https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1409-4779
![Sample our Engineering & Technology journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5933/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Engineering-Tech.jpg"})
Abstract
Situation awareness (SA) is a widely used cognitive construct in human factors, often theoretically posited to be a critical causal factor and/or construct for performance. However, there are concerns that SA may not sufficiently capture the psychological processes underlying performance. We address these conflicting perspectives using meta-analysis to evaluate the patterns of associations among SA-performance effect sizes. Specifically, we focus on the validity of SA for performance—how well SA captures the relevant psychological processes for task performance. In our systematic review of the empirical literature, we coded associations of ten unique measures of SA with performance: 678 effects from 77 papers. The meta-analytic means for SA measures were all of approximately medium or lower effect sizes. The overall mean effect, while significant, was also limited in magnitude (r = 0.26, p < 0.001). Furthermore, there was high unexplained systematic variation with an enormous plausible range for individual effects (r = −0.15 to 0.60). The results indicate that SA’s validity for performance tends to be, on average, weak with large variations among effects. Interventions that improve SA may not correspond to meaningful improvements in task performance, and it may be appropriate to revise major theories of SA.
Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2021.1921310.
Acknowledgments
We thank the reviewers and the editor for helpful comments, including additional analyses. The authors also thank Nancy Simini for editing a previous version of this manuscript.
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Army Research Laboratory or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Dataset availability
The data that support the findings of this paper are openly available on the Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4K7ZV (Bakdash et al. Citation2021a) and a Code Ocean Capsule: https://doi.org/10.24433/CO.1682542.v4
(Bakdash et al. Citation2021b).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Jonathan Z. Bakdash
Dr. Bakdash is a research psychologist for the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. He received his PhD in cognitive psychology from the University of Virginia in 2010.
Laura R. Marusich
Dr. Marusich is a research psychologist at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. She received her PhD in cognitive psychology from the University of Texas at Austin in 2011.
Katherine R. Cox
Dr. Cox is a research psychologist at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. She received her PhD in cognitive psychology from Georgetown University in 2014.
Michael N. Geuss
Dr. Zaroukian is a cognitive scientist for the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. She received her PhD in cognitive science from Johns Hopkins University in 2013.
Erin G. Zaroukian
Dr. Geuss is a research psychologist for the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. He received his PhD in cognitive psychology from the University of Utah in 2014.
Katelyn M. Morris
Ms. Morris is a College Qualified Leader at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. She is a senior finishing her B.A. of Psychology at the University of Texas, Arlington.