prediction over existing approaches.

Keywords::

• vigilance
• attentional resources
• cognitive ability
• fatigue
• stress
• military performance

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Contract W74V8H-06-C-0049 subcontract 06-S-1003 from the Army Research Institute and the JXT Corporation. We are grateful to colleagues at JXT for their assistance with the research, including Kyle Behymer, Mark Crabtree, Clark Shingledecker and Dave Weldon. The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy or decision unless so designated by other documentation. In the conduct of research under the mentioned contracts where humans were the subjects, the investigator(s) adhered to the policies regarding the protection of human subjects as prescribed by 45 CFR 46 and 32 CFR 219 (Protection of Human Subjects).