Cited by 644

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Expertise in design: an overview

Cross, Nigel·2004·Design Studies

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Ho, 2001, Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: differences between novices and experts, Design Studies, 22, 27, 10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00030-7 · DOI
  2. Cross, 1998, Expertise in Engineering Design, Research in Engineering Design, 10, 141, 10.1007/BF01607156 · DOI
  3. Cross, 1994, Design Expertise Amongst Student Designers, Journal of Art and Design Education, 13, 39, 10.1111/j.1476-8070.1994.tb00356.x · DOI
  4. Atman, 1999, A Comparison of Freshman and Senior Engineering Design Processes, Design Studies, 20, 131, 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00031-3 · DOI
  5. Ahmed, 2003, Understanding the Differences Between How Novice and Experienced Designers Approach Design Tasks, Research in Engineering Design, 14, 1, 10.1007/s00163-002-0023-z · DOI
  6. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2001, Composition and Construction in Experts’ and Novices’ Weaving Design, Design Studies, 22, 44, 10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00038-1 · DOI
  7. Kavakli, 2002, The Structure of Concurrent Cognitive Actions: a case study on novice and expert designers, Design Studies, 23, 25, 10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00021-7 · DOI
  8. Lloyd, 1994, Discovering the Design Problem, Design Studies, 15, 125, 10.1016/0142-694X(94)90020-5 · DOI
  9. Lawson, 1979, Cognitive Strategies in Architectural Design, Ergonomics, 22, 59, 10.1080/00140137908924589 · DOI
  10. Schön, 1988, Designing: rules, types and worlds, Design Studies, 9, 181, 10.1016/0142-694X(88)90047-6 · DOI
  11. Goel, 1992, The Structure of Design Problem Spaces, Cognitive Science, 16, 395, 10.1207/s15516709cog1603_3 · DOI
  12. Lloyd, 1995, Difference in Similarity: interpreting the architectural design process, Planning and Design, 22, 383, 10.1068/b220383 · DOI
  13. Darke, 1979, The Primary Generator and the Design Process, Design Studies, 1, 36, 10.1016/0142-694X(79)90027-9 · DOI
  14. Ullman, 1988, A Model of the Mechanical Design Process Based on Empirical Data, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design and Manufacturing, 2, 33, 10.1017/S0890060400000536 · DOI
  15. Ball, 1994, Cognitive Processes in Engineering Design: a longitudinal study, Ergonomics, 37, 1753, 10.1080/00140139408964950 · DOI
  16. Guindon, 1990, Knowledge Exploited by Experts During Software System Design, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33, 279, 10.1016/S0020-7373(05)80120-8 · DOI
  17. Kolodner, 1996, Powers of Observation in Creative Design, Design Studies, 17, 385, 10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00021-X · DOI
  18. Dorst, 2001, Creativity in the Design Process: co-evolution of problem-solution, Design Studies, 22, 425, 10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Fricke, 1996, Successful Individual Approaches in Engineering Design, Research in Engineering Design, 8, 151, 10.1007/BF01608350 · DOI
  20. Visser, 1990, More or Less Following a Plan During Design: opportunistic deviations in specification, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33, 247, 10.1016/S0020-7373(05)80119-1 · DOI
  21. Guindon, 1990, Designing the Design Process: exploiting opportunistic thoughts, Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 305, 10.1207/s15327051hci0502&3_6 · DOI
  22. Ball, 1995, Structured and Opportunistic Processing in Design: a critical discussion, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 131, 10.1006/ijhc.1995.1038 · DOI
  23. Akin, 1995, Design Protocol Data and Novel Design Decisions, Design Studies, 16, 211, 10.1016/0142-694X(94)00010-B · DOI
  24. Lloyd, 1995, Can Concurrent Verbalisation Reveal Design Cognition?, Design Studies, 16, 237, 10.1016/0142-694X(94)00011-2 · DOI
  25. P. Lloyd (ed.) Designing in Context, Design Studies 24 (3) (2003) (special issue). · DOI
  26. Badke-Schaub, 1999, Analysis of Design Projects, Design Studies, 20, 465, 10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00017-4 · DOI
  27. Busby, 2001, Error and Distributed Cognition in Design, Design Studies, 22, 233, 10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00028-4 · DOI
  28. Jagodzinski, P, Reid, F and Culverhouse, P (eds.) Ethnographic Approaches to the Study of Engineering Design, Design Studies 21 (4) (2000) (special issue). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cross, N.
Venue
Design Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-09
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
427-441
ISSN
0142-694X
Cited by
644
References
3
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review