Cover: Criteria for Validating Human Judgments and Developing Behavioral Representation Models

Criteria for Validating Human Judgments and Developing Behavioral Representation Models

Published 1993

by Clairice T. Veit, Monti D. Callero

Download

Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.5 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback7 pages $20.00

Most if not all simulations are driven by human judgments — judgments about when and what human decisions would be made, how well people and machines would perform tasks, and even the outcomes of purely physical interactions, to mention a few. These judgments are incorporated in a simulation (often so deeply and subtly embedded as to obscure their origin) and importantly affect the simulation's outcomes. Thus, the value of a simulation in support of training or analysis depends in large part on the validity of the human judgment inputs. This paper discusses criteria for human judgment validation. In particular, it describes how commonly used procedures yield only "face" validity and compares them with modern measurement procedures that test exploratory theories of causal factors underlying judgments. It describes why the first criterion is unacceptable and demonstrates how interpretations of judgments can be tested. It further proposes that interpretations undergo validity tests before incorporation into simulations. Finally, it uses an operational example to describe how modern measurement is applied to model soldiers firing decisionmaking and how those models are incorporated in a combat simulation to represent engagement decisions by computer generated forces.

This report is part of the RAND paper series. The paper was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.