SynthesisHuman factors2026
Measuring Situation Awareness: A Meta-Review Across Domains.
Synthesis in Human factors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo identify and interpret evidence from systematic reviews of Situation Awareness (SA) measurement across domains, focussing on measures' psychometric properties, and provide practical implications for SA measurement.BackgroundSeveral systematic reviews have been published on SA measurement, often focussing on specific measurement tools, domains, or psychometric properties. This creates a challenge for understanding the evidence supporting SA measures and for establishing best practice in SA measurement.MethodFive electronic databases were searched up to February 2025. The meta-review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024521458). Reviews were included if they were systematic and focused on SA measurement. Data were extracted on the review characteristics and the SA measurement tools identified, including their psychometric properties. Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for systematic reviews.ResultsFourteen reviews, capturing over 477 unique primary studies, were included in this meta-review. In total, 38 distinct SA measurement tools were identified and subdivided into four categories of SA measurement: self-ratings, observer ratings, probing techniques, and physiological metrics. Psychometric evidence was limited for most tools. Probing techniques, especially the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT), showed the most extensive validity evidence but were associated with usability concerns.ConclusionThe application of SAGAT may be recommended as best practice currently, while other tools offer complementary strengths for specific contexts.ApplicationThis synthesis provides guidance on best practice for SA measurement based on measurement purpose and context of use, balancing methodological rigour with feasibility to enhance SA measurement across diverse operational environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.