臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
在進步型核電廠主控制室裡，三位運轉員組成的團隊要在所有的情境，譬如一般、異常、緊急的狀況下確保電廠的安全，因此評估主核電廠控制室團隊作業環境下的工作負荷將會是人因工程研究的重要議題之一，NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) 在過去許多的研究中被使用來測量人員的主觀工作負荷，雖然NASA-TLX已經是一個應用十分廣泛且有效的的主觀工作負荷評估工具，然而一些團隊作業的研究指出NASA-TLX在團隊作業環境下所量測出的負荷值與工作績效間沒有顯著的關聯性，NASA-TLX似乎無法正確與敏感的量測團隊作業環境的工作負荷。
在本研究中，依據過去研究團隊作業特性的文獻發展出一個評估團隊作業工作負荷的問卷，並以協調、溝通、支援領導與時間分配這四個重要的團隊作業特性發展出量表，再與NASA-TLX結合，目的是發展一個適用於團隊作業的主觀工作負荷量測方法，並驗證本問卷具有信度、效度、敏感度。
接著對所發展的問卷進行驗證性因素分析與內部一致性Cronbach’s α係數來驗證問卷的信度與效度，最後，以比較NASA-TLX與本研究所修增的評估方法所量測到的主觀工作負荷來驗證團隊作業環境下的工作負荷量測合適性，從比較中發現團隊作業工作負荷比NASA-TLX在作業績效上有更好的敏感度，因此可以結論出本研究所發展的量測方法是能夠來評估核電廠主控制室團隊作業環境下的工作負荷。

Abstract
For a main control room of advanced nuclear power plant, a team of three operators have been adopted to enhance the safety of all the scenarios including general, abnormal, and emergency completely. Therefore, evaluation workload of the team operators in the MCR of NPP would be one of the more intriguing issues of human factor engineering (HFE) research. The NASA task load index (NASA-TLX) has been selected to measure the workload of operator usually in much past research, because it is applicable when detailed and diagnostic data are needed. However, some research about teamwork indicated the workload that measured by the NASA-TLX did not have any correlation with team performance. That is, the NASA-TLX seems not to estimate the team workload accurately and sensitively.
In this study, a questionnaire to evaluate the team workload is developed based on literature review concerned with the characteristics of teamwork. Based on these, the scales of “coordination”, “communication”, “support and lead”, and “time shared” that were the important characteristics of teamwork were developed. Then, this study used Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Cronbach’s α coefficient to examine the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Finally, to verify the suitableness of the team workload measure, the team workload scores are compared with subjective task load scores obtained from the NASA-TLX method and task performance obtained from an experiment design. From these comparisons, it was observed that team workload scores have more sensitive with task performance than the NASA-TLX scores. Thus, it could be concluded that the developed team workload measure would be considered for evaluating the workload of teamwork in the MCR of NPP.

中文摘要 I
英文摘要 II
目錄 III
圖目錄 V
表目錄 VI
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 背景 1
1.2 動機 1
1.3 目的 2
1.4 研究限制 3
1.5 研究流程 3
第二章 文獻探討 4
2.1 運轉員與新型介面 4
2.2 新型核電廠數位介面控制 4
2.3 核電廠主控制室運轉員相關研究 5
2.4 核電廠主控制室組員作業職責 5
2.5 團隊運作的組成與相關研究 8
第三章 研究方法 18
3.1 團隊作業的工作負荷評量問卷的發展 18
3.2 核能運轉系統主控制室緊急作業流程 19
3.3 驗證量表之實驗 21
3.3.1 受試者 21
3.3.2 實驗設備 21
3.3.3 實驗設計 22
3.3.4 實驗程序 27
3.4 信度、效度、敏感度之驗證方法 28
3.4.1 效度驗證 28
3.4.2 信度驗證 28
3.4.3 敏感度驗證 29
第四章 資料分析與結果 30
4.1 基本人口與背景 30
4.2 效度分析 30
4.3 信度分析 32
4.4 敏感度分析 33
4.5 各面向與完成率之迴歸分析 39
4.6 職務與工作負荷的關係 41
4.7 緊急程序書的失敗成功與工作負荷 46
第五章 討論 52
5.1 本研究所發展問卷的信、效度與敏感度 52
5.2 負荷面向對完成率的貢獻度 52
5.3 職務與工作負荷 54
5.4 本研究所發展問卷的適用性 55
5.5 結論與建議 56
參考文獻 59
附錄A 實驗手冊 64
附錄B 受試者所填寫之團隊作業負荷程度問卷 69
附錄C 受試者所填寫的NASA-TLX問卷 71
附錄D 本研究補充NASA-TLX團隊行為面向 72
附錄E NASA-TLX問卷分數計算範例 73
附錄F TLX+TLA負荷分數計算案例 75

圖目錄
圖1- 1 本研究架構 3
圖2- 1 TEAM MENTAL MODEL 概念圖 17
圖2- 2 團隊作業關連架構圖. 17
圖3- 1 問卷參考文獻依據 18
圖3- 2 緊急操作程序書 20
圖3- 3 系統操作介面 22
圖3- 4 附加作業畫面 22
圖3- 5 本實驗流程 28
圖4- 1 職務與各面向平均負荷分數差異 43
圖4- 2 職務與團隊面向重要度圈選次數差異 44
圖5- 1 職務與結果交互作用圖 55

表目錄

表2- 1 龍門電廠主控制室人員權責的配置 6
表3- 1 NASA-TLX公式3.1各參數代表意義 24
表3- 2 NASA-TLX六項工作負荷指標說明 25
表3- 3 公式3.2新增加參數意義 26
表3- 4 新增工作負荷指標說明 26
表4- 1 TLA面向之KMO與BARTLETT檢定 30
表4- 2 協調、溝通、支援領導、時間分配問卷量表的因素分析結果 31
表4- 3 各面向之平均數標準差與簡單相關分析 32
表4- 4 NASA-TLX分數與完成率相關性分析 33
表4- 5 TLX+TLA負荷分數與完成率相關性分析 33
表4- 6 NASA-TLX分數模式係數的 OMNIBUS 檢定 34
表4- 7 TLX+TLA負荷分數模式係數的 OMNIBUS 檢定 34
表4- 8 NASA-TLX分數模式係數的 OMNIBUS 檢定 34
表4- 9 TLX+TLA工作負荷分數模式係數的 OMNIBUS 檢定 34
表4- 10 NASA-TLX分數模式摘要 35
表4- 11 TLX+TLA工作負荷分數模式摘要 35
表4- 12 NASA-TLX分數模式HOSMER 和 LEMESHOW 檢定 35
表4- 13 TLX+TLA工作負荷分數模式HOSMER 和 LEMESHOW 檢定 35
表4- 14 NASA-TLX分數模型分類表(A) 36
表4- 15 TLX+TLA工作負荷分數模型分類表(A) 36
表4- 16 NASA-TLX分數模型的LOGISTIC迴歸方程式 37
表4- 17 TLX+TLA工作負荷分數模型的LOGISTIC迴歸方程式 37
表4- 18 模式差異摘要 38
表4- 19 迴歸模式摘要 39
表4- 20 迴歸係數 39
表4- 21 迴歸模式摘要 40
表4- 22 迴歸係數 40
表4- 23 職務與NASA分數 41
表4- 24 職務與TLX+TLA負荷分數 41
表4- 25 職務與NASA加權分數的平均數與標準差 41
表4- 26 NASA-TLX各面向權重分數與職務變異數分析 42
表4- 27 職務與團隊作業負荷分數平均數與標準差 42
表4- 28 職務與團隊作業各面向負荷分數變異數分析 43
表4- 29 職務與面向重要度圈選次數平均數標準差 44
表4- 30 職務與各面向重要度圈選變異數分析 45
表4- 31 兩種團隊在各種負荷分數的平均數標準差 46
表4- 32 兩種團隊的各種負荷分數的變異數分析 46
表4- 33 兩種團隊在團隊作業面向的原始負荷分數 47
表4- 34 兩種團隊在NASA-TLX面向的原始負荷分數 47
表4- 35 兩種團隊與工作負荷各面向原始負荷分數變異數分析 48
表4- 36 兩種團隊在NASA-TLX六個面向的重要度圈選變異數分析 49
表4- 37 兩種團隊在團隊作業四個面向的重要度圈選變異數分析 49
表4- 38 兩種團隊在團隊作業四個面向加權負荷分數的平均數與標準差 50
表4- 39 兩種團隊在NASA-TLX六個面向加權負荷分數的平均數與標準差 50
表4- 40 兩種團隊在各個面向加權負荷分數的變異數分析 51
表5- 1 職務與結果對溝通負荷的二因子變異數分析 54

參考文獻

1.黃雪玲，黃斐慧，林蒼威，林品君，王珮嘉，2006。建構一輔助團隊作業之電腦化模式－以核能發電廠作業環境為例(研究計畫編號NSC 92－2212)。台灣：行政院國家科學委員會。
2.蔡維彬，1999。主控制室運轉人員心智負荷量測方法之發展。碩士學位論文，交通大學，台灣。
3.Boff, K. R., Kaufman, L., and Thomas, J. P. (1986). Handbook of perception and human performance. Cognitive processes and performance. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
4.Bowers, C. A., Braun, C.C., Morgan, B. B. Jr. (1997). Team workload: its meaning and Measurement. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, C. Prince, Team Performance Assessment and measurement: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 85-110). Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.Brannick, M. T., Prince, A., Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1995). The measurement of team process. Human Factors, 37, 641-651.
6.Campbell, G.E., Freeman, J.T., & Hildebrand, G. (2000). Measuring the impact of advanced technologies and reorganization on human performance in a combat information center. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 44th Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.
7.Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333-380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.Carvalho, P. V. R., Dos Santos, I. L., Gomes, J. O., Borges, M. R. S., Guerlain, S. (2008). Human factors approach for evaluation and redesign of human–system interfaces of a nuclear power plant simulator. Displays, 29, 273–284.
9.Dickinson, T. L., & McIntyre, R. M. (1997). A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 19-45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.GE Nuclear Energy. (2008). Human Factors Verification & Validation Phase 3 (HF V&V-3) Integrated System Validation (ISV) Work Plan Rev.0. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, San Jose, CA.
11.Glickman, A S., Zimmer, S., Montero, R C., Guerette, P., Campbell, W., Morgan, B. B., & Salas, E (1987) The evolution of teamwork skills: An empirical assessment with implications for training (NTSC Tech. Rep No. TR-87-016). Orlando, FL Naval Training Systems Center.
12.Gopher, D., & Braune, R. (1984). On the psychophysics of workload: 'why bother with subjective measures? Human Factors, 26, 519-532
13.Gopher, D., Well, M., & Siegel, D. (1989) Practice under changing priorities: An approach to the training of complex skills. Special Issue: The learning strategies program: An examination of the strategies in skill acquisition. Acta Psychologica, 71, 147-177
14.Hart, S. G. & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results on empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock, & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload. Advances in psychology, 52 (pp. 139- 183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
15.Hwang, S. L., Yau, Y. J., Lin, Y. T., Chen, J. H., Huang, T. H., Yenn, T. C., Hsu, C. C. (2008). Predicting work performance in nuclear power plants. Safety Science, 46, 1115–1124.
16.Hwang, S. L., Lin, J. T., Liang, G. F., Yau, Y. J., Yenn, T. C., Hsu, C. C. (2008). Application control chart concepts of designing a pre-alarm system in the nuclear power plant control room. Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 238, Issue 12, 3522-3527.
17.Johnston, J. A., Smith-Jentsch, K. A., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1997). Performance measurement tools for enhancing team decision making. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 311-327). Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.Jou, Y. T., Lin, C. J., Yenn, T.C., Yang, C.W., Yang, L. C., Tsai, R. C. (2008). The implementation of a human factors engineering checklist for human–system interfaces upgrade in nuclear power plants. Safety Science, 47, 1016–1025.
19.Kim, S. C., Chang, S. H., Heo, G. (2006). Team crystallization (SIO2): Dynamic model of team effectiveness evaluation under the dynamic and tactical environment at nuclear installation. Safety Science, 44, 701–721.
20.Klimoski, R. and Jones, R. G. (1995). Staffing for effective group decision-making: key issues in matching people and teams. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas and Associates (Eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass), 291 -332.
21.Kontogiannis, T. (1996). Stress and operator decision making in coping with emergencies. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 45, 75 – 104.
22.Lee, Y. L., Hwang, S. L., Wang, E. M. Y. (2005). Reducing cognitive workload of a computer-based procedure system. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 63, 587–606.
23.Lim, B.C., Klein, K. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 27, 403–418.
24.Lintem, G., & Wickens, C. D. (1991). Issues for acquisition and transfer of timesharing and dual-task skills. In D. L. Damos (Ed), Multiple task performance (Pr 123- 138). London Taylor & Francis.
25.Ma, R., Kaber, D. B., Jones, J. M. & Starkey, R. L. (2006).Team Situation Awareness in Nuclear Power Plant Process Control: A Literature Review, Task Analysis and Future Research. NPIC&HMIT, Albuquerque, NM, November 12-16.
26.MacMillan, J., Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (2004). Communication overhead: The hidden cost of team cognition. In E. Salas, & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 61-82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
27.Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.
28.Mcintyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging principles from complex environments. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 149-203). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29.Morgan, B. B., Salas, E., & Glickman,AS. (1994). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 120, 277-291.
30.Mumaw, R.J., Roth, E.M., Vicente, K.J., Burns, C.M. (2000). There is more to monitoring a nuclear power plant than meets the eye. Human Factors. 42 (1), 36–55.
31.Nachreiner, F., Nickel, P., Meyer, I. (2006). Human factors in process control systems: the design of human–machine interfaces, Safety Science, 44, 5–26.
32.Norros, L., Nuutinen, M. (2005). Performance-based usability evaluation of a safety information and alarm system. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 63, 328–361.
33.Paris, C. R., Salas, E and Cannon-Bower, J. A. (2000). Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis, Ergonomics, Vol. 43, No. 8, 1052-1075.
34.Park, J. K., Jung, W. D., Ha, J. J., Shin, Y. H. (2004). Analysis of operators’ performance under emergencies using a training simulator of the nuclear power plant. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 83, 179–186.
35.Patrick, J., James, N., Ahmed, A. (2006). Human processes of control: tracing the goals and strategies of control room teams. Ergonomics, Vol. 49, No. 12–13, 10–22, 1395–1414.
36.Rasker, P. C., Post, W. M. and Schraagen, J. M. C. (2000). Effects of two types of intra-team feedback on developing a shared mental model in Command & Control teams. Ergonomics, Vol. 43, No. 8, 1167-1189.
37.Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349-363.
38.Sebok, A. L., Hallbert, B. P., Plott, B. M., Nash, S. S. (1997). Modeling Crew Behavior and Diagnoses in the Control Room. IEEE Sixth Annual Human Factors Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA, June, 7/13-7/17.
39.Sebok, A. (2000). Team performance in process control: influences of interface design and staffing levels. Ergonomics, 2000, Vol. 43, No. 8, 1210-1236.
40.Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Zeisig, R. L., Acton, B., & McPherson, J. A. (1998). Team dimensional training: A strategy for guided team self-correction. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers, & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 271-297). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
41.Stanton, N. (1996). Team performance: communication, co-ordination, co-operation and control. In N. Stanton (Ed), Human factors in nuclear safety (pp. 197-215), London Taylor & Francis.
42.Stout, R. J., Cannon-Bower, J. A., Salas, E., Milanovich, D. M. (1999). Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Human Factors, 41, 61–71.
43.Stout, R. J., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1996). The role of shared mental models in developing team situational awareness: Implications for training. Training Research Journal, 2, 85-116.
44.Strobhar, D.A. (1995). Evolution of operator decision making. ISA Transactions. 34, 405-409
45.Takano, K., Sasou, K. and Yoshimura, S. (1997). Structure of operators’ mental models in coping with anomalies occurring in nuclear power plants. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 47, 767-789.
46.Terranova, M., Holly, D., Coury, B. J. & Hooper, K. N. (1991). Individual and team communication in dynamic task, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting, pp. 954-8, Santa Monica, CA: HFS.
47.Thornton, C, Braun, C, Bowers, C, & Morgan, B. (1992). Automation effects in the cockpit: A low-fidelity investigation. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 36th Annual Meeting, 1, 30-3 4, Atlanta, GA Human Factors Society.
48.Vicente, K., Mumaw, R., Roth, E. (1997). Cognitive Functioning of Control Room Operators – Final Phase. AECB, 96-175, Atomic Energy Canadian Bureau, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
49.Vicente, K.J. (1999). Cognitive Work Analysis, Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-based Work. Hove, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50.Vicente, K.J., Roth, E., Mumaw, R.J. (2001). How do operators monitor a complex, dynamic work domain? The impact on control room technology. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies. 54, 831–856.
51.Waller, M. J., Gupta, N., Giambatista, R. C. (2004). Effects of Adaptive Behaviors and Shared Mental Models on Control Crew Performance. Management Science, Vol.50, No.11, pp. 1534-1544.
52.Wickens, C. D. (1991). Team in transition. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting, 2-6 September, Santa Monica, CA: HFS.
53.Woods, D. (1996). Decomposing automation: apparent simplicity, real complexity. In: R. Parasuraman, M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications (pp. 1–17), LEA, Mahwah.
54.Wright, M. C., Kaber, D. B. (2005). Effects of Automation of Information-Processing Functions on Teamwork. Human Factors, Vol. 47, No. 1, Spring, pp. 50-66.