Training Design for Instance-Based Learning – The “Staged Process Control Readiness Training” (SPCRT)

  • Annette Kluge


In this chapter, the basic learning processes introduced in Chap.  4 are translated into training designs for novices and experts under the label of the “Staged Process Control Readiness Training”, which has two stages. Additionally, important issues for training design preparation are pointed out, which are the understanding of the production context, e.g. by document analysis, and the relevance of conducting a cognitive task analysis, e.g. by using the critical decision methods.

Training stage 1 addresses the training objectives of novices and explains the relevant training components, which are a full-scope simulator, the design of instances, experiential learning, component practice, briefing and de-briefing techniques, and outlines the responsibilities of the trainer in this stage 1. Stage 2 addresses the training objectives of expert control room operators and formulates training principles in order to make the most of practice. Deliberate practice is proposed to be provided by means of decision skill training, critical thinking training, stress exposure training and team training methods, which are adapted to the expert control room operator’s training needs. Finally, the responsibility of the trainer in stage 2 is emphasised.


Mental Model Deliberate Practice Training Objective Teamwork Skill Training Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bakken, B. E. (2008). On improving dynamic decision-making: Implications from multiple process cognitive theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25, 493–501.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, T. T., & Magjuka, R. J. (1997). Training as an organizational episode: Pretraining influence on trainee motivation. In J. K. Ford, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, & M. S. Teachout (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 193–221). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Transfer of training 1988–2008. An updated review and agenda for future research. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 24, 41–70.Google Scholar
  4. Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1992). A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation. In A. Healy, S. Kosslynm, & R. Shiffrin (Eds.), From learning processes to cognitive processes: Essays in honor of William K. Estes (pp. 35–67). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2006). Optimizing treatment and instruction: Implications of the new theory of disuse. In L. G. Nilsson & N. Ohta (Eds.), Memory and society. Psychological perspectives (pp. 109–134). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blickensderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1997). Theoretical bases for team self correction: Fostering shared mental models. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Jackson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 249–79). Greenwich: JAI.Google Scholar
  7. Bolstad, C. A., Cuevas, H. M., Costello, A. M., & Babbitt, B. (2008). Predicting cognitive readiness of deploying military medical teams. In Proceedings of the human factors and Ergonomics Society, 52nd annual meeting (pp. 970–974). Santa Monica: HFES.Google Scholar
  8. Buckley, R., & Caple, J. (1990). The theory and practice of training (Rev. 5th ed., 2007). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  9. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Bowers, C. (2010). Synthetic learning environments: On developing a science of simulation, games and virtual worlds for training. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training and development in organizations (pp. 229–262). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Carlson, R. A., Khoo, B. H., & Elliott, R. G. (1990). Component practice and exposure to a problem solving context. Human Factors, 32, 267–286.Google Scholar
  11. Chappell, S. L. (1994). Using voluntary incident reports for human factors evaluations. In N. Johnston, N. McDonald, & R. Fuller (Eds.), Aviation psychology in practice (pp. 149–169). Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, M. S., & Thompson, B. B. (2001). Training teams to take initiative: Critical thinking in novel situations. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering, 1, 251–291.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, M. S., Freeman, J. T., & Wolf, S. (1996). Meta-recognition in time-stressed decision making: Recognizing, critiquing, and correcting. Human Factors, 38, 206–219.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, M. S., Freeman, J. T., & Thompson, B. (1998/3rd print). critical thinking skills in tactical decision making: A model and a training strategy. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress. Implications for individual and team training (pp. 155–190). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  15. Cooke, N. J., & Fiore, S. M. (2010). Cognitive science-based principles for the design and delivery of training. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Sales (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 169–201). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Crandall, B., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Working minds. A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dennis, D. R., & Meredith, J. R. (2000). An analysis of process industry production and inventory management systems. Journal of Operations Management, 18, 683–699.Google Scholar
  18. Dosher, B. A. (2003). Working memory. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 569–577). London: Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  19. Driskell, J. E., & Johnston, J. H. (1998/2006 reprint). Stress exposure training. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress. Implications for Individual and team training (pp. 191–217). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  20. Duncan, K. D., & Shepherd, A. (1975). A simulator and training technique for diagnosing plant failures from control panels. Ergonomics, 18, 627–641.Google Scholar
  21. Eccles, D. W., & Tenenbaum, G. (2004). Why an expert team is more than a team of experts: A social-cognitive conceptualization of team coordination and communication in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 542–560.Google Scholar
  22. Elliot, L. T., Dalrymple, M. A., Schiflett, S. G., & Miller, J. (2004). Scaling scenarios: Development and application to C4ISR sustained operations research. In S. G. Schiflett, L. R. Elliot, E. Sales, & M. D. Coovert (Eds.), Scaled worlds: Development, validations and applications (pp. 75–99). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  23. Ellis, S. (2012). Learning from errors: The role of after event reviews. In J. Bauer & C. Harteis (Eds.), Human fallibility. The ambiguity of errors for work and learning (pp. 215–232). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 857–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors, 41, 312–325.Google Scholar
  26. Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683–703). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Farr, M. J. (1987). The long-term retention of knowledge and skills. A cognitive and instructional perspective. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Flin, R., O’Connor, P., & Crichton, M. (2008). Safety at the sharp end. A guide to non-technical skills. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  30. Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). Group dynamics and shared mental model development. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations: Person perception and interpersonal judgement in I/O Psychology (pp. 309–336). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Fransoo, J. C., & Rutten, W. G. M. M. (1994). A typology of production control situations in process industries. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 18, 47–57.Google Scholar
  32. Frey, D., & Jonas, E. (2002). Die Theorie der kognizierten Kontrolle. In D. Frey & M. Irle (Hrsg.), Theorien der Sozialpsychologie. Band III, Motivations-, Selbst- und Informationsverarbeitungstheorien (pp. 13–50). Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.Google Scholar
  33. Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organisations. Needs assessment, development and evaluation. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  34. Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organisations. Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  35. Gonzales, C., Lerch, J. F., & Lebiere, C. (2003). Instance-based learning in dynamic decision making. Cognitive Science, 27, 591–635.Google Scholar
  36. Gopher, D. (2007). Emphasis change as a training protocol for high-demand tasks. In A. Kramer, D. Wiegmann, & A. Kirlik (Eds.), Attention: From theory to practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Greitzer, F. L., Podmore, R., Robinson, M., & Ey, P. (2009). Naturalistic decision making for power system operators. Proceedings of the NDM9, the 9th international conference on naturalistic decision making, London, UK. Also available online:
  38. Hagemann, V. (2011). Trainingsentwicklung für high responsibility teams. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Hagemann, V., Kluge, A., & Ritzmann, S. (2011). High responsibility teams – Eine systematische analyse von Teamarbeitskontexten. Psychologie des Alltaghandelns, 4, 22–42.Google Scholar
  40. Hagemann, V., Kluge, A., & Ritzmann, S. (2012). Flexibility under complexity: Work contexts, task profiles and team processes of high responsibility teams. Employee Relations, 34, 322–338.Google Scholar
  41. Hogg, D. N., Folleso, K., Strand-Volden, F., & Torralba, B. (1995). Development of a situation awareness measure to evaluate advanced alarm systems in nuclear power plant control rooms. Ergonomics, 38, 2394–413.Google Scholar
  42. Hollnagel, E. (1998). Cognitive reliability and error analysis method CREAM. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Hollnagel, E. (2007). Decision about “What” and decisions about “How”. In M. Cook, J. Noyes, & Y. Masakowski (Eds.), Decision making in complex environments (pp. 3–13). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  44. Hollnagel, E., & Woods, D. D. (2005). Joint cognitive systems. Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  45. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2003). Training for cooperative work. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 167–184). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Johnston, J. H., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Training for stress exposure. In J. E. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human performance (pp. 223–256). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Keinan, G., & Friedland, N. (1996). Training effective performance under stress: Queries, dilemmas, and possible solutions. In J. E. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human performance (pp. 257–278). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Klein, G. A., Calderwood, R., & MacGregor, D. (1989). Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 19, 462–472.Google Scholar
  49. Klein, G., McCloskey, M., Pliske, R., & Schmitt, J. (1997). Decision skills training. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st annual meeting (pp. 182–185). Santa Barbara: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Kluge, A., Badura, B., & Rietz, Ch. (2013a). Framing effects of production outcomes, the risk of an accident, control beliefs and their effects on safety-related violations in a production context. Journal of Risk Research.
  51. Kluge, A., & Burkolter, D. (2012, May 10). Training for cognitive readiness: Research issues and experimental designs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making. doi: 10.1177/1555343412446483.
  52. Kluge, A., & Burkolter, D. (2013). Training for cognitive readiness: Research issues and experimental designs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 7, 96–118.Google Scholar
  53. Kluge, A., Burkolter, D., & Frank, B. (2012, October). Being prepared for the infrequent: A comparative study of two refresher training approaches and their effects on temporal and adaptive transfer in a process control task. Proceedings of the human factors and Ergonomics Society 56th annual conference (pp. 2437–2441). Boston.Google Scholar
  54. Kluge, A., Grauel, B., & Burkolter, D. (2013b). Job aids: How does the quality of a procedural aid alone and combined with a decision aid affect motivation and performance in process control? Applied Ergonomics, 44, 285–296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Kluge, A., & Schüler, K. (2007). Experience management by means of simulator trainings in high reliability organizations – Re-enacting critical incidents and learning from experience – Examples from nuclear power plants and oil refineries. In N. Gronau (Ed.), 4th conference on professional knowledge management – Experiences and vision (pp. 77–84). Berlin: Gito.Google Scholar
  56. Kluge, A., Schüler, K., & Burkolter, D. (2008). Simulatortrainings für Prozesskontrolltätigkeiten am Beispiel von Raffinerien: Psychologische Trainingsprinzipien in der Praxis. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 62(2), 97–109.Google Scholar
  57. Kluwe, R. H. (1997). Acquisition of knowledge in the control of a simulated technical system. Le Travail Humain, 60, 61–85.Google Scholar
  58. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  59. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognition, learning, and thinking styles (pp. 193–210). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Kolodner, J. L. (1983). Towards an understanding of the role of experience in the evolution from novice to expert. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 19, 497–518.Google Scholar
  61. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & DeShon, R. P. (2004). A psychological fidelity approach to simulation-based training: Theory, research and principles. In S. G. Schiflett, L. R. Elliot, E. Salas, & M. D. Coovert (Eds.), Scaled worlds: Development, validation and applications (pp. 75–100). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  62. Mason, S. (1997). Procedural violations – Causes, costs and cures. In F. Redmill & J. Rajan (Eds.), Humans factors in safety – Critical systems (pp. 287–318). London: Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
  63. Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13.Google Scholar
  64. Miettinen, R. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective thought and action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 54–72.Google Scholar
  65. Moore, B. A., Mason, S. T., & Crow, B. E. (2012). Assessment and management of acute combat stress on the battlefield. In C. H. Kennedy & E. A. Zillmer (Eds.), Military psychology. Clinical and operational applications (pp. 73–92). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  66. Morris, N. M., & Rouse, W. B. (1985). The effects of type of knowledge upon human problem solving in a process control task. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-15, 698–707.Google Scholar
  67. Morrison, J. E., & Fletcher, J. D. (2002). Cognitive readiness (No. IDA-P-3735). Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  68. Noe, R. A., Wilk, S. L., Mullen, E. J., & Wanek, J. E. (1997). Employee development: Issues in construct definition and investigation antecedents. In J. K. Ford, S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, & M. S. Teachout (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 153–189). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  69. Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–15). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  70. O’Hare, D., Wiggins, M., Williams, A., & Wong, W. (1998). Cognitive task analyses for decision centered design and training. Ergonomics, 41, 1698–1718.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Orasanu, J. M., & Backer, P. (1996). Stress and military performance. In J. E. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human performance (pp. 89–126). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  72. Ormerod, T. C., & Shepherd, A. (2004). Using task analysis for information requirements specification: The sub-goal template (SGT) method. In D. Diaper & N. A. Stanton (Eds.), The handbook of task analysis for human-computer interaction (pp. 347–365). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  73. Ormerod, T. C., Richardson, J., & Shepherd, A. (1998). Enhancing the usability of a task analysis method: A notation and environment for requirements specification. Ergonomics, 41, 1642–1663.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Paris, C. R., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork in multi-person systems: A review and analysis. Ergonomics, 43, 1052–1075.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Patrick, J., James, N., & Ahmed, A. (2006a). Human processes of control: Tracing the goals and strategies of control room teams. Ergonomics, 49, 1395–1414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Patrick, J., James, N., Ahmed, A., & Halliday, P. (2006b). Observational assessment of situation awareness, team differences and training implications. Ergonomics, 49, 393–417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Pliske, R. M., McCloskey, M. J., & Klein, G. (2001). Decision skills training: Facilitating learning from experience. In E. Salas & G. Klein (Eds.), Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making (pp. 37–53). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  78. Podmore, R., Robinson, M., Sadinsky, M., & Sease, R. (2008, July 20–24). A virtual instructor for simulator training. In Proceedings, IEEE Power & Energy Society annual meeting, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  79. Reason, J. (1998). Achieving a safe culture: Theory and practice. Work & Stress, 12(3), 293–306.Google Scholar
  80. Richardson, A. (1967). Mental practice: A review and discussion (Part II). Research Quarterly, 38, 264–273.Google Scholar
  81. Ritzmann, S. (2012). Entwicklung und evaluation von Crew Resource management training for flight attendants. Lengerich: Pabst Verlag.Google Scholar
  82. Ross, K. G., Shafer, J. L., & Klein, G. (2006). Professional judgements and “naturalistic decision making”. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 403–419). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Roth, E. M. (2008). Uncovering the requirements of cognitive work. Human Factors, 50, 475–480.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Rouse, W. R. (1982). A mixed-fidelity approach to technical training. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 11, 103–115.Google Scholar
  85. Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1997). Methods, tools, and strategies for team training. In M. Quinones & E. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Application of psychological research (pp. 291–322). Washington, DC: APA Press.Google Scholar
  86. Salas, E., Driskell, J. E., & Hughes, S. (1996). Introduction: The study of stress and human performance. In J. E. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human performance (pp. 1–46). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  87. Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Priest, H. A., & Guthrie, J. W. (2006). Design, delivery, and evaluation of training. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 472–512). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  88. Schneider, W. (1999). Automaticity. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 63–64). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  89. Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S. F., & Shalin, V. L. (2000). Cognitive task analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  90. Sebok, A. (2000). Team performance in process control: Influences of interface design and staffing levels. Ergonomics, 43, 1210–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Serfaty, D., Entin. E. E., & Johnston, J. H. (1998/3rd print). Team coordination training. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress. Implications for individual and team training (pp. 221–246). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  92. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2008). Guided team self-correction: Impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 303–27.Google Scholar
  93. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Zeisig, R. L., McPherson, J., & Acton, B. (1998). Team dimensional training: A strategy for guided team self-correction. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Decision making under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 271–297). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  94. Shuffler, M. L., DiazGranados, D., & Salas, E. (2011). There’sa Science for That Team Development Interventions in Organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 365–372.Google Scholar
  95. Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Ohly, S. (2004). Learning at work: Training and development. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 249–289.Google Scholar
  96. Stammers, R. B. (1981). Skill retention and control room tasks. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society annual meeting (pp. 168–172). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  97. Steadham, S. V. (1980). Learning to select a needs assessment strategy. Training and Development Journal, 30, 56–61.Google Scholar
  98. Sternberg, R. (2009). Cognitive psychology. Belmont: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  99. Stoffregen, T. A., Bardy, B. G., Smart, L. J., & Pagulayan, R. J. (2003). On the nature and evaluation of fidelity in virtual environments. In L. J. Hettinger & M. Haas (Eds.), Virtual and adaptive environments: Applications, implications, and human performance issues (pp. 111–128). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  100. Sun, R. (2002). Duality of the mind. A bottom-up approach toward cognition. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  101. Sun, R., Merrill, E., & Peterson, T. (2001). From implicit skills to explicit knowledge: A bottom-up model of skill learning. Cognitive Science, 25, 203–244.Google Scholar
  102. Sun, R., Slusarz, P., & Terry, C. (2005). The interaction of the explicit and the implicit in skill learning: A dual-process approach. Psychological Review, 112, 159–192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Sweller, J. (2006). How the human cognitive system deals with complexity. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments. Theory and research (pp. 13–27). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  104. Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., McNall, L. A., & Salas, E. (2010). Informal learning and development in organizations. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organization (pp. 303–332). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  105. Uitdewillingen, S., Waller, M. J., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2010). Team cognition and adaptability in dynamic settings: A review of pertinent work. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25, 293–353.Google Scholar
  106. van den Bosch, K., & Riemersma, J. B. J. (2004). Reflections on scenario-based training in tactical command. In S. G. Schiflett, L. R. Elliot, E. Salas, & M. D. Coovert (Eds.), Scaled worlds: Development, validation and applications (pp. 1–22). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  107. Vicente, K. J., Mumaw, R. J., & Roth, E. M. (2004). Operator monitoring in a complex dynamic work environment: A qualitative cognitive model based on field observations. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 5, 359–384.Google Scholar
  108. Von der Heyde, A., Presting, P., Kluge, A., & Badura, B. (2012). Social norms and their impact on safety-related rule violations in process control: Does it make a difference if operators are aware that residents will be injured? In Proceedings of the human factors and Ergonomics Society 56th annual conference, Boston 2012 (pp. 243–247). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  109. Waller, M. J., Gupta, N., & Giambatista, R. C. (2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Management Science, 50, 1534–1544.Google Scholar
  110. Wexley, K. N., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Developing and training human resources in organizations (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  111. Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  112. Wickens, C., Hutchins, S., Carolan, T., & Cumming, J. D. (2012). Attention and cognitive resources load in training strategies. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne Jr. (Eds.), Training cognition. Optimizing efficiency, durability, and generalizability (pp. 67–88). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  113. Wiegmann, D. A., & Shappell, S. A. (2001). A human error analysis of commercial aviation accidents using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS). Office of Aviation Medicine/FAA. ADA387808. Retrieved December 8, 2012, from
  114. Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Pavlas, D., Steward, J. E., & Howse, W. R. (2012). Team knowledge research: Emerging trends and critical needs. Human Factors, 54, 84–111.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Xinwen, B., Erping, W., Ying, Z., Dafei, M., & Jing, R. (2006). Developmental characteristics of two types of shared mental models. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38, 598–606.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annette Kluge
    • 1
  1. 1.Business and Organizational PsychologyUniversity Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations