Cited by 760Electronic Health Records SystemsUsability and User Interface DesignData Visualization and Analytics

Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems.

Open access
Kushniruk, Andre W., Patel, Vimla L.·2004·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Increasingly healthcare policy and decision makers are demanding evidence to justify investments in health information systems. This demand requires an adequate evaluation of these systems. A wide variety of approaches and methodologies have been applied in assessing the impact of information systems in health care, ranging from controlled clinical trials to use of questionnaires and interviews with users. In this paper we describe methodological approaches which we have applied and refined for the past 10 years for the evaluation of health information systems. The approaches are strongly rooted in theories and methods from cognitive science and the emerging field of usability engineering. The focus is on assessing human computer interaction and in particular, the usability of computer systems in both laboratory and naturalistic settings. The methods described can be a part of the formative evaluation of systems during their iterative development, and can also complement more traditional assessment methods used in summative system evaluation of completed systems. The paper provides a review of the general area of systems evaluation with the motivation and rationale for methodological approaches underlying usability engineering and cognitive task analysis as applied to health information systems. This is followed by a detailed description of the methods we have applied in a variety of settings in conducting usability testing and usability inspection of systems such as computer-based patient records. Emerging trends in the evaluation of complex information systems are discussed.

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.jbi.2004.01.003

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • It is often difficult simply to generalise from results obtained using RCTs when studying complex interventions such as eHealth technologies.

    “It is therefore often difficult simply to generalise from results obtained using RCTs when studying complex interventions such as eHealth technologies [16],[17],[20].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Wiklund ME. Usability in practice. New York: Academic Press; 1994.
  2. Ericsson K, Simon H. Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 1993.
  3. Wharton C, Rieman J, Lewis C, Polson P. The cognitive walk- through method: a practitionerÕs guide. In: Nielsen J, Mack RL, editors. Usability inspection methods. New York: Wiley; 1994. p. 105-39.
  4. Weiss S. Handheld usability. New York: Wiley; 2002.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kushniruk, A. W., & Patel, V. L.
Affiliations
  • York University (CA)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Kushniruk, Andre W.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-02
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
56-76
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160271672
Cited by
760
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 34
FWCI
50.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
health information systems, usability evaluation, usability engineering, cognitive task analysis, clinical information systems, usability testing, usability inspection, formative assessment, summative assessment, computer-based patient records, human-computer interaction, naturalistic assessment, laboratory evaluation
MeSH terms
Biomedical Engineering, Cognition, Medical Informatics, Medical Informatics Applications, Psychomotor Performance, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Software Validation, Task Performance and Analysis, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, User-Computer Interface

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