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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Situation Awareness (SA) theory conceptualizes reasoning as a progression through three stages: Perception (noticing elements), Comprehension (interpreting their meaning), and Projection (anticipating consequences) [21, 22].”
From Criticmate: Stagewise Human–AI Co-Critique in Single-Screen UI Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“expert evaluators naturally distribute their work across Perception , Comprehension , and Projection [21, 22], weaving together global and local reasoning and gradually moving from surface checks toward root-cause diagnosis.”
From Criticmate: Stagewise Human–AI Co-Critique in Single-Screen UI Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
Citations
Cites
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317 · cited 3×
“est and the administration of the questionnaire (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977).”
BackgroundInfluentialChase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 · Cited by 4,479
On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning.
Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.110.3.306 · Cited by 2,562
Interaction of information in word recognition.
Morton, J. (1969) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0027366 · Cited by 2,206
Cowan, N. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.104.2.163 · Cited by 1,918
How many memory systems are there?
Tulving, E. (1985) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.40.4.385 · Cited by 1,909
Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT)
Endsley, M. R. (2003) · Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference · doi:10.1109/naecon.1988.195097 · Cited by 956
Self-citationToward a theory of memory and attention.
Norman, D. A. (1968) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0026699 · Cited by 786
Situational Awareness Rating Technique (Sart): The Development of a Tool for Aircrew Systems Design
Taylor, R. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315087924-8 · Cited by 530
Situation Awareness: A Critical But Ill-Defined Phenomenon
Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (1991) · International Journal of Aviation Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0101_4 · Cited by 524
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Bolstad, C. A., 1990, Single versus dual scale range display investigation
- Carmody, M. A., 1993, Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 167
- Endsley, M. R., 1987, SAGAT: A methodology for the measurement of situation awareness
- Endsley, M. R., 1989, Final report: Situation awareness in an advanced strategic mission
- Endsley, M. R., 1989, Tactical simulation 3 test report: Addendum 1 situation awareness evaluations
- Endsley, M. R., 1990, In Situational awareness in aerospace operations
- Endsley, M. R., 1990, Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT): Air-to-air tactical version user guide
- Endsley, M. R., 1990, Situation awareness in dynamic human decision making: Theory and measurement.
- Endsley, M. R., 1994, Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT): En route air traffic control version user's guide
- Fracker, M. L., 1990, Situational awareness in aerospace operations, 6/1
- Herrmann, D. J., 1984, Everyday memory, action and absent-mindedness, 133
- Hogg, D. N., 1993, A situation awareness methodology for the evaluation of process control systems: Studies of feasibility and the implication of use
- Hughes, E. R., 1990, Advanced tactical fighter (ATF) simulation support: Final report
- 10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306 · DOI
- McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Corporation, 1982, Advanced medium-range air-to-air missile operational utility evaluation (AMRAAM OUE) test final report.
- Mogford, R. H., Presented at the Human Factors Society of Canada Annual Meeting
- Northrop Corporation, 1988, Tactical simulation 2 test report: Addendum 1 situation awareness test results.
- 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.
- Selcon, S. J., 1990, Situational awareness in aerospace operations
- Sheehy, E. J., Presented at the ANS Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Control and Man-Machine Interface Technology
- 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.
- Venturino, M., 1990, Performance-based measures of merit for tactical situation awareness
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Borghini, G., Laura Astolfi, A., Vecchiato, G., Donatella Mattia, A., & Babiloni, F. (2012) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.10.003 · Cited by 1,346
ENDSLEY, M. R., & KABER, D. B. (1999) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/001401399185595 · Cited by 1,088
Self-citationTheoretical Underpinnings of Situation Awareness, A Critical Review
Endsley, M. R. (2000) · doi:10.1201/b12461-7 · Cited by 902
Self-citationInternet of Things: Converging Technologies for Smart Environments and Integrated Ecosystems
Vermesan, O., & Friess, P. (2013) · Cited by 873
Making Sense of Sensemaking 1: Alternative Perspectives
Klein, G. A., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2006.75 · Cited by 848
Metadata
- Authors
- Endsley, M. R.
- Affiliations
- Texas Tech University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Endsley, Mica R.
- ORCID
- Endsley, Mica R.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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
