How Busy is Too Busy? Validation of the Dutch Integrated Workload Scale

The Integrated Workload Scale (IWS) is a subjective scale for real-time workload assessment. The nine anchor points of the IWS—ranging from “no workload” to “work too demanding”—capture the multidimensionality of the concept of workload by incorporating items reflecting time and effort in addition to workload and demand. Although originally designed for research with train dispatchers in the United Kingdom, the IWS has since been used to measure workload in other countries. In one of these countries, the Netherlands, the IWS has been translated into Dutch for use with train dispatchers. The aim of the present study was to validate the Dutch translation of the IWS. Dutch students and train dispatchers and English-language students were asked to rate the individual items of the IWS, in Dutch and English, respectively, on a scale from 0 (“no workload at all”) to 150 (“complete overload”). The mean ratings of items did not differ significantly between the groups, suggesting that the two versions of the IWS were interpreted similarly. Regression analyses showed that the scales were perceived as linear, with equidistant items. Additionally, alternate Dutch items were also rated as possible substitutions for some of the original items but were not found to significantly improve the linearity of the scale. The strong similarities of the Dutch IWS to the original IWS – including its multidimensional nature and the equidistant items – as well as the fact that train dispatchers and students gave similar ratings on the Dutch IWS suggest that it can reliably be used to assess subjective workload.

[1]  Focus on psychometrics. Scaling stimuli with magnitude estimation. , 1992, Research in nursing & health.

[2]  Huiyang Li,et al.  Human Performance Consequences of Stages and Levels of Automation , 2014, Hum. Factors.

[3]  Laura Pickup,et al.  The Integrated Workload Scale (IWS): a new self-report tool to assess railway signaller workload. , 2005, Applied ergonomics.

[4]  G. Bennett,et al.  The assessment. , 1989, Health visitor.

[5]  John D. Lee,et al.  The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Engineering , 2013 .

[6]  F. Ruschitzka,et al.  Mental Stress Induces Prolonged Endothelial Dysfunction via Endothelin-A Receptors , 2002, Circulation.

[7]  Melcher Zeilstra,et al.  DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREDICTIVE TOOL FOR OPTIMIZING WORKLOAD OF TRAIN DISPATCHERS , 2009 .

[8]  Lawrence L Ames,et al.  Revision and Verification of a Seven-Point Workload Estimate Scale , 1993 .

[9]  Sarah Sharples,et al.  Effects of level of signalling automation on workload and performance , 2012 .

[10]  N. Taatgen,et al.  What happens when we switch tasks: pupil dilation in multitasking. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[11]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Situation Awareness-Oriented Design , 2013 .

[12]  Ari Widyanti,et al.  Adaptation of the Rating Scale Mental Effort (RSME) for use in Indonesia , 2013 .

[13]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[14]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[15]  M Wilms,et al.  Subjective mental workload of Dutch train dispatchers: Validation of IWS in a practical setting , 2013 .

[16]  Karel A. Brookhuis,et al.  On the assessment of (mental) workload and other subjective qualifications , 2002, Ergonomics.

[17]  F.R.H. Zijlstra,et al.  Efficiency in work behaviour: A design approach for modern tools , 1993 .