The need to develop tools to assess and support the behavioral health of space-dwelling crews continues to be acknowledged by NASA (Suedfeld, Bootzin, Harvey, Leon, Musson, Oltmanns, & Paulus, 2010). In that regard, the term "behavioral health" encompasses a broad range of affective, social, and skilled individual and crew performances that must be sustained under the obviously stressful circumstances of long-duration spaceflight (Brady, 2007; Emurian & Brady, 2007). The detection of impending performance degradation necessitates the consideration of innovative approaches to monitor and measure both individual and team performances that realistically relate to the operational status of a crew. The introduction of effective countermeasures to such degradation is complementary to detection, and potential solutions to these two challenges will benefit from a technology that can integrate both considerations within a common conceptual framework with respect to task performance. A three-person team performance task (TPT) was proposed as a tool to diagnose the status of a crew (Emurian, Canfield, Roma, Gasior, Brinson, Hienz, Hursh, & Brady, 2009), and the rationale of its design, from the perspective of behavior analysis, and an evaluation of its effectiveness have been reported (Emurian, Canfield, Roma, Brinson, Gasior, Hienz, Hursh, & Brady, in press). The initial evaluations were based upon having subjects perform the task for fixed time periods (e.g., 12 min), with instructions to maximize performance effectiveness. Although providing important feedback regarding the properties of the task and performance metrics associated with individual and team performances, a more realistic diagnostic scenario would require a crew to complete a given task without regard to temporal constraints. Accordingly, the present extension of the task implements a fixed-ratio requirement on performance accuracy at the level of the individual team member and at the level of the team. The present report is a case study of the evaluation of such an extension under conditions of the replacement of an established team member with a novitiate. The context of this study includes analyses of group membership replacement previously undertaken within a continuously programmed environment (Emurian,Brady, Ray, Meyerhoff, & Mougey, 1984). Method Subjects Four UMBC undergraduate students volunteered to participate in response to an announcement posted on the student listserv. Volunteers were directed to read the information posted on the web (http://nasa1.ifsm.umbc.edu/tpt/). The study was approved by UMBC's Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was obtained at the time of each daily session. Each participant was paid $30 in cash at the completion of a session. Table 1 presents demographic details about the four subjects collected before Session 1 for subjects 1, 2, and 3 and before Session 5 for subject 2*. Two rating scales were administered to assess each subject's experience with computer games and overall computer experience. Each scale was a 10-point scale, where the anchors were 1 = No Experience (I am a novice.) to 10 = Extensive Experience (I am an expert.). Notable, perhaps, are the comparatively low ratings by S2 for both game and computer experience. Subjects 1, 2, and 3 reported being acquainted prior to the study. Subject 2 was replaced at Session 5 of the study by S2*, and the replacement reported having no prior acquaintanceship with the other two subjects. The subjects were instructed not to discuss the task between sessions, and post-session debriefings always confirmed that practice. Team Performance Task (TPT) The TPT was designed for use by three-person groups, and the prototype has been described in detail elsewhere (Emurian et al., in press). Figure 1 presents a screen shot of the display presented to a subject (in this case, User1, the designation for S1). …
[1]
Matthias Rauterberg,et al.
Automatic mental heath assistant: monitoring and measuring nonverbal behavior of the crew during long-term missions
,
2010,
MB '10.
[2]
James E. Driskell,et al.
Collective Orientation and Team Performance: Development of an Individual Differences Measure
,
2010,
Hum. Factors.
[3]
W. Buskist,et al.
The Analysis of Human Operant Behavior: A Brief Census of the Literature: 1958–1981
,
1982,
The Behavior analyst.
[4]
D F Hake,et al.
Acquisition and maintenance of trusting behavior.
,
1981,
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.
[5]
D. Burnstein,et al.
SHAPING OF THREE-MAN TEAMS ON A MULTIPLE DRL-DRH SCHEDULE USING COLLECTIVE REINFORCEMENT.
,
1964,
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.
[6]
Traci Carte,et al.
Cohesion in virtual teams: validating the perceived cohesion scale in a distributed setting
,
2006,
DATB.
[7]
Joseph V. Brady,et al.
Behavioral Health Management of Space Dwelling Groups : Safe Passage Beyond Earth Orbit
,
2007
.
[8]
Ying Zhou,et al.
Shared mental models as moderators of team process-performance relationships
,
2010
.
[9]
Joseph V. Brady.
Behavior Analysis in the Space Age
,
2007
.
[10]
Jessica Mesmer-Magnus,et al.
Measuring Shared Team Mental Models: A Meta-Analysis
,
2010
.
[11]
Manuela Aguzzi,et al.
A game for space
,
2010
.
[12]
Scott E. Maxwell,et al.
Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data
,
1992
.
[13]
Joseph V. Brady,et al.
Experimental Analysis of Team Performance: Methodological Developments and Research Results.
,
1982
.
[14]
G. Hofstede,et al.
Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values
,
1980
.
[15]
Steven R. Hursh,et al.
A multiplayer team performance task: Design and evaluation
,
2011
.
[16]
Cynthia Breazeal,et al.
An Empirical Analysis of Team Coordination Behaviors and Action Planning With Application to Human–Robot Teaming
,
2010,
Hum. Factors.
[17]
Unequal reinforcer magnitudes and relative preference for cooperation in the dyad.
,
1975,
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.
[18]
Kip Canfield,et al.
Behavioral Systems Management of Confined Microsocieties: An Agenda for Research and Applications
,
2009
.
[19]
G. Marwell,et al.
Stimulus control in the experimental study of cooperation.
,
1968,
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.
[20]
Sharon K. Parker,et al.
Proactively performing teams: The role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition
,
2010
.
[21]
B. A. Matthews.
Magnitudes of score differences produced within sessions in a cooperative exchange procedure.
,
1977,
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.
[22]
H. Weiner.
An operant analysis of human altruistic responding.
,
1977,
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.
[23]
K. Chint,et al.
NASA TLX: Software for assessing subjective mental workload
,
2009
.