The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: Testing the usability of an online library catalogue
Abstract
Think-aloud protocols are a dominant method in usability testing. There is, however, only little empirical evidence on the actual validity of the method. This paper describes an experiment that compares concurrent and retrospective think-aloud protocols for a usability test of an online library catalogue. There were three points of comparison: usability problems detected, overall task performance, and participant experiences. Results show that concurrent and retrospective think-aloud protocols reveal comparable sets of usability problems, but that these problems come to light in different ways. In retrospective think-aloud protocols, more problems were detected by means of verbalisation, while in concurrent think-aloud protocols, more problems were detected by means of observation. Moreover, in the concurrent think-aloud protocols, the requirement to think aloud while working had a negative effect on the task performance. This raises questions about the reactivity of concurrent think-aloud protocols, especially in the case of high task complexity.
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.
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
Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001 · Cited by 3,537
The Usability Engineering Lifecycle
NIELSEN, J. (1993) · Usability Engineering · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-052029-2.50007-3 · Cited by 2,657
A Comparison of Concurrent and Retrospective Verbal Protocol Analysis
Kuusela, H., & Paul, P. (2000) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1423365 · Cited by 408
Sample sizes for usability studies: Additional considerations
Lewis, J. R. (1994) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/001872089403600215 · Cited by 341
Cited by
Jaspers, M. W. M. (2009) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002 · Cited by 649
Lalmas, M., O’Brien, H., & Yom-Tov, E. (2015) · Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02289-0 · Cited by 192
Layered evaluation of interactive adaptive systems: framework and formative methods
Paramythis, A., Weibelzahl, S., & Masthoff, J. (2010) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-010-9082-4 · Cited by 145
Gaze Path Stimulation in Retrospective Think-Aloud
Hyrskykari, A., Ovaska, S., Majaranta, P., Räihä, K.-J., & Lehtinen, M. (2008) · Journal of Eye Movement Research · doi:10.16910/jemr.2.4.5 · Cited by 118
Do Developers Read Compiler Error Messages?
Barik, T., Smith, J., Lubick, K., Holmes, E., Feng, J., Murphy-Hill, E., & Parnin, C. (2017) · 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse.2017.59 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- van den Haak, M., De Jong, M., & Jan Schellens, P.
- Venue
- Behaviour & Information Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 339-351
- ISSN
- 0144-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1362-3001
- OpenAlex
- W2140721422
- Cited by
- 486
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 8.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
