NUCLARR and human reliability: data sources and data profile

Gertman, David I.; Gilmore, Walter E.; Ryan, Thomas G.

doi:10.1109/hfpp.1988.27519

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These data can be obtained from operational practice and event reports, cognitive simulations, such as the Man‐Machine Integration Design and Analysis System (MIDAS) and the Information, Decision, Action in Crew context (IDAC) model, and expert judgment . Researchers working on HRA have also been focusing increasingly on analyzing and refining empirical data from simulator studies . Simulators can be roughly classified into two types: microworld simulators and full‐scope simulators .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(22) Researchers working on HRA have also been focusing increasingly on analyzing and refining empirical data from simulator studies. (12,14,15,23,24) Simulators can be roughly classified into two types: microworld simulators and fullscope simulators. (12) The former are also called lowfidelity or compact simulators and usually operated by nonlicensed operators (e.g., university students).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human Error Data Collection and Comparison with Predictions by SPAR‐H

Liu

2014

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a scarcity of empirical data on human error for human reliability analysis (HRA). This situation can increase the variability and impair the validity of HRA outcomes in risk analysis. In this work, a microworld study was used to investigate the effects of performance shaping factors (PSFs) and their interrelationships and combined effects on the human error probability (HEP). The PSFs involved were task complexity, time availability, experience, and time pressure. The empirical data obtained were compared with predictions by the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Method (SPAR-H) and data from other sources. The comparison included three aspects: (1) HEP, (2) relative effects of the PSFs, and (3) error types. Results showed that the HEP decreased with experience and time availability levels. The significant relationship between task complexity and the HEP depended on time availability and experience, and time availability affected the HEP through time pressure. The empirical HEPs were higher than the HEPs predicted by SPAR-H under different PSF combinations, showing the tendency of SPAR-H to produce relatively optimistic results in our study. The relative effects of two PSFs (i.e., experience/training and stress/stressors) in SPAR-H agreed to some extent with those in our study. Several error types agreed well with those from operational experience and a database for nuclear power plants (NPPs).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%