Naval Aviator Human Factors Questionnaire

Background:

The civilian aviation centric Cockpit Management Attitude Questionnaire ( CMAQ; Gregorich et al., 1990)  was adapted for naval aviation. It was necessary to change some of the language to ensure that it would make sense to naval aviators. A draft questionnaire was distributed to a group of 20 experienced naval aviators for comment. The comments from these aviators were used to develop the Naval Aviator Human Factors (NAHF) questionnaire. The NAHF consisted of 31 questions pertaining to five categories:

• My stress: 6 items. This scale emphasizes the consideration of- and possible compensation for- stressors in oneself (3 items dropped during factor analysis due to low reliability).
• Stress of others: 6 items. This scale emphasizes the consideration of- and possible compensation for- stressors in other team members.
•  Communication: 6 items. This scale encompasses communication of intent and plans, delegation of tasks and assignment of responsibilities, and the monitoring of crew members.
•   Command responsibility: 9 items. Includes the notion of appropriate leadership and its implications for the delegation of tasks and responsibilities (4 items dropped during factor analysis due to low reliability).
• Rules and order: 4 items. This subscale is concerned with adherence to rules and procedures (scale dropped due to low reliability).

Psychometrics:

Due to excessive skewness or kurtosis, and poor factor reliability, a total of nine items were discarded from the NAHF questionnaire. Three more items were discarded as part of the CFA process. Although typical of this type of questionnaire, the scales were found to have relatively low Cronbach’s

Author of Tool:

O’Connor, Jones, McCauley, & Buttrey

Key references:

O’Connor, P., Jones, D., McCauley, M., & Buttrey, S. (2012). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the U.S Navy’s crew resource management program. International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 1(1), 21-40.

O’Connor, P. & Jones, D. (2009 September). The crew resource management attitudes of U.S. Naval aviators. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society conference, San Antonio, TX

Primary use / Purpose:

For assessing the attitudes to the team skills required for safe and effective performance.

Naval Aviator Human Factors Questionnaire

Please answer the following items by using the following scale in writing your response beside each item:

A	B	C	D	E
Disagree Strongly	Disagree Slightly	Neutral	Agree Slightly	Agree Strongly

• I let other  team members know when my workload is becoming (or is about to become) excessive.
• My decision making ability is as good in emergencies as it is in routine situations.
• I am more likely to make judgment errors in an emergency.
• A regular debriefing of procedures and decisions after an theatre session or shift is an important part of developing and maintaining effective team co-ordination.
• In critical situations, I rely on my superiors to tell me what to do.
• I am less effective when stressed or fatigued.
• If I perceive a problem with the management of a patient, I will speak up, regardless of who might be affected.
• The pre-session team briefing is important for safety and for effective team management.
• Team members should monitor each other for signs of stress or tiredness.
• Personal problems can adversely affect my performance.
• Team members should feel obligated to mention their own psychological stress or physical problems to other theatre personnel before or during a shift or assignment.
• Good communication and team coordination are as important as technical proficiency for patient safety.
• Effective crew coordination requires team members to consider the personal work styles of others
• Team members should alert others to their actual, or potential, work overload.
• The specific roles and responsibilities of aircrew in an emergency are identified during the preflight brief.
• Team members should be aware of, and sensitive to, the personal problems of other team members.
• Junior theatre team members should not question the decisions made by senior personnel in emergencies.
• The senior person, if available, should take over and make all decisions in life threatening emergencies.
• Team members in charge should verbalize plans for procedures or actions and should be sure that the information is understood and acknowledged by others.
• Team members should not question the decisions or actions of senior staff except when they threaten the safety of the operation.
• There are no circumstances where a junior team member should assume control of patient management.
• Junior theatre team members should not question the decisions made by senior personnel during routine situations.
• How frequently are junior personnel afraid to express disagreement with more senior personnel (please circle below)?

• Very frequently
• Frequently
• Sometimes
• Seldom
• Very seldom