Friendly amendment: a commentary on Doyle and Ford's proposed re-definition of 'mental model'

Some amendments are proposed to a recent redefinition of the mental model concept in system dynamics. First, externalised, or articulated mental models should not be called cognitive maps; this term has a well established, alternative meaning. Second, there can be mental models of entities not yet existing beyond an individual's mind; the modelling of planned or desired systems is possible and recommended. Third, saying that mental models maintain social systems connects with some exciting research opportunities for system dynamics; however, it is probably an accidental distraction from the intended meaning of the redefinition. These minor criticisms apart, the new definition of mental model of a dynamic system is welcomed as a useful contribution to both research and practice.

Comparative study of mental model research methods : relationships among ACSMM, SMD, MITOCAR & deep methodologies

Measuring and assessing mental models of individuals and teams requires the capturing and analysis of key latent variables. This paper presents and compares four different research methods (ACSMM, SMD, MITOCAR and DEEP) that capture and create a conceptual representation of individual and team mental models. These methods use qualitative and quantitative techniques to investigate a single comparison of different groups or individuals' mental models with another group's mental model or to investigate the comparison of a group or individuals' mental model with themselves at a later time

Personality and performance: Assessing the mediating role of mental model formation in the personality-performance relationship

Personality has long been linked to performance. Evolutions in this relationship have brought forward new questions regarding the true nature of how personality impacts performance. Both direct and indirect relationships have been proven significant. This study further investigated potential indirect relationships by including a mediating variable, mental model formation, in the personality-performance relationship. Undergraduate students were assessed in a 6-week period, Time 1 - Time 2 experiment. Conceptualizations of personality included measures of the Big 5 model and Self-efficacy, with performance measured by content quiz and overall course scores. Findings showed that the Big 5 personality traits, extraversion and agreeableness, positively and significantly impacted commonality with the instructor's mental model. However, commonality with the instructor's mental model did not impact performance. In comparison, commonality with an expert mental model positively and significantly impacted performance for both the content quiz and overall course score. Furthermore, similarity with an expert mental model positively and significantly impacted overall course performance. Hypothesized full mediation of mental model formation for the personality-performance relationship was not supported due to a lack of direct effect relationships required for mediation. However, a revised conceptualization of results emerged. Findings from the current study point to the novel and unique role mental models play in the personality-performance relationship. While personality traits do impact mental model formation, accuracy in the mental models formed is critical to performance.

Personality and Performance: Assessing the Mediating Role of Mental Model Formation in the Personality-Performance Relationship

Personality has long been linked to performance. Evolutions in this relationship have brought forward new questions regarding the true nature of how personality impacts performance. Both direct and indirect relationships have been proven significant. This study further investigated potential indirect relationships by including a mediating variable, mental model formation, in the personality-performance relationship. Undergraduate students were assessed in a 6-week period, Time 1 - Time 2 experiment. Conceptualizations of personality included measures of the Big 5 model and Self-efficacy, with performance measured by content quiz and overall course scores. Findings showed that the Big 5 personality traits, extraversion and agreeableness, positively and significantly impacted commonality with the instructor’s mental model. However, commonality with the instructor’s mental model did not impact performance. In comparison, commonality with an expert mental model positively and significantly impacted performance for both the content quiz and overall course score. Furthermore, similarity with an expert mental model positively and significantly impacted overall course performance. Hypothesized full mediation of mental model formation for the personality-performance relationship was not supported due to a lack of direct effect relationships required for mediation. However, a revised conceptualization of results emerged. Findings from the current study point to the novel and unique role mental models play in the personality-performance relationship. While personality traits do impact mental model formation, accuracy in the mental models formed is critical to performance.

EFFECTS OF INFORMATION DISPLAY ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLINICIAN MENTAL MODELS

Objective: To determine how a clinician’s background knowledge, their tasks, and displays of information interact to affect the clinician’s mental model. Design: Repeated Measure Nested Experimental Design Population, Sample, Setting: Populations were gastrointestinal/internal medicine physicians and nurses within the greater Houston area. A purposeful sample of 24 physicians and 24 nurses were studied in 2003. Methods: Subjects were randomized to two different displays of two different mock medical records; one that contained highlighted patient information and one that contained non-highlighted patient information. They were asked to read and summarize their understanding of the patients aloud. Propositional analysis was used to understand their comprehension of the patients. Findings: Different mental models were found between physicians and nurses given the same display of information. The information they shared was very minor compared to the variance in their mental models. There was additionally more variance within the nursing mental models than the physician mental models given different displays of the same information. Statistically, there was no interaction effect between the display of information and clinician type. Only clinician type could account for the differences in the clinician comprehension and thus their mental models of the cases. Conclusion: The factors that may explain the variance within and between the clinician models are clinician type, and only in the nursing group, the use of highlighting.