• Independent versus collaborati...

*Result*: Independent versus collaborative double-checking for errors on a simulated rail control task.

Title:
Independent versus collaborative double-checking for errors on a simulated rail control task.
Authors:
McMullan RD; Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: ryan.mcmullan@mq.edu.au., Aryal N; Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia., Li L; Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia., Wiggins M; Performance and Expertise Research Centre, 16 University Avenue, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia., Clive J; Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia., Westbrook JI; Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Source:
Applied ergonomics [Appl Ergon] 2026 May; Vol. 133, pp. 104716. Date of Electronic Publication: 2025 Dec 18.
Publication Type:
Journal Article
Language:
English
Journal Info:
Publisher: Butterworth-Heinemann Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 0261412 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1872-9126 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00036870 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Appl Ergon Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s):
Publication: Oxford : Butterworth-Heinemann
Original Publication: London.
MeSH Terms:
Safety Management*/methods , Railroads* , Task Performance and Analysis* , Cooperative Behavior*, Humans ; Male ; Female ; Adult ; Young Adult ; Computer Simulation ; Middle Aged
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: Double-checking; Error detection; Rail-control
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20251219 Date Completed: 20260110 Latest Revision: 20260110
Update Code:
20260130
DOI:
10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104716
PMID:
41418654
Database:
MEDLINE

*Further Information*

*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.
(Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)*

*Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.*