An analysis of aircrew communication patterns and content.

Oser, Randall L.; Prince, Carolyn; Morgan, Ben B.; Simpson, Steven S.

doi:10.1037/e447542004-001

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That does not necessarily reduce overall communication as Macmillan et al observe [33]. Literature suggests more communication enables better coordination [18,41]. We argue situations' dynamics predict communication frequency.…”

Section: Figure 4: Round 2 Implicit Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 84%

Communication content relations to coordination and trust over time

Richter

Lechner

2011

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Figure 4: Round 2 Implicit Coordinationmentioning

confidence: 84%

Communication content relations to coordination and trust over time

Richter

Lechner

2011

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some cases studied, high performing teams communicate with higher overall frequency than low performing teams (Foushee & Manos, 1981;Mosier & Chidester, 1991;Orasanu, 1990), but in other cases this finding has not been supported (e.g., Thornton, 1992). Some studies indicate that overall communication frequency is reduced during high workload periods (Kleinman & Serfaty, 1989;Oser, et al, 1991), whereas others indicate increases in communication frequency under relatively high workload (e.g., Stout, 1995). Some of these differences may be due to other factors such as the task or the nature of the teams.…”

Section: Team Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar to the methods used to analyze more general communication, team communication has largely been quantified in terms of overall communication frequency (and sometimes rate of communication or frequency wit h which a team member initiates communication; Oser, Prince, Morgan, & Simpson, 1991), and frequencies of specific communications acts (e.g., acknowledgment, question, planning). In terms of overall frequency, results have been equivocal.…”

Section: Team Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Communications Analysis System using Latent Semantic Analysis

Foltz¹

2006

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. (From -To) REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) August 2006 REPORT TYPE Final DATES COVERED DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESThis research was conducted under the Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) Program. ABSTRACTThis contract effort was initiated to develop and evaluate automated methods for analyzing verbal protocols related to air combat missions and verbal interactions amongst pilots during a mission and during the debriefing process to assess knowledge proficiency. In this report, the contractor describes prior research on communication analysis and how it can inform assessment of individual and team cognitive processing. Then, they describe techniques using Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) which can perform analyses of communications and provide automated assessment of this rich source of data. Finally, they propose a course of research to evaluate LSA's effectiveness as a software agent to monitor communications. SUBJECT TERMS

show abstract

“…General support for the importance of shared mental models among team members has been provided indirectly from the results of several studies (Cream, 1974;Dawes, McTavish, & Shaklee, 1977;Hammond, 1965;Hemphill & Rush, 1952;McIntyre, Morgan, Salas, & Glicknan, 1988;Oser, Prince, Morgan, & Simpson. 1991), post hoc to explain results of other studies Kleinman & Serfaty, 1989); and via empirical investigation (Adelman, Zirk, Lehner, Moffett, & Hall, 1986;Brehmer, 1972;Volpe, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Spector, 1993).…”

Section: Imentioning

confidence: 99%