The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What really is going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams
Abstract
The concept of Situation Awareness (SA) is frequently described in the literature. Theoretically, it remains predominantly an individual construct and the majority of the models presented describe SA from an individual perspective. In comparison, team SA has received less attention. SA in complex, collaborative environments thus remains a challenge for the human factors community, both in relation to the development of theoretical perspectives and of valid measures, and to the development of guidelines for system, training and procedure design. This article presents a review and critique of what is currently known about SA and team SA, including a comparison of the most prominent individual and team models presented in the literature. In conclusion, we argue that recently proposed systems level Distributed Situation Awareness (DSA) approaches are the most suited to describing and assessing SA in real world, collaborative environments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hutchins, E. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 · Cited by 10,801
Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind
Wegner, D. M. (1987) · Theories of Group Behavior · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_9 · Cited by 2,700
Measurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems
Endsley, M. R. (1995) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872095779049499 · Cited by 2,039
Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology
Wilson, J. R., & Corlett, E. N. (1991) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/0003-6870(91)90014-9 · Cited by 497
Cited by
Situation Awareness Misconceptions and Misunderstandings
Endsley, M. R. (2015) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343415572631 · Cited by 501
Zhang, R., Duan, W., Flathmann, C., McNeese, N., Freeman, G., & Williams, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3610072 · Cited by 134
Challenges of human—machine collaboration in risky decision-making
Xiong, W., Fan, H., Ma, L., & Wang, C. (2022) · Frontiers of Engineering Management · doi:10.1007/s42524-021-0182-0 · Cited by 95
Grier, R. A. (2012) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343412444606 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Salmon, P. M., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D. P., McMaster, R., & Young, M. S.
- Venue
- Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 297-323
- ISSN
- 1463-922X (ISSN-L)
- 1464-536X
- OpenAlex
- W1963494573
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 21.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
