Independent versus collaborative double-checking for errors on a simulated rail control task
Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: Double-checking is a safety practice performed by workers across high-risk industries. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of two types of double-checking (independent versus collaborative) for the detection of errors. We also examined the effect of two classes of checking tasks (matching versus critical analysis and assimilation) and interruptions on error detection. A total of 198 participants completed a 32-min rail control simulation. The primary objective for participants was to identify misrouted trains. Participants worked in pairs and performed tasks that involved matching versus critical analysis and assimilation, with interruptions occurring during the tasks. Independent double-checking was associated with greater response accuracy for identifying misrouted trains compared with collaborative double-checking. Response accuracy was also greater when participants engaged in matching compared to critical analysis and assimilation. Interruptions were not associated with task performance. Our findings suggest that independent double-checking may be superior to collaborative double-checking for the detection of errors.
Source: Applied Ergonomics
Authors: Ryan D. McMullan, Nanda Aryal, Ling Li, Mark Wiggins, Joanna Clive, Johanna I. Westbrook
Institution: Macquarie University
Language: English
Subfield: Social Psychology
Field: Psychology
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $3,400
OpenAlex ID: W4417535283