Current Search:   Rosen, Michael (x)

View All Items

  • CSV Spreadsheet
(1 - 3 of 3)
AFFECTIVE DESIGN IN TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION
Title
AFFECTIVE DESIGN IN TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION.
Creator
Rosen, Michael, Kitalong, Karla, University of Central Florida
Abstract / Description
Traditional human-computer interaction (HCI) is based on 'cold' models of user cognition; that is, models of users as purely rational beings based on the information processing metaphor; however, an emerging perspective suggests that for the field of HCI to mature, its practitioners must adopt models of users that consider broader human needs and capabilities. Affective design is an umbrella term for research and practice being conducted in diverse domains, all with the common thread of...
Show moreTraditional human-computer interaction (HCI) is based on 'cold' models of user cognition; that is, models of users as purely rational beings based on the information processing metaphor; however, an emerging perspective suggests that for the field of HCI to mature, its practitioners must adopt models of users that consider broader human needs and capabilities. Affective design is an umbrella term for research and practice being conducted in diverse domains, all with the common thread of integrating emotional aspects of use into the creation of information products. This thesis provides a review of the current state of the art in affective design research and practice to technical communicators and others involved in traditional HCI and usability enterprises. This paper is motivated by the developing technologies and the growing complexity of interaction that demand a more robust notion of HCI that incorporates affect in an augmented and holistic representation of the user and situated use.
Show less
Date Issued
2005
Identifier
CFE0000590, ucf:46474
Format
Document (PDF)
PURL
http://purl.flvc.org/ucf/fd/CFE0000590
COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING: THE ROLE OF TEAM KNOWLEDGE BUILDING PROCESSES AND EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS
Title
COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING: THE ROLE OF TEAM KNOWLEDGE BUILDING PROCESSES AND EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS.
Creator
Rosen, Michael, Salas, Eduardo, University of Central Florida
Abstract / Description
This dissertation evaluates the relationship between five team knowledge building processes (i.e., information exchange, knowledge sharing, option generation, evaluation of alternatives, and regulation), the external representations constructed by a team during a performance episode, and performance outcomes in a problem solving task. In a broad range of domains such as the military, and healthcare, team-based work structures used to solve complex problems; however, the bulk of research on...
Show moreThis dissertation evaluates the relationship between five team knowledge building processes (i.e., information exchange, knowledge sharing, option generation, evaluation of alternatives, and regulation), the external representations constructed by a team during a performance episode, and performance outcomes in a problem solving task. In a broad range of domains such as the military, and healthcare, team-based work structures used to solve complex problems; however, the bulk of research on teamwork to date has dealt with behavioral coordination in routine tasks. This leaves a gap in the theory available for developing interventions to support collaborative problem solving, or knowledge-based performance, in teams. Sixty nine three person teams participated in a strategic planning simulation using a collaborative map. Content analysis was applied to team communications and the external representations team members created using the collaborative tool. Regression and multi-way frequency analyses were used to test hypotheses about the relationship between the amount and sequence of team process behaviors respectively and team performance outcomes. Additionally, the moderating effects of external representation quality were evaluated. All five team knowledge building processes were significantly related to outcomes, but only one (i.e., knowledge sharing) in the simple, positive, and linear way hypothesized. Information exchange was negatively related to outcomes after controlling for the amount of acknowledgements team members made. Option generation and evaluation interacted to predict outcomes such that higher levels of evaluation were more beneficial to teams with higher levels of option generation. Regulation processes exhibited a negative curvilinear relationship with outcomes such that high and low performing teams engaged in less regulation than did moderately performing teams. External representation quality moderated a composite team knowledge building process variable such that better external representations were more beneficial for teams with poorer quality processes than for teams with high quality process. Additionally, there were significant differences in the sequence of team knowledge building processes between high and low performing teams as well as between groups based on high and low levels of external representation quality. The team knowledge building process framework is useful for understanding complex collaborative problem solving. However, these processes predict performance outcomes in complex and inter-related ways. Further implications for theories of team performance and applications for training, designing performance support tools, and team performance measurement are discussed.
Show less
Date Issued
2010
Identifier
CFE0003109, ucf:48627
Format
Document (PDF)
PURL
http://purl.flvc.org/ucf/fd/CFE0003109
The Development and Testing of a Measurement System to Assess Intensive Care Unit Team Performance
Title
The Development and Testing of a Measurement System to Assess Intensive Care Unit Team Performance.
Creator
Dietz, Aaron, Salas, Eduardo, Jentsch, Florian, Sims, Valerie, Rosen, Michael, Burke, Shawn, University of Central Florida
Abstract / Description
Teamwork is essential for ensuring the quality and safety of healthcare delivery in the intensive care unit (ICU). Complex procedures are conducted with a diverse team of clinicians with unique roles and responsibilities. Information about care plans and goals must also be developed, communicated, and coordinated across multiple disciplines and transferred effectively between shifts and personnel. The intricacies of routine care are compounded during emergency events, which require ICU teams...
Show moreTeamwork is essential for ensuring the quality and safety of healthcare delivery in the intensive care unit (ICU). Complex procedures are conducted with a diverse team of clinicians with unique roles and responsibilities. Information about care plans and goals must also be developed, communicated, and coordinated across multiple disciplines and transferred effectively between shifts and personnel. The intricacies of routine care are compounded during emergency events, which require ICU teams to adapt to rapidly changing patient conditions while facing intense time pressure and conditional stress. Realities such as these emphasize the need for teamwork skills in the ICU. The measurement of teamwork serves a number of different purposes, including routine assessment, directing feedback, and evaluating the impact of improvement initiatives. Yet no behavioral marker system exists in critical care for quantifying teamwork across multiple task types. This study contributes to the state of science and practice in critical care by taking a (1) theory-driven, (2) context-driven, and (3) psychometrically-driven approach to the development of a teamwork measure. The development of the marker system for the current study considered the state of science and practice surrounding teamwork in critical care, the application of behavioral marker systems across the healthcare community, and interviews with front line clinicians. The ICU behavioral marker system covers four core teamwork dimensions especially relevant to critical care teams: Communication, Leadership, Backup and Supportive Behavior, and Team Decision Making, with each dimension subsuming other relevant subdimensions. This study provided an initial assessment of the reliability and validity of the marker system by focusing on a subset of teamwork competencies relevant to subset of team tasks. Two raters scored the performance of 50 teams along six subdimensions during rounds (n=25) and handoffs (n=25). In addition to calculating traditional forms of reliability evidence [intraclass correlations (ICCs) and percent agreement], this study modeled the systematic variance in ratings associated with raters, instances of teamwork, subdimensions, and tasks by applying generalizability (G) theory. G theory was also employed to provide evidence that the marker system adequately distinguishes teamwork competencies targeted for measurement. The marker system differentiated teamwork subdimensions when the data for rounds and handoffs were combined and when the data were examined separately by task (G coefficient greater than 0.80). Additionally, variance associated with instances of teamwork, subdimensions, and their interaction constituted the greatest proportion of variance in scores while variance associated with rater and task effects were minimal. That said, there remained a large percentage of residual error across analyses. Single measures ICCs were fair to good when the data for rounds and handoffs were combined depending on the competency assessed (0.52 to 0.74). The ICCs ranged from fair to good when only examining handoffs (0.47 to 0.69) and fair to excellent when only considering rounds (0.53 to 0.79). Average measures ICCs were always greater than single measures for each analysis, ranging from good to excellent (overall: 0.69 to 0.85, handoffs: 0.64 to 0.81, rounds: 0.70 to 0.89). In general, the percent of overall agreement was substandard, ranging from 0.44 to 0.80 across each task analysis. The percentage of scores within a single point, however, was nearly perfect, ranging from 0.80 to 1.00 for rounds and handoffs, handoffs, and rounds. The confluence of evidence supported the expectation that the marker system differentiates among teamwork subdmensions. Yet different reliability indices suggested varying levels of confidence in rater consistency depending on the teamwork competency that was measured. Because this study applied a psychometric approach, areas for future development and testing to redress these issues were identified. There also is a need to assess the viability of this tool in other research contexts to evaluate its generalizability in places with different norms and organizational policies as well as for different tasks that emphasize different teamwork skills. Further, it is important to increase the number of users able to make assessments through low-cost, easily accessible rater training and guidance materials. Particular emphasis should be given to areas where rater reliability was less than ideal. This would allow future researchers to evaluate team performance, provide developmental feedback, and determine the impact of future teamwork improvement initiatives.
Show less
Date Issued
2014
Identifier
CFE0005482, ucf:50356
Format
Document (PDF)
PURL
http://purl.flvc.org/ucf/fd/CFE0005482