Measuring Situation Awareness: A Meta-Review Across Domains.

IF 3.6 3区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Human Factors Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-17 DOI:10.1177/00187208251412110
Laura Louise Moens, Sinéad Lydon, Sara Cucurachi, Paul O'Connor, Thomas Christian Sauter, Gian-Andri Töndury, Tanja Manser
{"title":"Measuring Situation Awareness: A Meta-Review Across Domains.","authors":"Laura Louise Moens, Sinéad Lydon, Sara Cucurachi, Paul O'Connor, Thomas Christian Sauter, Gian-Andri Töndury, Tanja Manser","doi":"10.1177/00187208251412110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveTo identify and interpret evidence from systematic reviews of Situation Awareness (SA) measurement across domains, focussing on measures' psychometric properties, and provide practical implications for SA measurement.BackgroundSeveral systematic reviews have been published on SA measurement, often focussing on specific measurement tools, domains, or psychometric properties. This creates a challenge for understanding the evidence supporting SA measures and for establishing best practice in SA measurement.MethodFive electronic databases were searched up to February 2025. The meta-review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024521458). Reviews were included if they were systematic and focused on SA measurement. Data were extracted on the review characteristics and the SA measurement tools identified, including their psychometric properties. Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for systematic reviews.ResultsFourteen reviews, capturing over 477 unique primary studies, were included in this meta-review. In total, 38 distinct SA measurement tools were identified and subdivided into four categories of SA measurement: self-ratings, observer ratings, probing techniques, and physiological metrics. Psychometric evidence was limited for most tools. Probing techniques, especially the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT), showed the most extensive validity evidence but were associated with usability concerns.ConclusionThe application of SAGAT may be recommended as best practice currently, while other tools offer complementary strengths for specific contexts.ApplicationThis synthesis provides guidance on best practice for SA measurement based on measurement purpose and context of use, balancing methodological rigour with feasibility to enhance SA measurement across diverse operational environments.</p>","PeriodicalId":56333,"journal":{"name":"Human Factors","volume":" ","pages":"632-672"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13013663/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208251412110","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo identify and interpret evidence from systematic reviews of Situation Awareness (SA) measurement across domains, focussing on measures' psychometric properties, and provide practical implications for SA measurement.BackgroundSeveral systematic reviews have been published on SA measurement, often focussing on specific measurement tools, domains, or psychometric properties. This creates a challenge for understanding the evidence supporting SA measures and for establishing best practice in SA measurement.MethodFive electronic databases were searched up to February 2025. The meta-review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024521458). Reviews were included if they were systematic and focused on SA measurement. Data were extracted on the review characteristics and the SA measurement tools identified, including their psychometric properties. Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for systematic reviews.ResultsFourteen reviews, capturing over 477 unique primary studies, were included in this meta-review. In total, 38 distinct SA measurement tools were identified and subdivided into four categories of SA measurement: self-ratings, observer ratings, probing techniques, and physiological metrics. Psychometric evidence was limited for most tools. Probing techniques, especially the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT), showed the most extensive validity evidence but were associated with usability concerns.ConclusionThe application of SAGAT may be recommended as best practice currently, while other tools offer complementary strengths for specific contexts.ApplicationThis synthesis provides guidance on best practice for SA measurement based on measurement purpose and context of use, balancing methodological rigour with feasibility to enhance SA measurement across diverse operational environments.

测量情境意识:跨领域的元回顾。
目的识别和解释来自跨领域情境感知(SA)测量系统综述的证据,重点关注测量的心理测量特性,并为情境感知(SA)测量提供实际意义。背景:关于SA测量的一些系统综述已经发表,通常侧重于特定的测量工具、领域或心理测量特性。这为理解支持SA度量的证据和建立SA度量的最佳实践带来了挑战。方法检索截至2025年2月的5个电子数据库。meta-review前瞻性注册(PROSPERO注册号:CRD42024521458)。如果评论是系统性的,并且关注于SA的测量,那么评论也包括在内。数据提取的回顾特征和SA的测量工具确定,包括他们的心理测量特性。研究使用关键评估技能计划检查表进行系统评估。结果本荟萃综述纳入了14篇综述,涵盖了超过477项独特的初级研究。总共确定了38种不同的SA测量工具,并将其细分为四类SA测量:自我评分、观察者评分、探测技术和生理指标。大多数工具的心理测量证据有限。探测技术,特别是态势感知全局评估技术(SAGAT),显示了最广泛的有效性证据,但与可用性问题有关。结论SAGAT的应用可能是目前推荐的最佳实践,而其他工具在特定情况下具有互补优势。该综合提供了基于测量目的和使用背景的SA测量最佳实践指南,平衡了方法严谨性和可行性,以增强跨不同操作环境的SA测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Factors
Human Factors 管理科学-行为科学
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society publishes peer-reviewed scientific studies in human factors/ergonomics that present theoretical and practical advances concerning the relationship between people and technologies, tools, environments, and systems. Papers published in Human Factors leverage fundamental knowledge of human capabilities and limitations – and the basic understanding of cognitive, physical, behavioral, physiological, social, developmental, affective, and motivational aspects of human performance – to yield design principles; enhance training, selection, and communication; and ultimately improve human-system interfaces and sociotechnical systems that lead to safer and more effective outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书