Implementation of a novel taxonomy based on cognitive work analysis in the assessment of safety performance

References

• Rasmussen J. The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decisionmaking and system management. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1985;SMC-15(2):234–243. doi:doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1985.6313353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen J. Information processing and human-machine interaction: an approach to cognitive engineering. New York (NY): Elsevier Science; 1986. (North Holland series in system science and engineering; 12).
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen J. Mental models and the control of action in complex environments. In: Ackermann D, Tauber MJ, editors. Mental models and human computer interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1990. p. 41–46.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen J. Modelling distributed decision making. In: Rasmussen J, Duncan K, Leplat J, editors. Distributed decision making: cognitive models for cooperative. Chichester: Wiley; 1991. p. 75–110.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen J, Svedung I. Proactive risk management in a dynamic society. Karlstad: Swedish Rescue Services Agency; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen J. Skills, rules, knowledge, signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions m human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1983;13(3):57–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naikar N, Elix B. Designing for adaptation with cognitive work analysis: initial conceptualisation of an approach for integrated sociotechnical system design. In: Proceedings of the 19th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association of the IEA; 2015 Aug 9–14; Melbourne, Australia. Nottingham: ACM Digital Library; 2016. [cited 2017 June 5]. Available from: www.iea.cc/congress/2015/468.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vicente KJ. Ecological interface design: progress and challenges. Hum Factors. 2002;44(1):62–78. doi: 10.1518/0018720024494829
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen J, Pejtersen AM, Goodstein LP. An introduction to systems engineering. New York (NY): Wiley; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Vicente KJ. Cognitive work analysis: towards safe, productive and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Naikar N, Moylan A, Pearce B. Analysing activity in complex systems with cognitive work analysis: concepts, guidelines, and case study for control task analysis. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2006;7(4):371–394. doi: 10.1080/14639220500098821
   Google Scholar
• Vicente KJ, Rasmussen J. Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern. 1992;22(4):589–606. doi:doi: 10.1109/21.156574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naikar N. Cognitive work analysis: an influential legacy extending beyond human factors and engineering. Appl Ergon. 2016;59(Part B):528–540. (Special Issue: The Legacy of Jens Rasmussen).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stanton NA, Bessell K. How a submarine returns to periscope depth: analysing complex socio-technical systems using cognitive work analysis. Appl Ergon. 2014;45:110–125. doi:doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.04.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leveson NG. Rasmussen's legacy: a paradigm change in engineering for safety. Appl Ergon. 2016;59(Part B):581–591. (Special Issue: The Legacy of Jens Rasmussen).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Naikar N, Hopcroft R, Moylan A. Work domain analysis: theoretical concepts and methodology (DSTO-TR-1665). Fishermans Bend (VIC): Air Operations Division, DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation; 2005. [cited 2017 June 5]. Available from: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA449707
   Google Scholar
• Burns CM, Naikar N. Prioritization: a double-edged sword? J Cogn Eng Decis Mak. 2016;10(1):105–108. doi:doi: 10.1177/1555343416629180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins DP, Stanton NA, Walker GH, et al. Cognitive work analysis: coping with complexity. Farnham: Ashgate; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Dekker SWA. Rasmussen's legacy and the long arm of rational choice. Appl Ergon. 2016;59(Part B):554–557. (Special Issue: The Legacy of Jens Rasmussen).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie AJ, Teddlie C. A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2003. p. 351–383.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• SAS. SAS user’s guide. Version 9. Cary (NC): SAS Institute; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Lucey T. Quantitative techniques. 6th ed. London: Letts Educational; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Reynaldo J, Santos A. Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J Extension. 1999;37(2):11–14.
   Google Scholar
• Naikar N. Cognitive work analysis: foundations, extensions, and challenges. DSTO general document (DSTO-GD-0680). Fishermans Bend (VIC): Air Operations Division, DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Hugo J. Work domain analysis methodology for development of operational concepts for advanced reactors. Idaho Falls (ID): Idaho National Laboratory; 2015. (INL/EXT-15-34783, Revision 0) [cited 2017 June 5]. Available from: https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/6439290.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Naikar N, Lintern G, Sanderson P. Cognitive work analysis for air defense applications in Australia. In: McNeese MD, Vidulich MA, editors. Cognitive systems engineering in military aviation environments. Dayton (OH): Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Human Systems Information Analysis Center; 2002. p. 169–199. [cited 2017 June 5]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gavan_Lintern2/publication/242410104_6_Cognitive_Work_Analysis_for_Air_Defense_Applications_in_Australia/links/0c96053b495c2cc3ad000000.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen J. Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf Sci. 1997;27(2–3):183–213. doi:doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen J. The role of error in organizing behaviour. Ergonomics. 1990;33(10/11):1185–1199. doi: 10.1080/00140139008925325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pomaki G, Maes S. Predicting quality of work life: from work conditions to self-regulation. In: Gullone E, Cummins RA, editors. The universality of subjective wellbeing indicators. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2002. p. 151–173. [cited 2017 June 5]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stan_Maes/contributions
   Google Scholar
• Minotra D, Burns CM. Finding common ground: situation awareness and cognitive work analysis. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak. 2015;9(1):87–89. doi:doi: 10.1177/1555343414555159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord RG, Diefendorff JM, Schmidt AM, et al. Self-regulation at work. Annu Rev Psychol. 2010;61(1):543–568. doi:doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Coze J-C. Reflecting on Jens Rasmussen’s legacy. A strong program for a hard problem. Saf Sci. 2015;71(Part B):123–141. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.03.015
   Google Scholar
• Naikar N, Elix B. Integrated system design: promoting the capacity of sociotechnical systems for adaptation through extensions of cognitive work analysis. Front Psychol. 2016;7:962. [cited 2017 May 21]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924480/ doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00962
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIlroy RC, Stanton NA. Getting past first base: going all the way with cognitive work analysis. Appl Ergon. 2011;42:358–370. doi:doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venda VF, Chachko SA. Ergodynamics and hybrid intelligence systems in the reliability of power plant operators. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 1996;2(2):93–108. doi:doi: 10.1080/10803548.1996.11076339
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith TJ. Synergism of ergonomics, safety, and quality—a behavioral cybernetic analysis. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 1999;5(2):247–278. doi:doi: 10.1080/10803548.1999.11076420
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Podgórski D. The use of tacit knowledge in occupational safety and health management systems. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2010;16(3):283–310. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2010.11076845
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King MF, Bruner G. Social desirability bias: a neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychol Market. 2000;17(2):79–103. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2<79::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung J, Monroe GS. Exploring social desirability bias. J Bus Ethics. 2003;44(4):291–302. doi: 10.1023/A:1023648703356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold HJ, Feldman DC. Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situations. Acad Manage J. 1981;24(2):377–385. doi:doi: 10.2307/255848
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson P, Kovalainen A. Qualitative methods in business research. London: Sage; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Le Coze J-C. Reflecting on Jens Rasmussen's legacy (2) behind and beyond, a ‘constructivist turn’. Appl Ergon. 2016;59(Part B):558–569. (Special Issue: The Legacy of Jens Rasmussen).
   Google Scholar
• Flach J. Supporting productive thinking: the semiotic context for cognitive systems engineering (CSE). Appl Ergon. 2016;59(Part B):612–624. (Special Issue: The Legacy of Jens Rasmussen).
   Google Scholar
• Kant V. Supporting the human life-raft in confronting the juggernaut of technology: Jens Rasmussen, 1961–1986. Appl Ergon. 2016;59(Part B):570–580. (Special Issue: The Legacy of Jens Rasmussen).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar