↓ Skip to main content

Studying distributed cognition of simulation-based team training with DiCoT

Overview of attention for article published in Ergonomics, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Studying distributed cognition of simulation-based team training with DiCoT
Published in
Ergonomics, September 2015
DOI 10.1080/00140139.2015.1074290
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonas Rybing, Heléne Nilsson, Carl-Oscar Jonson, Magnus Bang

Abstract

Healthcare organizations employ simulation-based team training (SBTT) to improve skill, communication and coordination in a broad range of critical care contexts. Quantitative approaches, such as team performance measurements, are predominantly used to measure SBTTs effectiveness. However, a practical evaluation method that examines how this approach supports cognition and teamwork is missing. We have applied Distributed Cognition for Teamwork (DiCoT), a method for analysing cognition and collaboration aspects of work settings, with the purpose of assessing the methodology's usefulness for evaluating SBTTs. In a case study, we observed and analysed four Emergo Train System® simulation exercises where medical professionals trained emergency response routines. The study suggests that DiCoT is an applicable and learnable tool for determining key distributed cognition attributes of SBTTs that are of importance for the simulation validity of training environments. Moreover, we discuss and exemplify how DiCoT supports design of SBTTs with a focus on transfer and validity characteristics. Practitioner Summary: In this study, we have evaluated a method to assess simulation-based team training environments from a cognitive ergonomics perspective. Using a case study, we analysed Distributed Cognition for Teamwork (DiCoT) by applying it to the Emergo Train System®. We conclude that DiCoT is useful for SBTT evaluation and simulator (re)design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 4 3%
Unknown 128 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 15%
Engineering 17 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 10%
Computer Science 7 5%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 37 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,426,826
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Ergonomics
#1,949
of 2,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,636
of 267,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ergonomics
#31
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.