The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Automation bias: empirical results assessing influencing factors

Automation bias: empirical results assessing influencing factors
Automation bias: empirical results assessing influencing factors

Objective: to investigate the rate of automation bias - the propensity of people to over rely on automated advice and the factors associated with it. Tested factors were attitudinal - trust and confidence, non-attitudinal - decision support experience and clinical experience, and environmental - task difficulty. The paradigm of simulated decision support advice within a prescribing context was used.

Design: the study employed within participant before-after design, whereby 26 UK NHS General Practitioners were shown 20 hypothetical prescribing scenarios with prevalidated correct and incorrect answers - advice was incorrect in 6 scenarios. They were asked to prescribe for each case, followed by being shown simulated advice. Participants were then asked whether they wished to change their prescription, and the post-advice prescription was recorded.

Measurements: rate of overall decision switching was captured. Automation bias was measured by negative consultations - correct to incorrect prescription switching.

Results: participants changed prescriptions in 22.5% of scenarios. The pre-advice accuracy rate of the clinicians was 50.38%, which improved to 58.27% post-advice. The CDSS improved the decision accuracy in 13.1% of prescribing cases. The rate of automation bias, as measured by decision switches from correct pre-advice, to incorrect post-advice was 5.2% of all cases - a net improvement of 8%. More immediate factors such as trust in the specific CDSS, decision confidence, and task difficulty influenced rate of decision switching. Lower clinical experience was associated with more decision switching. Age, DSS experience and trust in CDSS generally were not significantly associated with decision switching.

Conclusions: this study adds to the literature surrounding automation bias in terms of its potential frequency and influencing factors.

Attitude to Computers, Automation, Decision Making, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Female, General Practitioners, Humans, Male, Medical Errors, Middle Aged, Quality Control, Task Performance and Analysis, Trust, United Kingdom, Journal Article
1386-5056
368-75
Goddard, Kate
46d15d1f-7ba2-4f49-bf9f-57dadc78d4f0
Roudsari, Abdul
023cbe9d-2cbd-42a9-bd11-4019db243576
Wyatt, Jeremy C
8361be5a-fca9-4acf-b3d2-7ce04126f468
Goddard, Kate
46d15d1f-7ba2-4f49-bf9f-57dadc78d4f0
Roudsari, Abdul
023cbe9d-2cbd-42a9-bd11-4019db243576
Wyatt, Jeremy C
8361be5a-fca9-4acf-b3d2-7ce04126f468

Goddard, Kate, Roudsari, Abdul and Wyatt, Jeremy C (2014) Automation bias: empirical results assessing influencing factors. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83 (5), 368-75. (doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.01.001).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective: to investigate the rate of automation bias - the propensity of people to over rely on automated advice and the factors associated with it. Tested factors were attitudinal - trust and confidence, non-attitudinal - decision support experience and clinical experience, and environmental - task difficulty. The paradigm of simulated decision support advice within a prescribing context was used.

Design: the study employed within participant before-after design, whereby 26 UK NHS General Practitioners were shown 20 hypothetical prescribing scenarios with prevalidated correct and incorrect answers - advice was incorrect in 6 scenarios. They were asked to prescribe for each case, followed by being shown simulated advice. Participants were then asked whether they wished to change their prescription, and the post-advice prescription was recorded.

Measurements: rate of overall decision switching was captured. Automation bias was measured by negative consultations - correct to incorrect prescription switching.

Results: participants changed prescriptions in 22.5% of scenarios. The pre-advice accuracy rate of the clinicians was 50.38%, which improved to 58.27% post-advice. The CDSS improved the decision accuracy in 13.1% of prescribing cases. The rate of automation bias, as measured by decision switches from correct pre-advice, to incorrect post-advice was 5.2% of all cases - a net improvement of 8%. More immediate factors such as trust in the specific CDSS, decision confidence, and task difficulty influenced rate of decision switching. Lower clinical experience was associated with more decision switching. Age, DSS experience and trust in CDSS generally were not significantly associated with decision switching.

Conclusions: this study adds to the literature surrounding automation bias in terms of its potential frequency and influencing factors.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: May 2014
Keywords: Attitude to Computers, Automation, Decision Making, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Female, General Practitioners, Humans, Male, Medical Errors, Middle Aged, Quality Control, Task Performance and Analysis, Trust, United Kingdom, Journal Article

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 413277
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/413277
ISSN: 1386-5056
PURE UUID: 0ff08954-12bf-446e-a317-62fd584b2717
ORCID for Jeremy C Wyatt: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7008-1473

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 18 Aug 2017 16:31
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 04:23

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Kate Goddard
Author: Abdul Roudsari
Author: Jeremy C Wyatt ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×