{"title":"感知工作量与超长距离飞行机组人员疲劳有关","authors":"Margo J. van den Berg, T. L. Signal, P. Gander","doi":"10.1080/24721840.2019.1621177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to determine whether on ultra-long range (ULR) flights, perceived workload is an independent predictor of cabin crew fatigue at top-of-descent (TOD) and if so, to what degree it is associated with cabin crew fatigue relative to sleep-related factors. Background: Current ULR scheduling for cabin crew is predominantly based on flight crew data. However, cabin crew workload is very different in nature to that of flight crew. Method: Fifty-five cabin crew wore an actigraph and completed a sleep/duty diary to monitor sleep during a ULR trip. At TOD, crewmembers completed a 5-min Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT), rated their sleepiness (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale) and fatigue (Samn-Perelli Crew Status Check), and after landing their workload (NASA Task Load Index). Results: When workload was perceived as higher, crewmembers felt more sleepy and fatigued and had more PVT lapses at TOD. The effect of workload on sleepiness was larger (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .27) than the duration of wakefulness (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .14), but the effect of workload on fatigue (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .17) was smaller than the duration of wakefulness (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .24). Lapses were not associated with sleep history, whereas workload had a small effect (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .14). Conclusion: Workload as a fatigue factor for cabin crew warrants ongoing monitoring. This can be achieved by including a workload question in fatigue reports as an essential component in Fatigue Risk Management Systems.","PeriodicalId":41693,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24721840.2019.1621177","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceived Workload Is Associated with Cabin Crew Fatigue on Ultra-Long Range Flights\",\"authors\":\"Margo J. van den Berg, T. L. Signal, P. Gander\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24721840.2019.1621177\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to determine whether on ultra-long range (ULR) flights, perceived workload is an independent predictor of cabin crew fatigue at top-of-descent (TOD) and if so, to what degree it is associated with cabin crew fatigue relative to sleep-related factors. Background: Current ULR scheduling for cabin crew is predominantly based on flight crew data. However, cabin crew workload is very different in nature to that of flight crew. Method: Fifty-five cabin crew wore an actigraph and completed a sleep/duty diary to monitor sleep during a ULR trip. At TOD, crewmembers completed a 5-min Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT), rated their sleepiness (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale) and fatigue (Samn-Perelli Crew Status Check), and after landing their workload (NASA Task Load Index). Results: When workload was perceived as higher, crewmembers felt more sleepy and fatigued and had more PVT lapses at TOD. The effect of workload on sleepiness was larger (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .27) than the duration of wakefulness (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .14), but the effect of workload on fatigue (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .17) was smaller than the duration of wakefulness (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .24). Lapses were not associated with sleep history, whereas workload had a small effect (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .14). Conclusion: Workload as a fatigue factor for cabin crew warrants ongoing monitoring. This can be achieved by including a workload question in fatigue reports as an essential component in Fatigue Risk Management Systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41693,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24721840.2019.1621177\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2019.1621177\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2019.1621177","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
Perceived Workload Is Associated with Cabin Crew Fatigue on Ultra-Long Range Flights
ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to determine whether on ultra-long range (ULR) flights, perceived workload is an independent predictor of cabin crew fatigue at top-of-descent (TOD) and if so, to what degree it is associated with cabin crew fatigue relative to sleep-related factors. Background: Current ULR scheduling for cabin crew is predominantly based on flight crew data. However, cabin crew workload is very different in nature to that of flight crew. Method: Fifty-five cabin crew wore an actigraph and completed a sleep/duty diary to monitor sleep during a ULR trip. At TOD, crewmembers completed a 5-min Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT), rated their sleepiness (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale) and fatigue (Samn-Perelli Crew Status Check), and after landing their workload (NASA Task Load Index). Results: When workload was perceived as higher, crewmembers felt more sleepy and fatigued and had more PVT lapses at TOD. The effect of workload on sleepiness was larger (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .27) than the duration of wakefulness (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .14), but the effect of workload on fatigue (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .17) was smaller than the duration of wakefulness (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .24). Lapses were not associated with sleep history, whereas workload had a small effect (Cohen’s ƒ2 = .14). Conclusion: Workload as a fatigue factor for cabin crew warrants ongoing monitoring. This can be achieved by including a workload question in fatigue reports as an essential component in Fatigue Risk Management Systems.