PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 9819574

HTA as a framework for task analysis.

Abstract

The motivation for this paper is to review the status of Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) as a general framework for examining tasks, including those for which cognitive task analysis methods might be assumed to be necessary. HTA is treated as a strategy for examining tasks, aimed at refining performance criteria, focusing on constituent skills, understanding task contexts and generating useful hypotheses for overcoming performance problems. A neutral and principled perspective avoids bias and enables the analyst to justify using different analytical methods and develop hypotheses as information is gained about the task. It is argued that these considerations are equally valid when examining tasks that are assumed to contain substantial cognitive elements. Moreover, examining cognition within the context of a broader task helps to situate cognition within the network of actions and decisions that it must support, as well as helping to establish where effort in cognitive task analysis is really justified.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Shepherd. 1998. HTA as a framework for task analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401398186063

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Experimental pragmatics and what is said: a response to Gibbs and Moise.

UNLABELLED: Gibbs and Moise [Gibbs, R., Moise, J., 1997. Pragmatics in understanding what is said. Cognition 62, 51-74], present experimental results which, they claim, show that people recognize a distinction between what is said and what is implicated. They also claim that these results provide support for theories of utterance interpretation (such as RELEVANCE Theory) which recognize that pragmatic processes are involved not only in understanding what is implicated but also in working out what is said (the 'explicature'). We attempted to replicate some of these experiments and also adapted them. Our results fail to confirm Gibbs and Moise's claims. Most significantly, they show that, under certain conditions, subjects select implicatures when asked to select the paraphrase that best reflects what a speaker has said. We suggest that our results can be explained within the framework of RELEVANCE Theory (Sperber, D., Wilson, D., 1986. RELEVANCE: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford) if we assume that subjects select the paraphrase that comes closest to achieving the same set of communicated contextual effects as the original utterance. When an utterance gives rise to a single strong implicature, subjects tend to select this as the paraphrase that best reflects what is said; in other cases (for example in Gibbs and Moise's stimuli) subjects tend to select the explicature.

Cognition