Construction and validation of an updated perfect automation schema (uPAS) scale

被引:3
|
作者
Gibson, Anthony M. [1 ]
Capiola, August [2 ]
Alarcon, Gene M. [2 ]
Lee, Michael A. [3 ]
Jessup, Sarah A. [1 ]
Hamdan, Izz Aldin [3 ]
机构
[1] Consortium Univ, Washington, DC USA
[2] US Air Force, Res Lab, Wright Patterson AFB, OH USA
[3] Gen Dynam Informat Technol, Falls Church, VA USA
关键词
automation schema; reliability; validity; INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES; TRUST; MEMORY; BIASES;
D O I
10.1080/1463922X.2022.2081375
中图分类号
TB18 [人体工程学];
学科分类号
1201 ;
摘要
The perfect automation schema is described as a representation people hold regarding the performance of automated systems, comprising initial high expectations for automated systems' performance and low forgiveness after automated systems fail. Merritt, Unnersta II, Lee, and Huber have created a self-report measure of perfect automation schema comprising the two aforementioned factors, but this measure has demonstrated poor internal consistency estimates. In the present research, we created an updated perfect automation schema (uPAS) scale that showed acceptable reliability and validity estimates. In Study 1, we generated items that described both factors of perfect automation schema and conducted an exploratory factor analysis. In Study 2, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the uPAS scale composition and examined the scale's convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity. We found acceptable reliability estimates for the new scale across both studies. In Study 2, however, we found the uPAS scale factors and the factors from Merritt and colleagues' scale showed similar criterion validity across three trust-related criteria (trustworthiness perceptions, reliance intentions, and use endorsement). We conclude by offering a reliable uPAS scale to assess the perfect automation schema, which showed comparable criterion-related validity to Merritt and colleagues' scale.
引用
收藏
页码:241 / 266
页数:26
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Measuring Individual Differences in the Perfect Automation Schema
    Merritt, Stephanie M.
    Unnerstall, Jennifer L.
    Lee, Deborah
    Huber, Kelli
    HUMAN FACTORS, 2015, 57 (05) : 740 - 753
  • [2] Automation-Induced Complacency Potential: Development and Validation of a New Scale
    Merritt, Stephanie M.
    Ako-Brew, Alicia
    Bryant, William J.
    Staley, Amy
    McKenna, Michael
    Leone, Austin
    Shirase, Lei
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 10
  • [3] CONSTRUCTION OF AN ANXIETY SCALE AND ITS VALIDATION
    HAGIUDA, N
    JAPANESE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1995, 66 (01) : 16 - 23
  • [4] A Brief Version of the Leahy Emotional Schema Scale: a Validation Study
    Suh, Jong-Woo
    Lee, Heejae J.
    Yoo, Nahyun
    Min, Han
    Seo, Dong Gi
    Choi, Kee-Hong
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE THERAPY, 2019, 12 (01): : 38 - 54
  • [5] Construction and validation of the foreign language learning enjoyment scale
    Aydin, Selami
    Tekin, Isil
    Akkas, Ferdane D.
    PSYCHOLOGY IN THE SCHOOLS, 2024, 61 (02) : 657 - 670
  • [6] Construction and Validation of Institutional Identity Scale for University Students
    Bilal, Zunaira
    Ghayas, Saba
    Naeem, Taram
    Kayani, Sumaira
    Xie, Ruibo
    Biasutti, Michele
    CHILDREN-BASEL, 2021, 8 (08):
  • [7] Individual differences in human-machine trust: A multi-study look at the perfect automation schema
    Lyons, Joseph B.
    Guznov, Svyatoslav Y.
    THEORETICAL ISSUES IN ERGONOMICS SCIENCE, 2019, 20 (04) : 440 - 458
  • [8] Teachers' digital competences: a scale construction and validation study
    Aydin, Mehmet Kemal
    Yildirim, Turgut
    Kus, Metin
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2024, 15
  • [9] Construction and Validation of the Interest Development Scale
    Boeder, Jordan D.
    Postlewaite, Elyse L.
    Renninger, K. Ann
    Hidi, Susanne E.
    MOTIVATION SCIENCE, 2021, 7 (01) : 68 - 82
  • [10] CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDATION OF THE WILLINGNESS TO FORGIVE SCALE
    Mora-pelegrin, Miguel
    Vazquez, M. agustina
    Aranda, Maria
    Montes-berges, Beatriz
    Armenteros-martinez, Elena
    ACCION PSICOLOGICA, 2024, 21 (1-2): : 59 - 72