In 1974 an article appeared in Science magazine with the dry-sounding title “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” by a pair of psychologists who were not well known outside their discipline of decision theory. In it Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman introduced the world to Prospect Theory, which mapped out how humans actually behave when faced with decisions about gains and losses, in contrast to how economists assumed that people behave. Prospect Theory turned Economics on its head by demonstrating through a series of ingenious experiments that people are much more concerned with losses than they are with gains, and that framing a choice from one perspective or the other will result in decisions that are exactly the opposite of each other, even if the outcomes are monetarily the same. Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of our brain’s wiring.

Thinking fast and slow.

Pedagosko i psiholosko testiranje i procjenjivanje spadaju među najvažnije doprinose znanosti o ponasanju nasem drustvu i pružaju temeljna i znacajna poboljsanja u odnosu na ranije postupke. Iako se ne može ustvrditi da su svi testovi dovoljno usavrseni niti da su sva testiranja razborita i korisna, postoji velika kolicina informacija koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima. Pravilna upotreba testova može dovesti do boljih odluka o pojedincima i programima nego sto bi to bio slucaj bez njihovog koristenja, a također i ukazati na put za siri i pravedniji pristup obrazovanju i zaposljavanju. Međutim, losa upotreba testova može dovesti do zamjetne stete nanesene ispitanicima i drugim sudionicima u procesu donosenja odluka na temelju testovnih podataka. Cilj Standarda je promoviranje kvalitetne i eticne upotrebe testova te uspostavljanje osnovice za ocjenu kvalitete postupaka testiranja. Svrha objavljivanja Standarda je uspostavljanje kriterija za evaluaciju testova, provedbe testiranja i posljedica upotrebe testova. Iako bi evaluacija prikladnosti testa ili njegove primjene trebala ovisiti prvenstveno o strucnim misljenjima, Standardi pružaju okvir koji osigurava obuhvacanje svih relevantnih pitanja. Bilo bi poželjno da svi autori, sponzori, nakladnici i korisnici profesionalnih testova usvoje Standarde te da poticu druge da ih također prihvate.

Standards for educational and psychological testing

The Visual Display of Quantitative Information

在翟象俊主编的《大学英语》第2册第5单元中，有这样一个句子：“As a boy and then as an adult, I never lost my wonder at the personality that was Einstein.”教参中指出“the personality that was Einstein”应理解为“the personality which was the most striking characteristic of Einstein”，该句译为“作为一个孩子，到后来作为一个成人，我一直对爱因斯坦的个性惊叹不已”。很明显，在这里译者把“personality”理解为“个性，人格”，但本人认为应译为“人物，名人”更妥。“personality”可作“个性，人格”讲，但它还有另外一个重要意思。在陆谷孙主编的《英汉大词典》（1993年版）中，“personality”第3条释义为：“个人，人物，名人”：“appoint a personality to lead a campaign，派一个人去领导一场运动”。“a personality in the news，新闻人物”。在...

此处“personality”译法探析

A clutch of '-isms' characterises the approach to consciousness which David Chalmers defends: dualism, epiphenomenalism, functionalism, anti-reductionism, and -probably -panpsychism. (The author would no doubt want 'naturalism' included in the list as well, but as we shall see, Chalmers' predilection to describe his theory as 'scientific' stretches credibility.) While the book does not, as far as I can see, move consciousness research significantly forward, Chalmers succeeds admirably in clarifying the philosophical terrain around and within each of these '-isms' and in questioning the usual assumptions which suggest some of them are mutually exclusive. Because nearly all of what follows is highly critical, I want to be explicit about one thing: I do not think this is a bad book. Throughout, most discussions keep to a very high standard; it's just that they include fatal flaws.

The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory

This paper presents results from three experiments in which human operators were teamed with a mixed-initiative robot control system to accomplish various indoor search and exploration tasks. By assessing human workload and error together with overall performance, these experiments provide an objective means to contrast different modes of robot autonomy and to evaluate both the usability of the interface and the effectiveness of autonomous robot behavior. The first experiment compares the performance achieved when the robot takes initiative to support human driving with the opposite case when the human takes initiative to support autonomous robot driving. The utility of robot autonomy is shown through achievement of better performance when the robot is in the driver's seat. The second experiment introduces a virtual three-dimensional (3-D) map representation that supports collaborative understanding of the task and environment. When used in place of video, the 3-D map reduced operator workload and navigational error. By lowering bandwidth requirements, use of the virtual 3-D interface enables long-range, nonline-of-sight communication. Results from the third experiment extend the findings of experiment 1 by showing that collaborative control can increase performance and reduce error even when the complexity of the environment is increased and workload is distributed amongst multiple operators.

Shared understanding for collaborative control

The Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) method has proved to be a reliable, easy-to-use method for human reliability analysis. Calculation of human error probability (HEP) rates is especially straightforward, starting with pre-defined nominal error rates for cognitive vs. action oriented tasks, and incorporating performance shaping factor (PSF) multipliers upon those nominal error rates. SPAR-H uses eight PSFs with multipliers typically corresponding to nominal, degraded, and severely degraded human performance for individual PSFs. Additionally, some PSFs feature multipliers to reflect enhanced performance. Although SPAR-H enjoys widespread use among industry and regulators, current source documents on SPAR-H such as NUREG/CR-6883 do not provide a clear account of the origin of these multipliers. The present paper redresses this shortcoming and documents the historic development of the SPAR-H PSF multipliers, from the initial use of nominal error rates, to the selection of the eight PSFs, to the mapping of multipliers to available data sources such as a Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (THERP). Where error rates were not readily derived from THERP and other sources, expert judgment was used to extrapolate appropriate values. In documenting key background information on the multipliers, this paper provides a much needed cross-reference for human reliability practitioners and researchers of SPAR-H to validate analyses and research findings.

/pdf/the-origins-of-the-spar-h-method-s-performance-shaping-2sdvp38v9v.pdf

The origins of the SPAR-H method’s performance shaping factor multipliers

This paper describes a cognitively based human reliability analysis (HRA) quantification technique for estimating the human error probabilities (HEPs) associated with operator and crew actions at nuclear power plants. The method described here, Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) method, was developed to aid in characterizing and quantifying human performance at nuclear power plants. The intent was to develop a defensible method that would consider all factors that may influence performance. In the SPAR-H approach, calculation of HEP rates is especially straightforward, starting with pre-defined nominal error rates for cognitive vs. action-oriented tasks, and incorporating performance shaping factor multipliers upon those nominal error rates.

/pdf/human-error-quantification-using-performance-shaping-factors-4cmyqohuay.pdf

Human Error Quantification Using Performance Shaping Factors in the SPAR-H Method

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc926335/m2/1/high_res_d/974398.pdf

Issues in Benchmarking Human Reliability Analysis Methods: A Literature Review

The goal of performance shaping factors (PSFs) is to provide measures to account for human performance. PSFs fall into two categories—direct and indirect measures of human performance. While some PSFs such as “time to complete a task” are directly measurable, other PSFs, such as “fitness for duty,” can only be measured indirectly through other measures and PSFs, such as through fatigue measures. This paper explores the role of direct and indirect measures in human reliability analysis (HRA) and the implications that measurement theory has on analyses and applications using PSFs. The paper concludes with suggestions for maximizing the reliability and validity of PSFs.

/pdf/the-measure-of-human-error-direct-and-indirect-performance-2gd2603dwi.pdf

Ronald L. Boring

Papers

Shared understanding for collaborative control

The origins of the SPAR-H method’s performance shaping factor multipliers

Human Error Quantification Using Performance Shaping Factors in the SPAR-H Method

Issues in Benchmarking Human Reliability Analysis Methods: A Literature Review

The Measure of human error: Direct and indirect performance shaping factors