Publication statistics
Pub. period:1987-2009
Pub. count:13
Number of co-authors:25
Co-authors
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:
Susan G. Hill:5Allen L. Zaklad:4James C. Byers:4 Productive colleagues
Alvah C. Bittner's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:
John D. Lee:23David Meister:22William F. Moroney:18
“
For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three.
”
-- Alice Kahn
Featured chapter
Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann
Read Steve's chapter !
Alvah C. Bittner
Publications by Alvah C. Bittner (bibliography)
Bittner, Alvah C. and Bittner, Rachel C. L. (2009): "Right-Sizing" Research Studies: Assuring Adequate, Not Grossly-Overlarge Sample-Sizes. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting 2009. pp. 1863-1867.
“A "right-sizing" system is demonstrated that provides for: robust estimations of minimum study sample-size requirements, and efficient evaluations of alternate parameter assumptions. Importantly, 'assumption evaluations' often result in the avoidance of grossly-oversized studies [e.g., added $10K-$1000K costs]. "Right-sizing" calculations may be quickly conducted using simple-computational tools (eg, hand calculator) during a meeting as questions arise. Built upon an understanding of the robust mechanisms underlying the Dunlap "2-2" heuristic (re: α=0.05 2-tailed, and 1-β ≥ 0.80), it is applicable to the same range of dichotomous-to-interval data, but is also generalized to broadly accommodate correlated means and a full-spectrum of alternative α,1-β combinations. We recommend our right-sizing system to HF/E and other practitioners interested in (1) Assuring adequate study sample-sizes, and (2) Avoiding grossly oversized studies that drain critical resources.”
© All rights reserved Bittner and Bittner and/or their publisher
Wheeler, William A., Lee, John D., Raby, Mireille, Kinghorn, Rhonda A., Bittner, Alvah C. and McCallum, Marvin C. (1994): Predicting Driver Behavior Using Advanced Traveler Information Systems. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting 1994. pp. 1057-1061.
“As a part of the Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS), Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) will offer tomorrow's drivers significantly expanded capabilities for getting where they want to go safely and efficiently. Vehicle-based navigation systems combined with information on highway conditions and services have the potential for improving driver performance. Though ATIS may offer considerable advantages, the system design must be consistent with the primary tasks of controlling and operating the vehicle. This paper describes an attempt to identify the likely interaction between what a driver must do to operate the vehicle safely while at the same time using the various ATIS systems. As such, it is an attempt to visualize what driving with these advanced systems will be like and to translate that vision into standard human factors task analytic techniques. Though a broad range of ATIS systems and functions were addressed in this project, this paper will address the macro-level task analyses that resulted from the examination of 165 tasks related to ATIS use.”
© All rights reserved Wheeler et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Kinghorn, Rhonda A., Bittner, Alvah C. and Kantowitz, Barry H. (1994): Identification of Desired System Features in an Advanced Traveler Information System. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting 1994. pp. 1067-1071.
“This study evaluated consumer acceptance of variations of a currently available Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS). We also wanted to determine if video demonstration was sufficient for observers to grasp the fundamentals of ATIS devices. A total of 109 licensed drivers viewed two videotaped demonstrations of TravTek, and then completed questionnaires. Principal Factor Analyses resulted in patterns of desired features and other composite variables used in regression analyses. Basic map features (e.g., vehicle position/location, outline of route) and voice features were the two dominant feature patterns. Other composite variables included understanding of the system capabilities, trust, self-confidence, tolerance of system errors, demonstration fidelity and attention. Results of the regression analyses indicated that different variables were significant predictors of each pattern of desired features.”
© All rights reserved Kinghorn et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Meister, David, Enderwick, Thomas P., Bittner, Alvah C., Geddie, James C., Moroney, William F. and Muckler, Frederick A. (1994): T&E: Where are We Now and Where are We Going?. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting 1994. pp. 1077-1079.
“The purpose of this panel discussion is to examine the present status of test and evaluation (T&E) methodology, to consider the problems it faces, and to project its future in the 21st century. The discussion will attempt to raise the consciousness of measurement specialists to an awareness of the factors that affect their work.”
© All rights reserved Meister et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Morrissey, Stephen J. and Bittner, Alvah C. (1989): Accuracy of a Ratio-Estimation Method to Set Maximum Acceptable Weights in Lifting Tasks. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 742-744.
“This study examined the accuracy with which trained and conditioned females could set Maximum Acceptable Weights (MAWs) using ratio estimation. Examined were two lifting ranges, floor-to-knuckle and knuckle-to-shoulder, and four lift frequencies (lifts every 9-, 20-, 60-, and 120-seconds). In each of the eight conditions subjects set the MAW using the method of adjustment. Immediately after the MAW had been set, the task was changed, performed for a few cycles, and rated using ratio estimation. This rating was used to establish an estimated MAW for the second lifting task. On a later day, the MAW was set for the second task using the method of adjustment and the MAW for the original task estimated with ratio estimation. This allowed comparison of the accuracy of MAWs set by psychophysical and ratio estimation methods as affected by the frequency and lifting zone of the standard task. Consistent with previous research there were significant effects on the MAW due to frequency of lift and the lift range. Also, and importantly, there were no significant differences between MAWs set by ratio estimation and by the traditional method of adjustment (p>0.6). This indicates that ratio estimation is an accurate method to quickly establish MAWs for a variety of lifting tasks. This indicates that MAWs for entire classes of lifting tasks can be quickly and accurately determined with ratio estimation.”
© All rights reserved Morrissey and Bittner and/or Human Factors Society
Christ, Richard E., Zaklad, Allen L., Bittner, Alvah C., Hill, Susan G. and Linton, Paul M. (1989): The Army Operator Workload (OWL) Program: Review and Prospects. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1471-1475.
“The Operator Workload (OWL) Program is a just-completed, three-year, basic and applied research effort sponsored by the Army Research Institute (ARI). As part of the Army's research thrust into workload, the OWL Program was directed to establish guidance for the assessment of OWL associated with the operation of Army systems. Its intent was to identify and integrate the most relevant of workload research into a set of practicable workload assessment methods for Army developers, and then apply and validate these methods on selected Army systems. Lessons learned from OWL studies of these systems formed the basis for guidance for Army system developers. This paper overviews the objectives, the accomplishments, and the future prospects of the OWL Program.”
© All rights reserved Christ et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Bittner, Alvah C., Byers, James C., Hill, Susan G., Zaklad, Allen L. and Christ, Richard E. (1989): Generic Workload Ratings of a Mobile Air Defense System (LOS-F-H). In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1476-1480.
“Operator workload (OWL) scales were used to obtain ratings of generic mission scenarios and tasks for a mobile air defense missile system (LOS-F-H) following a candidate-selection field evaluation. NASA TLX, SWAT, Overall Workload (OW), and the Modified Cooper-Harper (MCH) ratings were obtained from both crew and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). Jackknife factor analysis revealed the presence of only a single "OWL" factor for both crew and SMEs (explaining 75.9% and 82.6% of the respective total variances) and indicated a significant (p < 0.00005) ordering of the mean factor loadings: TLX (0.924) was significantly greater than OW (0.905) and MCH (0.904), which were greater than SWAT (0.778). Subsequent analysis of OWL factor scores indicated that the crew and SMEs yielded essentially equivalent evaluations of OWL for the system variables investigated. This analysis also indicated that the highest levels of OWL were obtained for the track-to-intercept task during dual Rotary-Wing (RW) and Fixed-Wing (FW) attacks although the ID/IFF task during a dual RW attack was almost as high. These findings are discussed in the context of a methodology for assessing OWL.”
© All rights reserved Bittner et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Iavecchia, Helene P., Linton, Paul M., Bittner, Alvah C. and Byers, James C. (1989): Operator Workload in the UH-60A Black Hawk: Crew Results vs. TAWL Model Predictions. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1481-1485.
“An empirical study was undertaken to collect real-time workload estimates of pilots and copilots performing a resupply mission in a UH-60A flight simulator. Overall and peak workload (OW and PW) ratings were collected for twelve mission segments. These ratings were compared with OW and PW values predicted by the Task Analysis/Workload (TAWL) simulation model. High correlations were found between TAWL-based predictions and crew results for OW (r = 0.82 to 0.95; p < .01). Lower correlations were found for PW (r = 0.62; p < .05).”
© All rights reserved Iavecchia et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Harris, Regina M., Iavecchia, Helene P. and Bittner, Alvah C. (1988): Everything You Always Wanted to Know about HOS Micromodels but Were Afraid to Ask. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 1051-1055.
“HOS-IV is a general purpose simulation tool for modeling human operators, systems and the environment. To build a simulation, inputs to the model typically include descriptions of the system design, procedures for using the system, human operator characteristics, and a mission scenario. A set of operator micromodels are available to the HOS user to assist in the development of the simulation. These micromodels contain algorithms, based on experimental literature, that can predict the timing and accuracy of basic human cognitive, perceptual, and psychomotor actions. This paper describes the current set of human performance models available in HOS-IV as well as micromodels planned for development.”
© All rights reserved Harris et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Hill, Susan G., Zaklad, Allen L., Bittner, Alvah C., Byers, James C. and Christ, Richard E. (1988): The Workload Assessment of a Mobile Air Defense Missile System. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 1068-1072.
“Four operator workload (OWL) scales were retrospectively applied to crewmembers of a mobile air defense missile system, LOS-F(H), following a candidate-selection field evaluation: NASA TLX, SWAT, Overall Workload (OW), and the Modified Cooper-Harper (MCH). Jackknife factor analysis revealed the presence of only a single factor (explaining 79.6% of the total variation) and indicated a significant (p<.0075) ordering of the mean factor loadings: TLX (.935) and OW (.927) were significantly greater than MCH (.862) and SWAT (.860). Comparison with an earlier field test of a remotely piloted vehicle revealed a significant (p<.00005) interaction of test and ordering of the OWL scales, but TLX and MCH consistently had the respectively highest and lowest loadings across the two field tests. Multiple correlation also revealed a significant (p<.0001) relationship, R = 0.66, between system performance and TLX. These findings and lessons learned are discuss in the context of the development and validation of a methodology for assessing OWL.”
© All rights reserved Hill et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Byers, James C., Bittner, Alvah C., Hill, Susan G., Zaklad, Allen L. and Christ, Richard E. (1988): Workload Assessment of a Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) System. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 1145-1149.
“Four empirical operator workload (OWL) scales were applied to ground control operations of the Aquila RPV during a recent field test: NASA TLX, SWAT, Overall Workload (OW), and the Modified Cooper-Harper (MCH). Seventeen sets of individual assessments of mission segments were made by the four members of each of four crews and one replacement crewman. "Jackknife factor analysis" revealed the presence of only a single factor and indicated that the mean factor loadings formed a consistent ordering (F(3,48) = 503.5, p<.00005): TLX (.910) > SWAT (.893) > OW (.869) > MCH (.833). ANOVAs also examined the effects of various variables on the composite workload factor scores; significant findings were found which reflected both upon the system and its test. These findings as well as informal lessons learned are discussed in the context of the development and validation of a methodology for assessing OWL.”
© All rights reserved Byers et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Glenn, Floyd A., Dick, A. O. and Bittner, Alvah C. (1987): Prediction of Personnel Requirements for System Operation. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting 1987. pp. 358-362.
“This paper presents the concept of an Automated Job Analysis Tool (AJAT) which predicts personnel characteristics that are required in order to ensure acceptable human-system performance with a specified system design. The scope of this tool is intended to be quite broad, applying to all types of military systems, addressing the performance of both operators and maintainers, providing a means for considering training issues, and incorporating the effects of all relevant performance-impacting factors. In order to achieve this objective, several major innovations in performance prediction technology are required; these are described in this paper in terms of AJAT requirements, current technology status, and a plan for developing and validating the required capabilities. The AJAT concept is based on the use of existing models (i.e., HOS, CAR, and possibly others) to predict performance under specified conditions and the use of a factor-analytic framework to achieve efficient mapping of the performance space of interest.”
© All rights reserved Glenn et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Hill, Susan G., Plamondon, Brian D., Wierwille, Walter W., Lysaght, Robert J., Dick, A. O. and Bittner, Alvah C. (1987): Analytic Techniques for the Assessment of Operator Workload. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting 1987. pp. 368-372.
“Workload techniques may be divided into two broad classes: 1) Analytic techniques -- predictive techniques that may be applied early in system design before "operator-in-the-loop" studies; and 2) Empirical techniques -- workload measurements taken with "operator-in-the-loop" during simulator, prototype, or system evaluations. Described here are five categories of the analytic techniques: 1) Comparability Analysis; 2) Mathematical Models; 3) Expert Opinion; 4) Task Analytic Methods; and 5) Simulation Models. A description, with examples, is given for each category. The motivation for focusing on the analytic techniques lies in their application during the earliest stages of system development where the greatest design flexibility is available at the least cost.”
© All rights reserved Hill et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Show this list on your homepage
Join the technology elite and advance:
Changes to this page (author)
03 Nov 2010: Added20 Feb 2010: Modified26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
Page Information
Page maintainer:
The Editorial Team
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/alvah_c__bittner.html
Log in !
