Cited by 2,039Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyTeam Dynamics and PerformanceMilitary Strategy and Technology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems

Endsley, Mica R.·1995·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

Methodologies for the empirical measurement of situation awareness are reviewed, including a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each method and the potential limitations of the measures from a theoretical and practical viewpoint. Two studies are presented that investigate questions of validity and intrusiveness regarding a query-based technique. This technique requires that a simulation of the operational tasks be momentarily interrupted in order to query operators on their situation awareness. The results of the two studies indicate that the query technique is not intrusive on normal subject behavior during the trial and does not suffer from limitations of human memory, which provides an indication of empirical validity. The results of other validity studies regarding the technique are discussed along with recommendations for its use in measuring situation awareness in varied settings.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1518/001872095779049499

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Bolstad, C. A., 1990, Single versus dual scale range display investigation
  2. Carmody, M. A., 1993, Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 167
  3. Endsley, M. R., 1987, SAGAT: A methodology for the measurement of situation awareness
  4. Endsley, M. R., 1989, Final report: Situation awareness in an advanced strategic mission
  5. Endsley, M. R., 1989, Tactical simulation 3 test report: Addendum 1 situation awareness evaluations
  6. Endsley, M. R., 1990, In Situational awareness in aerospace operations
  7. Endsley, M. R., 1990, Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT): Air-to-air tactical version user guide
  8. Endsley, M. R., 1990, Situation awareness in dynamic human decision making: Theory and measurement.
  9. Endsley, M. R., 1994, Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT): En route air traffic control version user's guide
  10. Fracker, M. L., 1990, Situational awareness in aerospace operations, 6/1
  11. Herrmann, D. J., 1984, Everyday memory, action and absent-mindedness, 133
  12. Hogg, D. N., 1993, A situation awareness methodology for the evaluation of process control systems: Studies of feasibility and the implication of use
  13. Hughes, E. R., 1990, Advanced tactical fighter (ATF) simulation support: Final report
  14. 10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306 · DOI
  15. McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Corporation, 1982, Advanced medium-range air-to-air missile operational utility evaluation (AMRAAM OUE) test final report.
  16. Mogford, R. H., Presented at the Human Factors Society of Canada Annual Meeting
  17. Northrop Corporation, 1988, Tactical simulation 2 test report: Addendum 1 situation awareness test results.
  18. Pew, R. W. (1991). Defining and measuring situation awareness in the commercial aircraft cockpit. In Proceedings of the Conference on Challenges in Aviation Human Factors: The National Plan (pp. 30–31). Washington, DC: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
  19. Selcon, S. J., 1990, Situational awareness in aerospace operations
  20. Sheehy, E. J., Presented at the ANS Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Control and Man-Machine Interface Technology
  21. Smolensky, M. W. (1993). Toward the physiological measurement of situation awareness: The case for eye movement measurements. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting (p. 41). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
  22. Venturino, M., 1990, Performance-based measures of merit for tactical situation awareness

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 1,003

Metadata

Authors
Endsley, M. R.
Affiliations
Texas Tech University (US)
Corresponding author
Endsley, Mica R.
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
1995-03
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
65-84
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W2069757512
Cited by
2,039
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 90 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 116 · 2023: 99 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 108 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 126 · 2018: 88 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 97 · 2015: 105 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 76 · 2012: 72
FWCI
27.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Military Strategy and Technology
Keywords
situational awareness, situation awareness measurement, measurement validity, intrusiveness, dynamical systems, operator performance

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