An Experiment Assessing the Sequential Difficulty Effect on IT Tasks

References

• Faulring A, Myers BA, Mohnkern K, Schmerl B, Steinfeld A, Zimmerman J, Smailagic A, Hansen J, Siewiorek D Agent assisted task management to reduce email overload. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI). 2010: 61–70, February 7-10, Hong Kong, China.
   Google Scholar
• Marchewka M, Nesterak J, Sołtysik M, Szymla W, Wojnarowska M. Multitasking effects on individual performance: an experimental eye-tracking study. Eur Res Stud J. 2020;23(1):107–16. doi:10.35808/ersj/1539.
   Google Scholar
• Adler R, Benbunan-Fich R. The effects of task difficulty and multitasking on performance. Interact Comput. 2015;27(4):430–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alzahabi R, Becker MW. The association between media multitasking, task-switching, and dual-task performance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013;39(5):1485–95. doi:10.1037/a0031208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uittenhove K, Lemaire P. Sequential difficult effects during strategy execution: a study in arithmetic. Exp Psychol. 2012;59(5):295–301. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider DW, Anderson JR. Asymmetric switch costs as sequential difficulty effects. Q J Exp Psychol. 2010;63(10):1873–94. doi:10.1080/17470211003624010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meriwether D Sequential difficulty effects on task performance: pervasive, persistent, and protean. 2016. Dissertation, University of Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn Inst. 1994;4(4):295–312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.
   Google Scholar
• Chan AY, Caputi P, Jayasuriya R. Easy task first? Roles of metacognitive computer skills training strategies depend on how training tasks are sequenced. Br J Educ Technol. 2011;42(4):E71–E75. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01188.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacNamara BN, Frank DJ. How do task characteristics affect learning and performance? The roles of variably mapped and dynamic tasks. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018;44:764–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorg BA, Whitney P. The effect of trait anxiety and situational stress on working memory capacity. J Res Pers. 1992;26:235–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang AI, Arisholm E. The effect of task order on the maintainability of object-oriented software. Inf Soft Technol. 2009;51(2):293–305. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.03.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monsell S, Yeung N, Azuma R. Reconfiguration of task-set: is it easier to switch to the weaker task? Psychol Res. 2000;63(3–4):250–64. doi:10.1007/s004269900005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol. 1935;18(6):643–62. doi:10.1037/h0054651.
   Google Scholar
• Scarpina F, Tahini S. The Stroop color and word test. Front Psychol. 2017;8:article 557. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirzberger M, Bijarsari SE, Rey GD. Embedded interruptions and task complexity influence schema-related cognitive load progression in an abstract learning task. Acta Psychologica. 2017;179:30–41. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.07.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niu Z The influence of multimodal distractions on computer user performance. 2019. Dissertation, Mississippi State University.
   Google Scholar
• Koch I, Gade M, Schuch S, Phillip AM. The role if inhibition in task switching: a review. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010;17(1):1–14. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.1.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monsell S. Task switching. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7(3):134–40. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poletti C, Malkoun RS, Temprado -J-J, Lemaire P. Sequential difficulty effects in cognitive and sensorimotor tasks: insights from arithmetic and Fitts tasks. Am J Psychol. 2018;131(2):161–73. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.131.2.0161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uittenhove K, Lemaire P. Strategy sequential difficulty effects in Alzheimer patients: a study in arithmetic. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2013;35:83–89. doi:10.1080/13803395.2012.753036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiger JI, Glass AL. Context effects in sentence verification. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1981;7(3):688–700. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.7.3.688.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor TE, Lupker SJ. Sequential effects in naming: a time-criterion account. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001;27:117–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman M, Gier JA, Smith DE. Compliance as affected by task difficulty and order of tasks. J Soc Psychol. 1981;114(1):75–83. doi:10.1080/00224545.1981.9922728.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senanayake R, Hoffmann ER, Goonetilleke RS. A model for combined targeting and tracking tasks in computer applications. Exp Brain Res. 2013;231(3):367–79. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3700-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu S, Nam CS, Fitts EP. Quantitative modeling of user performance in multitasking environments. Comput Human Behav. 2018;84:130–40. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bravo ER, Santana M, Rodon J. Information systems and performance: the role of technology, the task and the individual. Behav Inf Technol. 2015;34(3):247–60. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2014.934287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aljukhadar M, Senecal S, Nantel J. Is more always better? Investigating the task-technology fit theory in an online user context. Inf Manag. 2014;51(4):391–97. doi:10.1016/j.im.2013.10.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reychav I, Wu D. The interplay between cognitive task complexity and user interaction in mobile collaborative training. Comput Human Behav. 2016;62:333–45. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uittenhove K, Lemaire P. Strategy sequential difficulty effects vary with working-memory and response–stimulus-intervals: a study in arithmetic. Acta Psychologia. 2013;43(1):113–18. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.02.007.
   Google Scholar
• Liberatore M, Wagner W. Gender, performance and self-efficacy: a quasi-experimental field study. J Comput Inf Syst. 2020:1–9. doi:10.1080/08874417.2020.1717397.
   Google Scholar
• Liberatore M, Wagner W. User performance on laptops vs. tablets: an experiment in the field. Behav Inf Technol. 2021:1–9. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2021.1956589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberatore M, Titus G, Dixon P. The effects of display formats on information systems design. J Manage Inf Syst. 1988;5(3):85–99. doi:10.1080/07421222.1988.11517834.
   Google Scholar
• Liberatore M, Titus G, Varano M, Dixon P. An experimental investigation of the effects of some information system design variables on performance, preference and learning. Inf Process Manage. 1989;25(5):563–77. doi:10.1016/0306-4573(89)90026-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speier C. The influence of information presentation formats on complex task decision-making performance. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2006;64(11):1115–31. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.06.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speier C, Morris M. The influence of query interface design on decision-making performance. MISQ. 2003;27(3):397–423. doi:10.2307/30036539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood R. Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1986;37(1):60–82. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liberatore M, Wagner W. Simon’s decision phases and user performance: an experimental study. J Comput Inf Syst. 2021:1–13. doi:10.1080/08874417.2021.1878476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar