Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T19:06:00.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

11 NASA-TLX Workload Profile of the Trail Making Test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2023

David J. Hardy ,
Hannah A. Agbaroji ,
Oliver J. Hatch ,
Estefania Valencia ,
David J. Moore  and
Matthew J. Wright
David J. Hardy*
Affiliation:
Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA. UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Hannah A. Agbaroji
Affiliation:
Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Oliver J. Hatch
Affiliation:
Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Estefania Valencia
Affiliation:
Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
David J. Moore
Affiliation:
UCSD,San Diego, CA, USA.
Matthew J. Wright
Affiliation:
UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Harbor UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA
*
Correspondence: David J. Hardy, Loyola Marymount University, david.hardy@lmu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

Workload is a useful construct in human factors and neuroergonomics research that describes “the perceived relationship between the amount of mental [and physical] processing capability or resources and the amount required by the task”. We apply this concept to neuropsychology and assess several dimensions of workload as it relates to performance on the Trail Making Test.

Participants and Methods:

Twenty college students completed the Trail Making Test (TMT). After completion of each Part A and B, workload was assessed with the NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a popular self-report measure of workload including subscales: Mental Demand, Physical Demand, Temporal Demand, Performance, Effort, and Frustration, with an overall average total score as well.

Results:

Completion time differed of course between Parts A and B (p < .001). Of more interest, overall workload differed between TMT A (M = 20.33, SD = 13.32) and TMT B (M = 35.79, SD = 17.37) (p < .001, h2 = .68). The greatest subscale differences were with Mental Demand (p < .001, h2 = .68) and Effort (p < .001, h2 = .59), but Physical Demand also showed a difference (p < .007, h2 = .33). Temporal Demand showed the smallest and nonsignificant difference (p = .081, h2 = .152).

Conclusions:

Based on previous research in our lab, most results were expected and understandable. As we know with the TMT, Part B is more cognitively demanding (in various ways) than Part A. The greater Physical Demand with Part B is a somewhat more complex finding, needing a solid explanation. Finally, the NASA-TLX appears to be a valid instrument of workload with a standard neuropsychologist test. We argue it can provide useful interesting information in the assessment of cognitive status in clinical populations.

Keywords

effort testing
Type
Poster Session 08: Assessment | Psychometrics | Noncredible Presentations | Forensic
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 29 , Supplement s1: Final Program Fifty First Annual Meeting International Neuropsychological Society February 1–4, 2023 San Diego, CA, USA , November 2023 , pp. 695 - 696
Copyright
Copyright © INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2023