The Team Workload Questionnaire (TWLQ)

Sellers, James; Helton, William S.; Näswall, Katarina; Funke, Gregory J.; Knott, Benjamin A.

doi:10.1177/1541931215591231

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They are measured on an 11‐point scale ranging from 0 to 10. Studies have shown that the TWLQ has high sensitivity and good validity in team training tasks (Helton et al, 2015; Sellers et al, 2015). Therefore, the TWLQ was used to measure the team workload during human–robot collaborative rescue in this study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of cross‐training in human–robot collaborative rescue

Pan,

Zhao,

et al. 2024

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human–robot collaboration has been widely used in postdisaster investigation and rescue. Human–robot team training is a good way to improve the team rescue efficiency and safety; two common training methods, namely, procedural training and cross‐training, are explored in this study. Currently, relatively few studies have explored the impact of cross‐training on human–robot collaboration in rescue tasks. Cross‐training will be novel to most rescuers and as such, an evaluation of cross‐training in comparison with more conventional procedural training is warranted. This study investigated the effects of these two training methods on rescue performance, situation awareness and workload. Forty‐two participants completed a path‐planning and a photo‐taking task in an unfamiliar simulated postdisaster environment. The rescue performance results showed that cross‐training method had significant advantages over procedural training for human–robot collaborative rescue tasks. During the training process, compared with procedural training, participants were more likely to achieve excellent photo‐taking performance after cross‐training; after training, the length of the route planned by the cross‐training group was significantly shorter than that of the procedural‐training group. In addition, procedural‐training marginal significantly increased the emotion demand, which proves that cross‐training can well control the emotions of the operators and make them more involved in the rescue task. The study also found that arousal level increased significantly after the first cross‐training session, and decreased to the same level as procedural training after multiple sessions. These results contribute to the application of cross‐training in human–robot collaborative rescue teams.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of cross‐training in human–robot collaborative rescue

Pan,

Zhao,

et al. 2024

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Measurements of team workload: A time pressure and scenario complexity study for maritime operation tasks

Cui

Zhang

Zhou³

et al. 2021

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of the Team Workload Questionnaire (TWLQ) in a Team-Choice Task

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The present study was designed to evaluate the team workload questionnaire (TWLQ) in a task that was distinct from the task used to create it. Background: The TWLQ was created from workload ratings generated by members of athletic sports teams. Given that such teams represent only a portion of the diversity of operational teams, we aimed to assess the generalizability of the TWLQ. Method: The present study applied the TWLQ in a collaborative choice task (hiring decision) to determine whether the factor structure reported in the initial publication of the scale would generalize from the execution tasks it was developed from to a disparate team task focused on consensus building. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the present data ( N = 144) were a poor fit for the three-factor structure of the TWLQ. Subsequent exploratory factor analysis revealed a much more interrelated model of team workload with no clear division between the three conceptual factors described in the original validation of the TWLQ. Conclusion: The factor structure of the TWLQ did not generalize to the present team-choice task. Application: Given that the duties of operational teams vary, it is critical that future research examine how the conceptual structure of team workload may be altered by task type.

show abstract

The Team Workload Questionnaire (TWLQ)

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Use of cross‐training in human–robot collaborative rescue

Use of cross‐training in human–robot collaborative rescue

Measurements of team workload: A time pressure and scenario complexity study for maritime operation tasks

Evaluation of the Team Workload Questionnaire (TWLQ) in a Team-Choice Task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About