Advertisement

Cognitive Task Analysis for Expert-Based Instruction in Healthcare

  • Richard Clark
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents an overview of the rationale and evidence for the use of cognitive task analysis (CTA) in healthcare including the following: It presents a brief history and definition of CTA, the reason it is being adopted for healthcare education, evidence for its learning benefits when used in evidence-based instructional design and medical simulators, an example of how one of the evidence-based CTA methods was implemented in healthcare, and suggestions for future research. The point is made that when evidence-based CTA methods are used, learning from CTA-based healthcare instruction increases an average of 45 % when compared with current task analysis methods.

Keywords

Cognitive task analysis Instructional design Training Expertise Decision making Front-end analysis Simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge the many ­colleagues who have contributed to the CTA research reported in this chapter including Drs Fredric Maupin, Kenneth Yates, Maura Sullivan, and David Feldon. The project or the effort described here has been partially sponsored by the US Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command (RDECOM). Statements and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the United States Government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

References

  1. Besnard, D. (2000). Expert error: The case of trouble-shooting in electronics. Lecture notes in computer science, 2000 (pp. 74–85). Rotterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, J., Tiraplle, L., Yates, K., Clark, R. E., Inaba, K., Green, D., et al. (2011). The effectiveness of cognitive task analysis informed curriculum to increase self-efficacy and improve performance for an open cricothyrotomy. Journal of Surgical Education, 68(5), 403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cen, H., Koedinger, K. R., & Junker, B. (2007). Is over practice necessary? Improving learning efficiency with educational data mining. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 conference on artificial intelligence in education: Building technology rich learning contexts that work (pp. 511–518). Amsterdam: Ios Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chao, C.-J., & Salvende, G. (1994). Percentage of procedural knowledge acquired as a function of the number of experts from whom knowledge is acquired for diagnosis, debugging and interpretation tasks. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 6(3), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, R. E. (2004). Design document for a guided experiential learning course. Final report on TRADOC contract DAAD 19-99-D-0046-0004. Los Angeles, CA: Institute for Creative Technology and the Rossier School of Education. Retrieved from http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/clark_gel.pdf.
  6. Clark, R. E. (2006). Not knowing what we don’t know: Reframing the importance of automated knowledge for educational research. In G. Clarebout & J. Elen (Eds.), Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity: Advances in studying and designing powerful learning environments (pp. 3–15). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, R. E., & Elen, J. (2006). When less is more: Research and theory insights about instruction for complex learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 283–297). Oxford: Elsevier Science Limited.Google Scholar
  8. *Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1996) Cognitive task analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 25(5), 403–417.Google Scholar
  9. *Clark, R. E., Feldon, D., vanMerrienboer, J., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2008). Cognitive task analysis. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merrienboër, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 577–593). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., & Moulton, K. (2010). An analysis of the failure of electronic media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the performance benefits of guided training methods. In K. H. Silber & R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of training and improving workplace performance (Instructional design and training delivery, Vol. I, pp. 263–297). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  11. Crandall, B., & Gamblian, V. (1991). Guide to early sepsis assessment in the NICU. Fairborn, OH: Klein Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Crandall, B., & Gretchell-Leiter, K. (1993). Critical decision method: A technique for eliciting concrete assessment indicators from the “intuition” of NICU nurses. Advances in Nursing Science, 16(1), 42–51.Google Scholar
  13. Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine, 79(10), S70–S81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49(8), 725–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feldon, D. F. (2004). Inaccuracies in expert self-report: Errors in the description of strategies for designing psychology experiments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation presented. Faculty of the Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  16. Gilbreth, F. B., & Gilbreth, L. M. (1919). Fatigue study. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York, NY: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  18. Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., Lajoie, S., Eastman, R., Greenberg, L., Logan, D., et al., (1985). Cognitive task analysis to enhance technical skills training and assessment. (Final Report to the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory on Contract No. F41689-8v3-C-0029.) Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  19. Halfer, D., & Graf, E. (2008). Graduate nurse perceptions of the work experience. Nursing Economics, 24(3), 150–155.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, E. M., Gott, S., & Pokorny, R. A. (1995). A procedural guide to cognitive task analysis: The PARI methodology. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Manpower and Personnel Division, U.S. Air Force.Google Scholar
  21. *Hoffman, R. R., & Militello, L. G. (2009). Perspectives on cognitive task analysis: Historical origins and modern communities of practice. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hunt, E., & Joslyn, S. (2000). A functional task analysis of time-pressured decision-making. In J. M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman, & V. L. Shalin (Eds.), Cognitive task analysis (pp. 119–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Klein, G. A., Calderwood, R., & Macgregor, D. (1989). Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 19(3), 462–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, R. L. (2004). The impact of cognitive task analysis on performance: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  25. Maupin, F. G. (2004). Comparing cognitive task analysis to behavior task analysis in training first year interns to place central venous catheters. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  26. Merrill, M. D. (2002a). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merrill, M. D. (2002b). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merrill, M. D. (2006). Hypothesized performance on complex tasks as a function of scaled instructional strategies. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Research and theory (pp. 265–281). Oxford: Elsevier Science Limited.Google Scholar
  29. Mislevy, R. J., Breyer, F. J., Almond, R. G., & Johnson, L. (1998). A cognitive task analysis with implications for designing simulation-based performance assessment. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  30. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: 1. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. *Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S. F., & Shalin, V, L. (2000). Cognitive task analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Tofel-Grehl, C., & Feldon, D. F. (2013). Cognitive task analysis-based training: A meta-analysis of studies. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 7(2).Google Scholar
  33. *Velmahos, G. C., Toutouzas, K. G., Sillin, L. F., Chan, L., Clark, R. E., & Theodorou, D., et al. (2004). Cognitive task analysis for teaching technical skills in an inanimate surgical skills laboratory. The American Journal of Surgery, 18, 114–119.Google Scholar
  34. Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wei, J., & Salvendy, G. (2004). The cognitive task analysis methods for job and task design: Review and reappraisal. Behaviour and Information Technology, 23(4), 273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wheatley, T., & Wegner, D. M. (2001). Automaticity in action. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 991–993). London: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Workforce Connections Inc. (2011) Business Survey Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.workforceconnections.org/Business%20Survey%20Outcome%20REPORT%20Final.pdf
  38. Yates, K. A. & Feldon, D. F. (2007). Towards a Taxonomy of Cognitive Task Analysis Methods: A search for cognition and task analysis interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  39. *Yates, K. A., & Feldon, D. F. (2008, April). Towards a taxonomy of cognitive task analysis methods for instructional design: Interactions with cognition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York City, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Yates, K. A., & Feldon, D. F. (2011). Advancing the practice of cognitive task analysis: A call for taxonomic research. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 12(6), 472–495.Google Scholar
  41. Yates, K. A., Sullivan, M., & Clark, R. E. (2012). Integrated studies in the use of cognitive task analysis to capture surgical expertise for central venous catheter placement and open cricothyrotomy. American Journal of Surgery, 1–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryKeck School of Medicine, USC Center for Cognitive Technology, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern CaliforniaRancho Palos VerdesUSA

Personalised recommendations