The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The differences between retrospective and concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, it has also limitations like forgetting information or omitting its interpretation [55,56,58,67] and post-rationalization or fabrication of thoughts [68,69,70].”
From Impact of Think-Aloud on Eye-Tracking: A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Think-Aloud for Research on Decision-Making in the Game Environment (2020) · cites this paper as [58]
In the citing paper
“Thus, we can confirm claims of a number of scholars [55,56,58], that RTA is associated with a higher risk of forgetting information.”
From Impact of Think-Aloud on Eye-Tracking: A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Think-Aloud for Research on Decision-Making in the Game Environment (2020) · cites this paper as [58]
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Dorst, 1995, Comparing paradigms for describing design activity, Design Studies, Vol 16, 261, 10.1016/0142-694X(94)00012-3 · DOI · Paper page
- Lloyd, 1995, Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition?, Design Studies, Vol 16, 237, 10.1016/0142-694X(94)00011-2 · DOI
- Suwa, 1988, Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers' cognitive actions, Design Studies, Vol 19, 455, 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00016-7 · DOI · Paper page
- Gero, 1998, An approach to the analysis of design protocols, Design Studies, Vol 19, 21, 10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00015-X · DOI · Paper page
- Suwa, 1997, What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis, Design Studies, Vol 18, 385, 10.1016/S0142-694X(97)00008-2 · DOI · Paper page
- Larkin, 1987, Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words?, Cognitive Science, Vol 11, 65, 10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x · DOI · Paper page
- McNeill, 1998, Understanding conceptual electronic design using protocol analysis, Research in Engineering Design, Vol 10, 129, 10.1007/BF01607155 · DOI
- Goldschmidt, 1991, The dialectics of sketching, Creativity Research Journal, Vol 4, 123, 10.1080/10400419109534381 · DOI · Paper page
- Berry, 1984, On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 36A, 209, 10.1080/14640748408402156 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Prokop, M., Pilař, L., & Tichá, I. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20102750 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Gero, J. S., & Tang, H.-H.
- Venue
- Design Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-05
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 283-295
- ISSN
- 0142-694X
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
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.
