2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2011.12.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring situation awareness of operation teams in NPPs using a verbal protocol analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interview, thinkaloud protocols [6], and eye tracking [10] are examples. Measuring SA of micro-neurosurgeons in operating room is a key challenge and one of the main motivations for this research.…”
Section: Background and Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Interview, thinkaloud protocols [6], and eye tracking [10] are examples. Measuring SA of micro-neurosurgeons in operating room is a key challenge and one of the main motivations for this research.…”
Section: Background and Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, differences in expert and novice SA [9], SA as a predictor of performance in air traffic [1] , SA of operation teams in a nuclear power plant [6], SA in medical visualization by [5], and measuring SA of surgeons in laparoscopic training [10].…”
Section: Background and Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Risks in nuclear power plants have attracted the attention of many researchers because of large scale devastating disasters such as the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986 and the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident in 2011. Scholars have examined risk in nuclear power plants from multiple angles, including construction risks (Wang et al 2011), risks of refueling leakage (Rohrer and Nierode 1996), and risks in systems operation (Smith 1998;Le Bot 2004;Carvalho et al 2008;Jou et al 2011;Lee et al 2012;Anuar and Kim 2014;Teperi et al 2017). Risks in systems operation are further divided into components outage, initiating events (Smith 1998), human error-especially individual psychological error (Le Bot 2004), as well as human factors in human-system interfaces (Carvalho et al 2008;Anuar and Kim 2014), in reporting and analyzing operational events (Teperi et al 2017), and in the main control room (Jou et al 2011;Lee et al 2012).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some human factors related to production risks, identified by our study, are shown to be influential in other kinds of power plants. Namely, risk in abnormal situation treatment (Lee et al 2012), risk in human-machine interfaces (Carvalho et al 2008;Anuar and Kim 2014;Suwazono et al 2015), and risk in control-room monitoring (Jou et al 2011;Lee et al 2012) have also been examined in nuclear power plants. Consistent with Sheikhalishahi et al's (2017) study on thermal power plants, we also find that human factors are sources of risk in equipment maintenance.…”
Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…see Dekker, 2015;Endsley, 2015), Endsley's (1995) three level model of SA currently remains the mostly widely applied in a broad range of high risk domains (e.g. nuclear power plants, Lee, Park, Kim & Seong, 2012;drilling, Sneddon, Mearns & Flin, …”
Section: Situation Awarenessmentioning
confidence: 99%