The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Thinking aloud: reconciling theory and practice
Abstract
Thinking-aloud protocols may be the most widely used method in usability testing, but the descriptions of this practice in the usability literature and the work habits of practitioners do not conform to the theoretical basis most often cited for it: K.A. Ericsson and H.A. Simon's (1984) seminal work. After reviewing Ericsson and Simon's theoretical basis for thinking aloud, we review the ways in which actual usability practice diverges from this model. We then explore the concept of speech genre as an alternative theoretical framework. We first consider uses of this new framework that are consistent with Ericsson and Simon's goal of eliciting a verbal report that is as undirected, undisturbed and constant as possible. We then go on to consider how the proposed new approach might handle problems that arise in usability testing that appear to require interventions not supported in the older model.
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
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317 · cited 4×
“Nisbett and Wilson’s [ 8 ] critique must still be addressed or shown not to be applicable to the research questions of interest.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBetween and within: alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments
Goodwin, C. (1986) · Human Studies · doi:10.1007/bf00148127 · Cited by 659
Cited by
Jaspers, M. W. M. (2009) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002 · Cited by 649
Empirical Studies on Usability of mHealth Apps: A Systematic Literature Review
Zapata, B. C., Fernández-Alemán, J. L., Idri, A., & Toval, A. (2015) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-014-0182-2 · Cited by 585
The think aloud method: a guide to user interface design
JASPERS, M., STEEN, T., BOS, C., & GEENEN, M. (2004) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.08.003 · Cited by 544
Brandtzæg, P. B., Lüders, M., & Skjetne, J. H. (2010) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2010.516719 · Cited by 391
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
Blickem, C., Kennedy, A., Vassilev, I., Morris, R., Brooks, H., Jariwala, P., Blakeman, T., & Rogers, A. (2013) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12088 · Cited by 65
Sin, J., Henderson, C., Woodham, L. A., Sesé Hernández, A., & Gillard, S. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/14374 · Cited by 52
Kim, S. S. Y., Vaughan, J. W., Liao, Q. V., Lombrozo, T., & Russakovsky, O. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714020 · Cited by 58
“However, prior work has pointed out that the set-up of a think-aloud study can cause people to behave differently than they would otherwise [9, 34, 90].”
Nelms, A. A., & Segura-Totten, M. (2019) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.18-05-0077 · Cited by 50
Prokop, M., Pilař, L., & Tichá, I. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20102750 · Cited by 48
Online usability and patients with long-term conditions: A mixed-methods approach
Ossebaard, H. C., Seydel, E. R., & van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (2012) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.12.010 · Cited by 43
Grasaas, E., Fegran, L., Helseth, S., Stinson, J., Martinez, S., Lalloo, C., & Haraldstad, K. (2019) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/12940 · Cited by 35
How UX Practitioners Produce Findings in Usability Testing
Reeves, S. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3299096 · Cited by 34
Fan, M., Zhao, Q., & Tibdewal, V. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445680 · Cited by 29
Accessibility of audio and tactile interfaces for young blind people performing everyday tasks
Shimomura, Y., Hvannberg, E. T., & Hafsteinsson, H. (2010) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-009-0183-y · Cited by 28
From expert-driven to user-oriented communication of infection control guidelines
Verhoeven, F., Steehouder, M. F., Hendrix, R. M. G., & Van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C. (2010) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.07.003 · Cited by 24
(2016) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41264-1 · Cited by 22
Do You Feel the Same? On the Robustness of Cued-Recall Debriefing for User Experience Evaluation
Bruun, A., Law, E. L.-C., Nielsen, T. D., & Heintz, M. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3453479 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Boren, T., & Ramey, J.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 261-278
- ISSN
- 0361-1434 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2156196376
- Cited by
- 808
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.38
- 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.
