ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
German version of subjective methods for measuring activation, mental workload, and attention in control rooms.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This manuscript focuses on selecting and testing subjective assessment methods to measure mental strain in control rooms. Based on interviews with energy sector workers, our framework includes activation, mental workload, and attention, as they were closely linked to experienced mental stress during critical decision-making situations. Consequently, we translated the Activation-Deactivation Adjective Check List (AD-ACL) and the Workload Profile (WP) into German and validated them alongside the Flow Experience questionnaire. To assess their applicability, 96 volunteers performed two tasks (single-task and multitask) of varying difficulty at different times of day. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the internal structure of the AD-ACL and Flow scales, while internal consistency was adequate across all instruments. Convergent and discriminant validity were verified through correlations between self-report measures and task performance. Additionally, all instruments showed sensitivity to task difficulty manipulations. These findings support the use of these tools in human-computer interaction research and their potential for assessing adaptive assistance systems in control rooms.
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.