Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 57

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The value of Retrospective and Concurrent Think Aloud in formative usability testing of a physician data query tool

Peute, Linda W.P., de Keizer, Nicolette F., Jaspers, Monique W.M.·2015·Journal of Biomedical Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.02.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.jbi.2015.02.006

Cites

1 of 1 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

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Campbell EM, Sittig DF. Guappone KP, Dykstra RH, Ash JS. Overdependence on technology: an unintended adverse consequence of computerized provider order entry. In: AMIA annu symp proc. 2007. p. 94–8.
  2. National questionnaire study on clinical ICT systems proofs: Physicians suffer from poor usability. Johanna Viitanen, Hannele Hyppönen, Tinja Lääveri, Jukka Vänskä, Jarmo Reponen, Ilkka Winblad. Int J Med Inf 2011; 80(10):708–25. · DOI
  3. Horsky, 2005, To err is not entirely human: complex technology and user cognition, J Biomed Inform, 38, 264, 10.1016/j.jbi.2005.05.002 · DOI
  4. Svanæs, 2010, Usability testing of mobile ICT for clinical settings: methodological and practical challenges, Int J Med Inform, 79, e24, 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.06.014 · DOI
  5. Lai, 2007, Iterative refinement of a tailored system for self-care management of depressive symptoms in people living with HIV/AIDS through heuristic evaluation and end user testing, Int J Med Inform, 76, 2
  6. Khajouei, 2011, Determination of the effectiveness of two methods for usability evaluation using a CPOE medication ordering system, Int J Med Inform, 80, 341, 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.02.005 · DOI
  7. Norio Ishii, Kazuhisa Miwa. Interactive processes between mental and external operations in creative activity: a comparison of experts’ and novices’ performance. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference on creativity & cognition. 2002 Oct. 13–16. p. 178–85. · doi:10.1145/581710.581737
  8. Kjeldskov, 2010, A longitudinal study of usability in health care: does time heal?, Int J Med Inform, 79, e135, 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.008 · DOI
  9. Boren, 2000, Thinking aloud: reconciling theory and practice, IEEE Trans Prof Comm, 43, 261, 10.1109/47.867942 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bowers VA, Snyder HL. Concurrent versus retrospective verbal protocols for comparing window usability. Human factors society 34th meeting. 1990 Oct. 8–12 (Santa Monica: HFES). p. 1270–1274. · DOI · Paper page
  11. De Jong, 2000, Towards a document evaluation methodology: what does research tell us about the validity and reliability of methods?, IEEE Trans Prof Commun, 43, 242, 10.1109/47.867941 · DOI
  12. Russo, 1989, The validity of verbal protocols, Mem Cognition, 17, 759, 10.3758/BF03202637 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Teague R, De Jesus K, Nunes-Ueno M. Concurrent vs. post-task usability test ratings. In: Conference on human factors and computing systems, 2001 31 March–5 April (Seattle, WA: ACM SIGCHI):289–290. · doi:10.1145/634067.634238
  14. Hartson, 2001, Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods, Int J Hum Compos Interact, 13, 241
  15. Arts, 2002, Quality of data collected for severity of illness scores in the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry, Intens Care Med, 28, 656, 10.1007/s00134-002-1272-z · DOI · Paper page
  16. De Keizer, 2011, NICE online; a web-based tool for monitoring performance measures in intensive care, Neth J Crit Care, 15, 131
  17. Kushniruk, 2004, Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems, J Biomed Inform, 37, 56, 10.1016/j.jbi.2004.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Sears, 1997, Heuristic walkthroughs: finding the problems without the noise, IJHCI, 9, 213
  19. Turner, 2006, Determining usability test sample size, vol. 3, 2nd ed.
  20. Nielsen J. Getting access to what goes on in people’s heads?: reflections on the think-aloud technique. NordiCHI ‘02 Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction, p: 101–110. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Haak, van den, 2003, Retrospective versus concurrent think-aloud protocols: testing the usability of an online library catalogue, Behav Inform Technol, 22, 339, 10.1080/0044929031000 · DOI · Paper page
  22. McDonald, 2013, Dual verbal elicitation: the complementary use of concurrent and retrospective reporting within a usability test, Int J Human Comput Interact, 29, 10.1080/10447318.2012.758529 · DOI
  23. Spires, 1998, Prior knowledge activation: inducing engagement with informational texts, J Educ Psychol, 90, 249, 10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.249 · DOI
  24. Muin, 2005, SLIM: an alternative Web interface for MEDLINE/PubMed searches – a preliminary study, BMC Med Inform Decis Making, 1, 37, 10.1186/1472-6947-5-37 · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-5-37
  25. Horvath, 2011, The DEDUCE Guided Query tool: Providing simplified access to clinical data for research and quality improvement, J Biomed Inform, 44, 266, 10.1016/j.jbi.2010.11.008 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 57

Metadata

Authors
Peute, L. W. P., de Keizer, N. F., & Jaspers, M. W. M.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
55
Pages
1-10
ISSN
1532-0464
DOI
10.1016/j.jbi.2015.02.006
Cited by
57
References
1
Language
en
Licence

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.