CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Facilities and Workplace ManagementBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationEducational Environments and Student Outcomes

User evaluation of the work environment: A diagnostic approach

Open access
Vischer, J. C., Fischer, G.-N.·2005·Le travail humain
DOI 10.3917/th.681.0073
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

L'évaluation des environnements de travail est née de la discipline de la psychologie de l'environnement.L'évaluation des espaces vise l'expérience des employés relative à leur environnement de travail plutôt que l'évaluation des activités et des compétences.En examinant de près l'historique de l'évaluation environnementale, on peut constater les diverses orientations développées dans ce domaine.Selon l'approche cognitive, l'environnement de travail se définit selon l'évaluation qu'en font les occupants.La méthode diagnostique sur laquelle porte cet article relève du modèle cognitif des relations personne-environnement.Cette approche a évolué à partir de nombreuses enquêtes menées auprès des occupants des bureaux.Les résultats fournissent non seulement une meilleure compréhension de la psychologie des usagers des espaces de travail, mais aussi une façon systématique d'établir les priorités d'intervention pour améliorer le niveau de confort relatif au fonctionnement des systèmes techniques de l'immeuble à bureaux.Conçue il y a quelques années et facilement adaptée à de multiples usages, cette méthode s'avère être un outil de mesure qui donne des résultats aussi intéressants pour les managers, les designers et les responsables des immeubles que pour les chercheurs concernant l'expérience du confort dans les espaces de travail.Une étude de cas démontre une application de la méthode diagnostique dans le cas d'un projet de construction d'un nouvel espace de travail.Les résultats ont permis aux gestionnaires et aux décideurs de tirer des conclusions importantes concernant l'aménagement intérieur.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3917/th.681.0073

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Extended exposure to noise in healthcare environments impairs cognitive function, reducing concentration, precision, and work efficiency.

    “Extended exposure to noise in healthcare environments, such as voices or equipment noise, can impair cognitive function, reducing concentration, precision, and work efficiency [293,298,299].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [293]

    The Introduction (page not available) says noise can, under certain conditions, generate stress that negatively affects productivity. The office case study in Section IV.2 also describes noise disrupting co-workers. Neither passage addresses extended exposure in healthcare settings or establishes impaired cognition, concentration, or precision. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Poor lighting conditions and quality cause discomfort and eye strain, making it difficult to concentrate on visually demanding tasks and leading to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of critical diagnostic information.

    “Poor lighting conditions and quality cause discomfort and eye strain, making it difficult to concentrate on visually demanding tasks difficult and leading to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of critical diagnostic information [293].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [293]

    The survey questionnaire (Additional information, Table 4; page not supplied) treats electric lighting and glare as possible sources of discomfort. The Diagnostic Method section links workspace comfort generally to how easily workers perform tasks. The paper does not establish that poor lighting causes eye strain, impairs concentration on visually demanding tasks, or leads to misinterpretation of critical diagnostic information. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The physical environment, including lighting, noise, and spatial arrangement, is directly related to clinicians' performance by reducing cognitive load, limiting distractions, and enhancing comfort-each essential for maintaining accuracy and efficiency in high-pressure healthcare environments.

    “The physical environment, including lighting, noise, and spatial arrangement, is directly related to clinicians’ performance by reducing cognitive load, limiting distractions, and enhancing comfort—each essential for maintaining accuracy and efficiency in high-pressure healthcare environments [293].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [293]

    The Introduction and II. Problem Outline and Theoretical Overview (page numbers unavailable) link lighting, noise, and workspace design to worker performance and productivity. The paper does not establish the claimed effects on clinicians, cognitive load, or accuracy and efficiency in high-pressure healthcare settings. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. (1990, 1991). Handbook of Industrial and Organi- zational Psychology (Vols. 1 and 2). Encino, CA : Consulting Psychologists' Press.
  2. Hedge, A. (1991). Design innovations in office environments. In W. Preiser, J. Vischer, & E. White (Eds.), Design Intervention : Toward A More Humane Architecture (pp. 301-321). New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  3. Kromm, D. E., Probald, F., & Wall, G. (1973). An international comparison of response to air pollution. Journal of Environment and Man, 1, 363-375.
  4. Lawton, M. P. (1982). Competence, environmental press, and adaptation. In M. P. Lawton, P. G. Windlay, & T. O. Byerts (Eds.), Aging and the Environ- ment (pp. 82-101). New York : Springer.
  5. Little, B. R. (1968). Psychospecialization : Functions of differential interests in persons and things. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 21, 113.
  6. Oseland, N. (1999). Environmental factors affecting office workers' performance : A review of evidence. CIBSE Technical Memorandum TM24. Paris : CIBSE.
  7. Perin, C. (1970). With Man In Mind. Cambridge : MIT Press.
  8. Preiser, W. (2001). The Evolution of Post-Occupancy Evaluation : Toward Building Performance, and Universal Design Evaluation (Technical Report No. 145). Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
  9. Russel, J. A., & Ward, L. M. (1982). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 259-288.
  10. Springer, T. (1986). Improving Productivity in the Workplace : Reports from the Field. Chicago, Il : Springer Associates Technical Report.
  11. Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 253-295.
  12. Stokols, D. (1981). Group X place transactions : Some neglected issues in psy- chological research on settings. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Towards a Psychology of Situations : An Interactional Perspective (pp. 393-415). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
  13. Thiel, P. (1997). People, Paths and Purposes. Seattle, WA : University of Washing- ton Press.
  14. Tyson, M. (1998). The Healing Landscape : Therapeutic Outdoor Environments. New York : McGraw-Hill.
  15. Ventre, F. (1988). Sampling buildings performance. Paper presented at Facili- ties 2000 Symposium. Grand Rapids, MI.
  16. Vischer, J. C. (1986). A conceptual framework for Buildings-In-Use : The merging of objective and subjective approaches to building performance assessment. In M. Dolen & R. Ward (Eds.), The Impact of the Work Environment on Productivity (pp. 17-19). Washington, DC : Architectural Research Centers Consortium.
  17. Vischer, J. C. (1993). Using Feedback From Occupants to Monitor Indoor Air Qua- lity. In Proceedings IAQ93. Denver, CO : American Society of Heating, Refrige- ration and Air Conditioning Engineers.
  18. Vischer, J. C. (2001). Post-Occupancy Evaluation : A Multi-facetted Tool for Building Improvement (Technical Report No. 145). Washington, DC : National Aca- demy Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Vischer, J. C., & Fischer, G.-N.
Affiliations
Presses Universitaires de France (FR)
Venue
Le travail humain
Publisher
CAIRN
Published
2005
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
73
ISSN
  • 0041-1868 (ISSN-L)
  • 2104-3663
DOI
10.3917/th.681.0073
OpenAlex
W2134922191
Cited by
36
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.34
Type
journal article
Language
fr
Open access
Locations
  • Le travail humain (publishedVersion)
  • Cairn.info (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Facilities and Workplace Management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Building Energy and Comfort Optimization
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Environments and Student Outcomes
Keywords
work environment evaluation, user experience, person-environment relationship, cognitive approach, office occupants, indoor comfort, history of environmental psychology, diagnostic methods

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