Cognitive Engineering And Decision Making

[Rocki Eibl]

TheJournal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making is the premier journal of the Society for peer-reviewed original papers of scientific merit examining how people engage in cognitive work in real-world settings and how that work can be supported through the design of technologies, operating concepts and operating procedures, decision-making strategies, teams and organizations, and training protocols. Thus, the journal publishes rigorous approaches to the observation, modeling, analysis and design of complex work domains in which human expertise is paramount and multiple aspects of the work environment may drive performance. This scope is quite broad and may include:

May I publish the research in my HFES Annual Meeting Proceedings paper in the Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making?

Suitably revised papers printed in the HFES Annual Meeting Proceedings may be submitted for consideration in the Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making.

What does "suitably revised" mean?

The Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making publishes original, previously unpublished work that represents theoretical and practical advances. Papers published in this journal must adhere to the ethical guidelines regarding duplicate publication as described in the code of conduct of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. (A detailed discussion can be found in the APA Manual 6th edition.) Although duplicate publication of data is generally prohibited (in part because of issues raised for meta-analyses), the ethical standards allow for some exceptions when the data that were previously published are presented in a different way that represents a significant advance of theory or practice, and when there is proper acknowledgement that the data were previously published elsewhere. Solely adding length to a proceedings paper typically is not sufficient to warrant publication in the journal. The key consideration is whether the publication represents a significant advance beyond what has been published previously, such as introducing new data, reanalyzing or reframing previous data in a more substantive manner, or providing a broader discussion or context for qualitative data and/or presentations of new designs or methodologies than was possible in a proceedings paper.

For the HFES Proceedings, can I publish a summary of the Annual Meeting proposal I submitted for review?

Yes. Once a proposal for a conference presentation is accepted for the HFES Annual Meeting, authors have the option to publish a five page proceedings paper, or up to a one-page abstract of the proposal (view an example). Regardless of the eventual publication option chosen by the authors, a full proposal must be submitted for consideration by the peer reviewers recruited by Technical Program Chairs so that they have sufficient information to determine the quality of the work for presentation at the HFES Annual Meeting. These strategies may help mitigate future concerns about duplicate publication in the Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making.

Allow approximately 10 weeks for the first review. Papers that have been published elsewhere in the open literature in the same form, in any language, will not be considered or accepted. Suitably revised papers printed in the proceedings of technical meetings may be submitted for consideration.

At the editor's discretion, a limited number of color figures can be published when color is necessary to convey meaning that would be lost were the images to be reproduced in black and white. Charges may apply; to inquire about publishing color images in your submission, contact the HFES Publication Manager Kate Jacobson (312-673-5462).

When quoting more than 150 words from another source, or using a table or figure from another source, it is necessary to obtain written permission from the copyright holder of that source. In the case of adaptations of tables and figures drawn from other sources, written permission must be obtained if more than 40% of the original material is used in the adapted table/figure. Following acceptance of your manuscript, submit permission letters to HFES when the final production-ready manuscript is ready for uploading.

Upon final acceptance, authors may choose open access (OA) publication of their work by paying a fee of $1,500. OA papers are made available free of charge as soon as they are published online. If you work is accepted and you wish to opt for OA publication through SAGE Choice, please contact HFES Publication Manager Kate Jacobson (312-673-5462)

The focus of the Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making (JCEDM) is on research that seeks to understand how people engage in cognitive work and the development of systems that support that work. The journal features research on human cognition and the application of this knowledge to the design and development of system interfaces, automation, aids and other support systems, training programs, personnel selection devices, and coordination environments for people who work individually on a task, in teams, or groups.

Research that is conducted in both task simulations and in field settings is included. Simulation studies should include some justification of its design, such as the ecological validity of the simulated task, or a strong theoretical rationale, and qualify to what extent the findings would be generalizable to real-world settings. JCEDM is interested in advances in the theory of cognition in naturalistic work environments, empirical results obtained from the study of decision processes, cognitive engineering initiatives, cognitive modeling, and innovative methodologies for conducting research in simulation and natural settings.

The site is secure.

The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Background: Adults aged 65+ (older adults) disproportionately consume 30% of over-the-counter (OTC) medications and are largely responsible for making OTC treatment decisions because providers lack awareness of their consumption. These treatment decisions are complex: older adults must navigate age-related body/cognitive changes, developed comorbidities, and complex medication regimens when selecting the right OTC. Yet little is known about how older adults make such decisions.

Objectives: This study characterizes older adults' cognitive decision-making process when seeking to self-medicate with OTCs from their community pharmacy, and demonstrates how hierarchical task analysis (HTA) can be used to evaluate a pharmacy intervention's impact on their decision-making.

Methods: A pre-/post-implementation approach, using a think-aloud interview process, was conducted with older adults within a community pharmacy setting as they completed a hypothetical scenario to treat either pain, sleep, or cough/cold/allergy symptoms. HTA developed a conceptualization of older adult decision-making regarding OTC selection and use before/after Senior Section implementation.

Implications: Older adult decision-making is more complex than just selecting OTC medication from a pharmacy shelf. HTA-informed decision profiles can provide pharmacists critical insights into safety issues that older adults may not be considering (e.g., factors related to safety, strength, or appropriateness of OTC for symptoms) so that pharmacists can support their decision-making.

Health information systems are rapidly being implemented in a variety of healthcare contexts, including Emergency Departments (EDs). These systems offer promising solutions to challenges related to cost, efficiency, patient safety, and medical errors.

Our goal is to provide a fundamental and comprehensive picture of the difficult sensemaking, decision-making, and planning/replanning tasks in the ED, along with the individual and team expertise required to meet those challenges.

Additionally, the research will develop and evaluate exemplar solutions for a targeted set of needs that will be identified through the cognitive engineering analysis, thus providing a methodological example and "proof-of-concept" for translating cognitive engineering analyses into designs.

We would like to thank our internal research team, MedStar Health collaborators, and partners from the Department of Industrial Engineering at the University at Buffalo State University of New York, Roth Cognitive Engineering, and Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Florida for their support, dedication, and teamwork in completing this research in an exemplary fashion.

The overview above reflects work completed while the MedStar Health National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare was part of the MedStar Institute for Innovation. In July 2020, the Human Factors Center transitioned to its new organizational home, MedStar Health Research Institute, and still remains a key collaborator of MI2. Visit the Human Factors Center website for the latest information on its work.

In a group setting, becoming aware of biases can also be part of the process of mitigating them. This approach is used by Johnson at the NESC to devise engineering test plans that leverage individual biases in order to fully explore the issues impacting a particular decision.

Another key to reducing the risk of groupthink is to build teams with diverse individuals. This increases the breadth of experience applied to a given problem, which in turn limits the likelihood that the entire group will have similar biases or heuristic blind spots.

On the plus side, cognitive biases play a positive role in problem solving by helping people make decisions without having to relearn things over and over. The key for engineers at NASA and around the world is to leverage the positive aspects of cognitive bias while mitigating the negative effects by maintaining awareness on the individual level and instituting processes to mitigate their effects on an organizational level.

3a8082e126