Screening Enhancements: Why don't they Enhance Performance?

Ghylin, Kimberly M.; Schwaninger, Adrian; Drury, Colin G.; Redford, Joshua S.; Lin, Li; Batta, Rajan

doi:10.1177/154193120805200433

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants are shown x-ray images of passengers’ carry-on baggage on actual x-ray systems or standard computer monitors. They are required to search images—20% to 50% of which typically contain threat objects—and then decide if a threat is present or not (e.g., Ghylin et al, 2008; Liu & Gale, 2011; McCarley et al, 2004; Schwaninger & Wales, 2009). Signal detection measures of sensitivity ( d ′, A ′) and bias ( c, B ″) are often used as dependent variables to measure detection performance (Wales et al, 2009), and are considered reliable for this purpose (Hofer & Schwaninger, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Airport Security Screener Problem-Solving Knowledge and Implications

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This research investigates security screeners’ knowledge and the effect that differences in knowledge have on the performance of problem-solving activities. We argue that the development of problem-solving knowledge enables security screeners to perform effective problem-solving activity, which assists search and decision-making processes. Background: Airport security screening research has investigated the many variables that affect security screeners’ search and decision making during simulated threat-detection tasks. Although search and decision making are essential aspects of security screening, few studies have investigated the problem-solving knowledge and activities that support security screening task performance. Method: Sixteen more-experienced and 24 less-experienced security screeners were observed as they performed x-ray screening in the field at an Australian international airport’s departure security checkpoint. Participants wore eye-tracking glasses and delivered concurrent verbal protocol. Results: When interacting with other security screeners, more-experienced screeners demonstrated situational knowledge more than less-experienced screeners, whereas less-experienced screeners experienced more insufficient knowledge. Lag-sequential analysis using combined data from both screener groups showed that situational knowledge facilitated effective problem-solving activity to support search and decision making. Insufficient knowledge led screeners to seek assistance and defer decision making. Conclusion: This study expands current understandings of airport security screening. It demonstrates that security screeners develop knowledge that is specific to problem solving. This knowledge assists effective problem-solving activity to support search and decision making, and to mitigate uncertainty during the x-ray screening task. Application: Findings can inform future security screening processes, screener training, and technology support tools. Furthermore, findings are potentially transferable to other domains.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, several studies found that IEFs provide no significant improvements in detection performance compared with the standard color view. Indeed, in some cases, IEFs decreased performance (Ghylin et al, 2008; Klock, 2005; Michel, Koller, Ruh, & Schwaninger, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%