A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Direct Objective Measures of Situation Awareness: A Comparison of SAGAT and SPAM.

Abstract

To examine evidence of sensitivity, predictiveness, and methodological concerns regarding direct, objective measures of situation awareness (SA). The ability to objectively measure SA is important to the evaluation of user interfaces and displays, training programs, and automation initiatives, as well as for studies that seek to better understand SA in both individuals and teams. A number of methodological criticisms have been raised creating significant confusion in the research field. A meta-analysis of 243 studies was conducted to examine evidence of sensitivity and predictiveness, and to address methodological questions regarding Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT), Situation Present Assessment Technique (SPAM), and their variants. SAGAT and SPAM were found to be equally predictive of performance. SPAM (64%) and real-time probes (73%) were found to have significantly lower sensitivity in comparison to SAGAT (94%). While SAGAT was found not to be overly memory reliant nor intrusive into operator performance, SPAM resulted in problems with intrusiveness in 40% of the studies examined, as well as problems with speed-accuracy tradeoffs, sampling bias, and confounds with workload. Concerns about memory reliance, the utility of these measures for assessing Team SA, and other issues are also addressed. SAGAT was found to be a highly sensitive, reliable, and predictive measure of SA that is useful across a wide variety of domains and experimental settings. Direct, objective SA measurement provides useful and diagnostic insights for research and design in a wide variety of domains and study objectives.