Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

NASA-TLX

The NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) is a subjective, multi-dimensional rating procedure designed to assess perceived experienced by operators in human-machine systems, providing an overall score based on a weighted average of six subscales to evaluate task demands and efficiency. Developed in the mid-1980s at by Sandra G. Hart in collaboration with Lowell E. Staveland, it evolved from earlier unidimensional scales through extensive empirical research involving over 40 experiments to address limitations in capturing diverse workload components. The tool's subscales include mental demand (cognitive effort required), physical demand (physical effort involved), temporal demand (time pressure), (user's perceived success), effort (total effort expended), and (level of irritation or stress), each rated on a 0-100 scale with 20 increments for granularity. To compute the overall workload score, users first provide ratings for each subscale after completing a task, then perform 15 pairwise comparisons to assign weights (ranging from 0 to 5 per subscale, summing to 15) that reflect individual priorities, with the final calculated as the sum of (subscale rating × weight) divided by 15 for a balanced, personalized measure. Originally administered via paper-and-pencil formats, -TLX has been validated across numerous studies for reliability and , demonstrating strong correlations with objective physiological and performance metrics while reducing inter-rater variability compared to simpler scales. By 2006, it had been employed in over 550 published studies worldwide, spanning domains such as (27% of applications), interface design (31%), and (26%), and translated into more than a dozen languages including , , and , with ongoing re-validations confirming its robustness. As a in human factors engineering, NASA-TLX continues to inform system design and operator training by diagnosing specific sources, though variations like the unweighted Raw TLX (RTLX) are sometimes used for simplicity in large-scale assessments. Modern implementations include computerized versions and a released in 2017, enhancing accessibility without altering core methodology, and it remains influential in fields beyond , such as and .

Overview

Definition and Purpose

The NASA-TLX (Task Load Index) is a subjective, multidimensional rating scale designed to assess perceived workload experienced by individuals during task performance, capturing operators' self-reported experiences across several key dimensions. Developed by researchers at NASA's Ames Research Center, it functions as a self-report questionnaire that quantifies workload through subscale ratings and their associated weights, enabling a nuanced evaluation beyond simple overall assessments. At its core, in the of NASA-TLX refers to the cost incurred in accomplishing task requirements using an operator's finite capabilities, influenced by factors such as task complexity, environmental stressors, and individual differences. The tool's primary purpose is to measure mental, physical, temporal, , effort, and frustration demands in complex operational settings, supporting applications in human factors engineering for system design, training protocols, and optimization. Unlike unidimensional measures that aggregate into a single score, NASA-TLX emphasizes multidimensionality to provide a more comprehensive profile of cognitive and physical strain. Key benefits of NASA-TLX include its ability to facilitate comparisons of workload levels across different tasks, operators, or experimental conditions, enhancing diagnostic insights for improving human-machine interactions. It has been extensively validated for reliability and sensitivity in high-stakes domains such as , healthcare, and operations, where accurate workload assessment is critical for and efficiency. The scale incorporates six primary subscales to derive an overall weighted score, allowing for tailored analyses of specific workload contributors.

History and Development

The Task Load Index (-TLX) emerged during the 1970s and 1980s from factors research focused on , where increasing cockpit automation and complex flight deck systems heightened the need for reliable workload assessments. Traditional physiological measures, such as , often showed inconsistent correlations with mental effort, while performance-based metrics like response time or error rates proved insensitive to subtle variations in operator state, such as or , limiting their utility in operational settings. In response, researchers at 's sought a subjective, multidimensional tool to capture perceived more directly and sensitively, building on earlier efforts to quantify mental in high-stakes environments like piloting. Development of the NASA-TLX began as a multi-year program in the mid-1980s at NASA's , led by Sandra G. Hart from the Human Performance Group and Lowell E. Staveland from , as part of broader human-computer interaction studies. Over a three-year cycle involving 25 studies, including 16 experiments with 247 participants, the team refined an initial set of 19 potential factors through empirical testing across diverse tasks, ultimately selecting six core dimensions via and pairwise comparisons to minimize subjectivity. This iterative process addressed high inter-individual variability in prior subjective ratings by incorporating a weighting mechanism tailored to each user's priorities. The tool was first published in 1988 as a chapter titled "Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research" in the edited volume Human Mental Workload by P.A. Hancock and N. Meshkati. During the 1990s, independent validations confirmed its reliability and sensitivity across varied contexts, with translations into languages like , , and enabling broader adoption; these studies demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing between-subject variance by an average of 20% compared to unweighted scales. By the decade's end, applications had expanded beyond into domains such as operations, power plant control, and early computer interfaces, reflecting its versatility. In the 2000s, the NASA-TLX evolved toward formats to enhance administration efficiency, with computer-based software versions introduced around 2006 via NASA's Human Factors Group website, allowing automated pairwise comparisons and score computation without altering the core multidimensional structure. Minor updates in subsequent years focused on user interfaces for online and mobile deployment, such as a 2017 app, ensuring compatibility with modern devices while preserving the original 1988 methodology. As of 2025, the tool continues to be used in its 2017 app format and paper versions, with recent studies (e.g., 2024) confirming its psychometric properties.

Components

The Six Scales

The NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) comprises six subscales designed to assess subjective workload: Mental Demand, Physical Demand, Temporal Demand, , Effort, and . These subscales are grouped into three categories: input demands on the (Mental Demand, Physical Demand, and Temporal Demand), output related to task accomplishment (), and aspects of the 's experience (Effort and ). Each subscale is rated using a visual analog ranging from 0 to 100, featuring anchors such as "low" at one end and "high" at the other to facilitate quick subjective judgments. For instance, Mental Demand is anchored between "Very Low" and "Very High," while uses "Perfect" and "Failure." The selection of these six subscales was informed by empirical research in human factors engineering, aiming to encompass a wide range of contributors identified across multiple experimental contexts, where each subscale emerged as a primary loading factor in at least one study. This multidimensional approach allows NASA-TLX to provide a more nuanced evaluation than unidimensional measures.

Scale Descriptions

The NASA-TLX comprises six subscales that capture distinct dimensions of perceived , each rated by users on a visual analog scale to reflect their subjective experience during a task. These subscales provide nuanced insights into the cognitive, physical, and emotional demands encountered, allowing for a multifaceted evaluation of task load. Mental Demand assesses the degree of intellectual activity required for the task, such as thinking, , calculating, or problem-solving. Users rate how mentally taxing the activity was, from very low to very high. For instance, in scenarios, mental demand ratings often rise with increasing aircraft density, reflecting the heightened cognitive processing needed to monitor and sequence flights safely. Physical Demand evaluates the level of or involved, including actions like pushing, pulling, or fine motor control. Ratings span from minimal physical effort to extreme . An example occurs in surgical procedures, where physical demand increases during prolonged operations requiring precise instrument handling and sustained postures, contributing to overall . Temporal Demand measures the perceived time pressure or pacing of the task, capturing feelings of being hurried, rushed, or constrained by deadlines. This subscale ranges from a relaxed pace to an overly frantic one. Performance gauges the user's subjective assessment of their success in completing the task, focusing on perceived effectiveness, accuracy, and goal attainment, rated from complete failure to perfect results. Effort quantifies the amount of mental or physical work invested to achieve the reported level, from minimal to exhaustive application. This subscale is particularly relevant in sustained scenarios. Vigilance tasks, such as radar screens for anomalies over extended periods, typically elicit high effort ratings owing to the continuous concentration required to maintain despite low event rates. Frustration captures the extent of , , , discouragement, or experienced during the task, ranging from to intense aggravation. In software evaluations, frustration levels surge when unintuitive designs lead to repeated errors or difficulties, underscoring emotional responses to barriers. Conceptually, the subscales of the NASA-TLX are interrelated, with empirical studies showing moderate to strong positive correlations among them, particularly in real-world applications where high mental demand often co-occurs with elevated effort and , while temporal demand influences and physical . For example, increased time can exacerbate effort and , leading to perceived lower across integrated task environments. These interactions highlight the multidimensional of , as validated in foundational on the instrument's structure.

Administration

Procedure

The administration of the Task Load Index (-TLX) begins with pre-administration preparations to ensure participants understand the process and the task at hand. Experimenters provide a clear briefing on the specific task or being evaluated, emphasizing that ratings should reflect the operator's with that particular activity rather than overall system . To promote familiarity, participants may review the six subscales—mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, , effort, and frustration—along with their definitions and anchor examples, such as "very low" to "very high" for demands or "perfect" to "failure" for . Practice trials or sample ratings can be offered if participants are unfamiliar with subjective assessment tools, helping to clarify that responses should be honest and relative to the task's demands. The core procedure is typically conducted immediately after task completion to capture fresh perceptions, lasting about 5-10 minutes in total. Participants first rate each of the six subscales independently on a continuous 0-100 scale (with 5-unit increments), marking their perceived level based on provided anchors; for instance, mental demand is rated from "very low" (0) to "very high" (100), reflecting the amount of thinking required. Instructions stress using the entire scale range and avoiding overthinking, with the experimenter available to answer questions on scale definitions. Next, participants complete 15 pairwise comparisons to derive subscale weights, selecting which of two presented factors (e.g., effort vs. ) contributed more to overall for the task, often using printed cards or forms in random order. This step ensures weights are task-specific and individualized. Finally, weighted scores are calculated by multiplying each subscale rating by its derived weight (summing to 15) and averaging, though detailed computation occurs post-administration.

Implementation Formats

The NASA-TLX was originally implemented in a paper-and-pencil format as described in the 1988 manual, consisting of printed worksheets for rating the six subscales on a 0-100 visual analog scale and cardboard comparison cards for the pairwise comparison phase to determine weights. This version remains available as a PDF download from Ames Research Center, including the scale sheet and a comprehensive instruction , making it suitable for environments without access to technology. Computer-based implementations emerged to streamline administration, with early software developed for and Pocket PCs that automates subscale , , and score calculation while outputting results to text files for analysis. More recent online survey tools and web-based platforms, such as those integrated into experimental software like PsychoPy or , allow for automated and reduce manual transcription errors compared to paper formats. Mobile formats include the official NASA-TLX iOS app, released in 2017 for and , which supports offline use, QR code setup for studies, and automatic tracking of multiple participants' responses in real-time scenarios like driving simulations. This app preserves the core pairwise comparison process but eliminates the need for physical cards by presenting digital sliders and pairings, facilitating field studies where immediate post-task assessment is essential. Adaptations of the NASA-TLX include shortened versions, such as a validated four-item form that omits physical demand and frustration subscales while maintaining reliability for quick assessments in time-constrained settings. Multilingual translations have been developed for international use, including validated Brazilian Portuguese, Italian, and other languages available through open repositories, enabling cross-cultural workload evaluations without altering the underlying structure. Digital formats offer advantages like error reduction in weighting comparisons through automation and easier data export, whereas the paper-and-pencil version excels in low-tech or resource-limited environments where simplicity and portability are prioritized.

Analysis

Weighting Process

The weighting process in the NASA-TLX allows participants to assign subjective importance to each of the six scales based on their perception of which factors contribute most to overall workload. This is achieved through a pairwise comparison method, where participants evaluate all 15 unique pairs of the scales (derived from combinations of 6 scales, C(6,2)=15), selecting for each pair the one that had a greater influence on their experienced workload during the task. Weights are then calculated for each scale by counting the number of times it was selected as more contributory across its five pairwise comparisons (since each scale is compared to the other five). The resulting weight ranges from 0 (never selected) to 5 (always selected), with the total across all scales summing to 15 to ensure normalization. For instance, if the scale is chosen over the other five scales in four comparisons, it receives a weight of 4. This weighting step accounts for individual differences in how people perceive the relative contributors to workload, providing a personalized composite that contrasts with unweighted averages by emphasizing task-specific priorities. Empirical validation from the development studies demonstrated that incorporating these weights enhances the measure's sensitivity to variations, with unnormalized sums of the weighted subscale ratings showing greater differentiation across tasks (e.g., ranging from 200 to 700 in simulated scenarios) and reducing inter-rater variability by up to 46% compared to unweighted approaches.

Score Calculation

The overall NASA-TLX workload score, known as the Weighted Workload (WWL), is derived by combining the raw ratings from the six subscales with their corresponding subjective weights obtained from pairwise comparisons. Each raw score is measured on a ranging from 0 (low) to 100 (high), reflecting the perceived level on subscales such as mental demand and effort. The weights, which sum to 15 across all six subscales due to the 15 pairwise comparisons, indicate the relative importance of each subscale to the individual. This weighted approach reduces inter-subject variability in assessments by approximately 20% compared to unweighted methods. The calculation follows a straightforward step-by-step process: first, multiply each subscale's raw score by its assigned weight; second, sum these six products; third, divide the total by 15, the fixed sum of all weights. Mathematically, this is expressed as: \text{WWL} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{6} (w_i \times r_i)}{15} where w_i is the weight for subscale i (ranging from 0 to 5, integers summing to 15 across all subscales), and r_i is the raw score for subscale i (0 to 100). For instance, if mental demand has a raw score of 80 and weight of 5, while temporal demand has 60 and weight of 3, their contributions are 400 and 180, respectively, which are included in the overall sum before division. This formula ensures the final WWL score also ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating greater perceived . A variant known as the Raw TLX uses an unweighted average of the six raw scores, simply dividing their sum by 6, which yields a score from 0 to 100 without incorporating subjective weights. This simpler method is occasionally employed in for expediency but is less recommended, as it exhibits higher variability ( around 0.48 versus 0.39 for weighted scores) and reduced sensitivity to task-specific workload sources. For group-level analysis, researchers typically report the mean WWL score along with its standard deviation to capture and in perceived across participants. No additional is required, as the 0-100 is inherently bounded and comparable across studies. Temporal demand often emerges as the strongest predictor of overall in models (beta ≈ 0.55), underscoring the score's diagnostic value.

Applications

Research Contexts

The NASA-TLX has been extensively employed in research within human-computer interaction (HCI), where it evaluates the cognitive demands of user interfaces, particularly in assessing and mental effort during task performance. In , it serves as a tool to quantify subjective mental workload in experimental settings, helping researchers understand how information processing loads affect decision-making and attention allocation. studies frequently utilize NASA-TLX to measure operator strain in complex systems, such as evaluating workstation designs for prolonged use. For instance, in (VR) environments, researchers apply it to gauge interface by comparing workload scores across different interaction paradigms, revealing how immersive elements influence perceived demand. Key validation studies in from the 1990s demonstrated NASA-TLX's sensitivity in experiments, where it correlated with physiological indicators like increases during simulated emergencies, supporting its use for assessing pilot under varying conditions. In healthcare research, NASA-TLX has been applied to surgical , with studies showing elevated scores during complex procedures, which correlate with performance metrics and highlight demands on mental and temporal resources. Methodologically, NASA-TLX is often integrated with objective measures such as (EEG) to establish , where subjective scores align with neural activity patterns like P3 event-related potentials during cognitive tasks. Meta-analyses and reliability assessments confirm its , with values exceeding 0.7 across diverse experimental contexts, underscoring its robustness as a metric. Recent advancements post-2010 have extended NASA-TLX to AI-assisted tasks, where it quantifies automation's effects on mental demand; for example, studies on human-AI collaboration in workflows report reduced overall scores when handles routine subtasks. As of 2024, applications include (XR) for automatic user interaction analysis and nursing simulations to measure in group settings. The foundational NASA-TLX paper is highly cited, reflecting its broad adoption in laboratory-based research across disciplines and affirming its applicability in controlled scientific investigations.

Practical Uses

The NASA-TLX has found extensive application in various industry sectors to evaluate operator workload and inform ergonomic improvements. In aviation, it is routinely employed during pilot training programs to assess cognitive and temporal demands under simulated flight conditions, helping to refine training protocols for enhanced safety. In healthcare, particularly for nurse shift evaluations, the tool measures mental and physical demands in high-pressure environments like intensive care units, enabling adjustments to staffing and task allocation to mitigate fatigue. The automotive industry utilizes NASA-TLX for driver distraction assessments, where it quantifies the impact of in-vehicle information systems on mental effort and frustration during real-time driving simulations. In manufacturing, it supports assembly line ergonomics by evaluating physical and effort-related workload among operators, guiding workstation redesigns to reduce strain. Specific case examples highlight its role in regulatory and operational contexts. The (FAA) incorporates NASA-TLX in cockpit design evaluations as part of certification processes for advanced , ensuring that new interfaces do not exceed acceptable thresholds for pilots. In military simulations, it assesses soldier during virtual training scenarios, such as tactical decision-making exercises, to optimize equipment interfaces and mission planning. Implementation of NASA-TLX yields tangible benefits for optimizations in professional settings. For instance, in call centers, assessments of mental have informed work arrangement changes, such as promoting work-from-home options, leading to improved agent performance. The tool is integrated into training and certification programs, including those aligned with standards for human-system interaction usability, where it evaluates perceived effort and performance to validate system designs in operational environments. Global adoption has been widespread since the 2000s, with major aviation organizations employing NASA-TLX for workload evaluations in aircraft development and operations to ensure human-centered design principles.

Limitations

Criticisms

The NASA-TLX, while widely used, has faced several criticisms regarding its reliability and applicability as a workload assessment tool, primarily stemming from empirical studies and methodological reviews in human factors and HCI research. These critiques highlight potential flaws in its design and administration that can affect the accuracy and generalizability of results. One major concern is the instrument's heavy reliance on subjective self-reports, which are susceptible to various cognitive and social biases. For instance, participants may exhibit the , altering their behavior or ratings due to the awareness of being observed, leading to inflated or skewed scores. Additionally, predictive biases can distort judgments, as self-reports often reflect post-hoc rationalizations rather than workload experiences, resulting in small and non-significant correlations with objective performance metrics. Compared to physiological measures like or eye-tracking, the NASA-TLX's subjective nature limits its objectivity and predictive power for actual cognitive demands. The administration process, involving 15 pairwise comparisons to determine subscale weights, has been criticized for being time-consuming, particularly in its traditional paper-and-pencil format, which can take several minutes per assessment and disrupt task flow. This length contributes to participant , potentially workload ratings by inducing additional mental effort during the evaluation itself, especially in repeated or longitudinal studies. Digital implementations mitigate some of this burden but do not fully eliminate the risk of respondent exhaustion in high-frequency use scenarios. Cultural biases represent another limitation, as the NASA-TLX was developed in a (primarily U.S.) context, leading to questions about its validity without adaptation. Empirical validations in non- settings, such as , have shown that while adaptations improve and (Cronbach's α = 0.757), unadapted versions may yield inconsistent reliability due to linguistic and perceptual differences in subscale interpretations. For example, studies comparing Asian and participants during prolonged mentally demanding tasks found significantly higher NASA-TLX scores among Asians (F(1,14) = 3.68, p = 0.0024), alongside elevated reports, suggesting cultural influences on perceived that could stem from differing norms around effort reporting or task . These findings underscore the need for localized validations to avoid under- or over-estimating in diverse populations. Regarding sensitivity, the NASA-TLX often fails to detect subtle variations in , particularly in short-duration tasks or scenarios with minor difficulty adjustments. In HCI experiments, such as text entry tasks, it showed no significant differences between easy and hard conditions, indicating insufficient for fine-grained analyses. Similarly, in educational settings with instructional variations, the tool exhibited low (p > 0.05 across conditions), struggling to differentiate levels in tasks lasting around . Ceiling effects have also been noted in high-demand environments, where scores plateau and fail to capture escalating demands, limiting its utility for extreme or rapidly changing s. Empirical critiques from 2010s reviews and validation studies further question the among subscales, with high inter-correlations (e.g., VIF = 8.36) suggesting rather than distinct constructs. Specifically, dimensions like Effort and often overlap significantly, as evidenced by poor with external measures (Spearman's ρ = 0.19) and shared variance that undermines the tool's multi-dimensional claims. This can lead to unstable weighting and overall scores that do not reliably isolate unique components.

Alternatives

While the NASA-TLX provides a multidimensional subjective of through six dimensions and individualized weighting, several unidimensional alternatives offer simpler, faster at the expense of depth. The Bedford Workload Rating Scale (BWRS) is a single-scale tool that evaluates an operator's spare mental capacity on a 9-point continuum, from "very low" to "very high" perceived effort, making it suitable for quick post-task evaluations in and other high-stakes environments. Similarly, the Cooper-Harper rating scale, originally developed for handling qualities, has been adapted into a modified version (MCH) for estimation via a decision-tree structure that culminates in a 10-point of overall task and effort, emphasizing pilot handling demands over multifaceted cognitive loads. These tools prioritize speed and ease of use, often taking under a minute to complete, but they capture only a global impression, lacking the nuanced breakdown of mental, physical, and temporal demands inherent in multidimensional approaches. Multidimensional subjective alternatives to the NASA-TLX retain multiple workload facets but simplify administration by omitting pairwise comparisons or weighting. The Subjective Workload Assessment Technique () measures workload across three core dimensions—time load, mental effort load, and load—using a card-sort procedure to establish relative importance, followed by interval scaling for an overall score via unweighted averaging in its simplified variant. Developed for and adaptable to other domains, SWAT reduces participant burden compared to NASA-TLX's six subscales, though studies show it may be less sensitive to low-workload conditions. Variants of the NASA-TLX itself, such as the raw TLX, bypass weighting entirely by averaging subscale scores directly, preserving multidimensionality while streamlining for repeated use in experimental settings. Objective measures shift from self-reports to physiological or performance indicators, often complementing tools like the NASA-TLX for validation rather than replacement. Physiological approaches, such as (HRV) analysis, quantify responses to cognitive demands; decreased HRV typically signals elevated mental workload, as seen in driving simulations where HRV metrics correlate moderately with NASA-TLX scores (r ≈ 0.4–0.6). Performance-based methods, including dual-task paradigms, assess workload by measuring decrements in a secondary task (e.g., reaction time probes) during a primary activity, revealing limits without relying on ; for instance, secondary task accuracy drops under high load in instructional multitasking scenarios. Hybrid tools integrate subjective, objective, and dynamic elements for more adaptive assessments. The Defence Research Agency Workload Scale (DRAWS), developed by the Defence Research Agency, is a multidimensional tool that assesses across input, processing, output, and storage channels using paired comparisons and ratings for ongoing monitoring in operational contexts. Emerging AI-driven tools post-2020 leverage on multimodal data, such as EEG and eye-tracking, to predict in ; for example, models using HRV and achieve up to 85% accuracy in classifying levels during human-AI collaboration tasks. Alternatives are particularly advantageous for , where tools like eye-tracking (measuring or fixation ) provide instantaneous without interrupting tasks, or when minimizing subjectivity is critical, such as in automated systems favoring physiological metrics over self-reports to reduce in high-reliability fields like .

References

  1. [1]
    TLX @ NASA Ames - Home
    Dec 15, 2020 · Originally developed as a paper and pencil questionnaire by NASA Ames Research Center's (ARC) Sandra Hart in the 1980s, NASA TLX has become the ...Current Version · Contact Us · Staff Directory
  2. [2]
    [PDF] TASK LOAD INDEX
    This booklet contains the materials necessary to collect subjective workload assessments with the NASA. Task. Load Index. This procedure for collecting workload.
  3. [3]
    [PDF] NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) - 20 Years Later
    NASA-TASK LOAD INDEX (NASA-TLX); 20 YEARS LATER. Sandra G. Hart. NASA-Ames Research Center. Moffett Field, CA. ABSTRACT. NASA-TLX is a multi-dimensional scale ...
  4. [4]
    [PDF] HUMAN MENTAL WORKLOAD P.A. Hancock and N. Meshkati ...
    Conceptual framework for relating variables that influence human performance and workload. Page 3. Development of NASA-TLX. 141. System response refers to the ...Missing: "Hart | Show results with:"Hart
  5. [5]
    NASA Task Load Index | Digital Healthcare Research
    The NASA task load index (NASA TLX) is a tool for measuring and conducting a subjective mental workload (MWL) assessment.Missing: "Hart | Show results with:"Hart
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Measuring and Evaluating Workload: A Primer
    The NASA Task Load Index (TLX) measurement technique was developed to help mitigate a number of problems that arise from differences in the way people think ...Missing: origins 1970s
  7. [7]
    A Useable, Online NASA-TLX Tool - David Sharek, 2011
    Sep 1, 2011 · A freely-available, user-friendly, online version of NASA-TLX is introduced (Sharek, 2009). Key features and benefits of the online version for ...
  8. [8]
    TLX @ NASA Ames - NASA TLX App
    Oct 5, 2023 · A new NASA app is now available that helps researchers evaluate their workloads, on the go. NASA's Ames Research Center in California's ...Missing: based 2000s
  9. [9]
    [PDF] NASA Task Load Index
    Hart and Staveland's NASA Task Load Index (TLX) method assesses work load on five 7-point scales. Increments of high, medium and low.
  10. [10]
    Mental Workload & Time Perception: Air Traffic Controllers
    NASA TLX scores were positively correlated with time estimations and skin responses were positively correlated with time productions. •. This is the first study ...
  11. [11]
    NASA-TLX Assessment of Surgeon Workload Variation Across...
    When procedural difficulty is greater than expected, there are negative implications for mental and physical demand that result in poorer perceived performance.
  12. [12]
    Mixed Methods Study Identifies Drivers of Temporal Demand ... - NIH
    Mar 15, 2021 · Temporal demand refers to having inadequate time to complete tasks and was the most frequently identified code, occurring in all transcripts.
  13. [13]
    Viewing the Workload of Vigilance Through the Lenses of the NASA ...
    Apr 22, 2013 · The NASA-TLX has been used extensively to demonstrate that vigilance tasks impose a high level of workload on observers. However, this ...
  14. [14]
    Beyond the NPS: Measuring Perceived Usability with the SUS ...
    Feb 11, 2018 · The NASA-TLX instrument asks participants to rate each task they have performed on these 6 scales, each in 21-point increments. It provides rich ...
  15. [15]
    Full article: Weight watchers: NASA-TLX weights revisited
    In the light of the discussed challenges associated with the NASA-TLX weighting method, it is not surprising that high correlations have been found. In fact, ...
  16. [16]
    Measuring Workload - Test Science
    Apr 20, 2023 · The NASA-TLX measures workload with respect to a particular task performed by a particular user. The administrator must take care to define ...
  17. [17]
    10 Things to Know about the NASA TLX - MeasuringU
    Aug 28, 2019 · The NASA TLX is a multi-item questionnaire developed in 1980 by Sandra Hart. NASA is, of course, the US-based space agency famous for the one giant leap for ...Missing: origins limitations
  18. [18]
    [PDF] task load index (TLX) paper and pencil package.
    NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Version 1.0. Paper and Pencil Package. This booklet contains the materials necessary to collect subjective workload ...
  19. [19]
    TLX @ NASA Ames - NASA TLX Paper/Pencil Version
    Jun 15, 2022 · If you would like to use the NASA TLX tool, but do not want to use the iOS app, it is available here in its original paper and pencil format ...
  20. [20]
    (PDF) NASA TLX: Software for assessing subjective mental workload
    Aug 6, 2025 · The NASA Task Load Index (TLX) is a popular technique for measuring subjective mental workload. It relies on a multidimensional construct to derive an overall ...
  21. [21]
    Should we use the NASA-TLX in HCI? A review of theoretical and ...
    Developed by Hart and Staveland (1988) over three years of research and validated through 16 studies (de Winter, 2014), NASA-TLX is the most well-known and ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  22. [22]
    cross-cultural adaptation, content validity and instrument reliability
    Aug 7, 2023 · The NASA Task Load Index instrument, adapted to Brazilian Portuguese, presents reliability and content validity evidence.
  23. [23]
    NASA task load index (TLX) materials, enhanced instructions ... - OSF
    Oct 12, 2023 · Digitalized and enhanced version of the NASA-TLX workload measure. With various translations and a automated scoring sheet.Missing: shortened | Show results with:shortened
  24. [24]
    Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Task Load Indices for ...
    Jul 22, 2021 · The weighted TLX scores showed better sensitivity to both demographic and experimental factors for both TLX instruments. Conclusion: The overall ...Missing: ties | Show results with:ties
  25. [25]
    Psychometric Properties of NASA-TLX and Index of Cognitive ... - NIH
    Several techniques have been developed to measure cognitive workload, including questionnaires, performance outcomes, and physiological measures. The ...Missing: 1980s | Show results with:1980s
  26. [26]
    Human-centered design of VR interface features to support mental ...
    Jun 20, 2025 · This study aims to identify and assess the UI design features of a virtual work environment for manufacturing regarding mental workload, spatial navigation,
  27. [27]
    Cardiac data increase association between self-report and both ...
    This study was performed in a flight simulator, assessing the value of adding physiological assessment to that provided by the TLX. Because HR changes during ...
  28. [28]
    NASA-TLX Assessment of Surgeon Workload Variation ... - PubMed
    Workload was measured across surgical specialties using surveys to identify potential predictors of high workload for future performance improvement.
  29. [29]
    [PDF] On the Reliability, Validity and Sensitivity of Three Mental Workload ...
    In detail, two forms of validity were assessed: face and convergent validity. The former validity indicates the extent to which the three employed MWL measures ...
  30. [30]
    Impact of Ambient Artificial Intelligence Documentation on Cognitive ...
    We assessed cognitive load using 3 dimensions of the validated National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX): effort, mental demand, ...
  31. [31]
    Everything You Need to Know About the NASA-TLX
    Jun 26, 2023 · In 1988, Sandra G. Hart of NASA's Human Performance Group and Lowell E. Staveland of San Jose State University introduced the NASA Task Load ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  32. [32]
    MEASURING WORKLOAD OF ICU NURSES WITH A ... - NIH
    The NASA-TLX is a multidimensional instrument that consists of 6 subscales: Mental Demand (MD), Physical Demand (PD) and Temporal Demand (TD), Frustration (FR) ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile III:
    Subjective assessments of workload were made using the NASA TLX and supplementary questions on the intuitiveness and complexity of the IVIS systems. NASA TLX.
  34. [34]
    NASA-TLX Assessment of Mental Workload in Manufacturing Industry
    Aug 9, 2025 · The aim of this study was to measure the mental workload in the manufacturing industry. In This study was performed on 10 worker in the operator and welder.
  35. [35]
    [PDF] Usability and Effectiveness of Advanced General Aviation Cockpit ...
    NASA TLX is a six-item questionnaire measuring mental effort, physical effort, temporal pressure, perceived performance, total mental and physical effort, and ...Missing: certification | Show results with:certification
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Workload Analysis of Virtual World Simulation for Military Training
    Workload analysis revealed that training treatment had a significant main effect on the degree of workload perceived by Soldiers, in five of the six NASA-TLX ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Comparative Mental Workload Assessment of Work Arrangements ...
    The NASA-TLX ... Moreover, it is also found out that the performance of work-from-home call center agents is the highest among the call center agents in all of.
  38. [38]
    Methodology for manipulation of workload in manual assembly ...
    The NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) is a scale designed to assess an operator's perceived workload during task completion or immediately afterward. Furthermore, ...
  39. [39]
    The NASA Task Load Index As A Measure Of Pilot Workload In The ...
    Aug 31, 1989 · This paper examines the usefulness of the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), a multidimensional rating procedure, in subjectively assessing the ...
  40. [40]
    Rethinking self-reported measure in subjective evaluation of ...
    Aug 24, 2017 · Self-reported measure suffers from predictive bias [4]. ... In order to assess the reliability of collected subjective NASA-TLX scores, we apply ...Rating Biases · Research Method · Measurement
  41. [41]
    Digital biomarker of mental fatigue | npj Digital Medicine - Nature
    Mar 11, 2021 · However, existing tests are subjective and/or time-consuming. Fatigue questionnaires such as the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and Brief ...
  42. [42]
    Fatigue differences between Asian and Western populations in ...
    As compared to the Western participants, Asian participants reported higher values in all dependent measures, including fatigue in both scales, NASA-TLX scores, ...
  43. [43]
    Cultural influences on the measurement of subjective mental workload
    Aug 9, 2025 · The mean values of mental eort (measured by NASA-TLX) invested to carry out the learning task, are presented in Figure 8 other studies [32, 32].
  44. [44]
    [PDF] Cognitive Workload Assessment Methods OCHMO-TB-032 Rev C
    NASA has determined that for space flight programs, workload should be assessed using the Bedford scale. Other types of scales (e.g., NASA Task Load Index (TLX)) ...<|separator|>
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Background on the CHHQ
    6 categories are used to describe the workload experienced in performing a task: ▫ Mental and perceptual load. ▫ Physical load. ▫ Temporal load. ▫ Performance ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] DIMENSIONAL PILOT WORKLOAD RATING SCALE
    This paper presents the rationale for and development of a novel pilot workload rating scale, which seeks to address shortfalls identified in existing methods.Missing: aviation | Show results with:aviation
  47. [47]
    [PDF] Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT): A User's Guide
    SWAT is a tool for measuring mental workload, and this document is a user's guide for its software version 3.1.
  48. [48]
    Simplified subjective workload assessment technique - PubMed
    The subjective workload assessment technique (SWAT) has been widely used, it has two main problems: it is not very sensitive for low mental workloads.
  49. [49]
    a comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and Workload Profile Methods
    Aug 7, 2025 · The present research evaluates several psychometric properties (intrusiveness, sensitivity, diagnosticity, and validity) of three multidimensional subjective ...
  50. [50]
    Mental Workload Alters Heart Rate Variability, Lowering Non-linear ...
    May 14, 2019 · The NASA TLX rates perceived workload in order to assess a task and consists in 6 subjective subscales rating within a 100-points different ...
  51. [51]
    A Current View on Dual-Task Paradigms and Their Limitations ... - NIH
    May 20, 2021 · Dual-task paradigms encompass a broad range of approaches to measure cognitive load in instructional settings.
  52. [52]
    Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT) in Real Time
    This study aimed to introduce an affordable continuous machine learning (ML) based workload assessment tool, that can provide real-time workload scores.<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    Measuring mental workload in assistive wearable devices: a review
    Nov 7, 2021 · Various physiological measures are related to a person's cognitive functioning and can therefore be used to measure mental workload. Five ...