The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing Concurrent Think-Aloud Protocol as a Usability Test Method: A Technical Communication Approach
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
“Interestingly, many authors, who deal with think-aloud, also recommend combining them with eye-tracking [47,54,64,65,67,71].”
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 [65]
In the citing paper
“The data omissions occur especially when the presented information is difficult to verbalize or the processes are automatic for participants [55,56,64,65].”
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 [65]
In the citing paper
“In the case of CTA, the risk of losing such evidence is lower because it is more natural for participants to verbalize the information, which they can read from the screen while solving the task [64,65,81].”
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 [65]
In the citing paper
“Scientists, who have described deficiencies of verbal protocols, recommend their combination with eye-tracking, which helps to complete missing data and insights [47,54,64,65].”
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 [65]
In the citing paper
“In such cases, the participants performing complex tasks can also pause their speech [64,65], but this does not necessarily mean that task circumstances would not be verbalized at all.”
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 [65]
2 more claims about this paper
Create a free account to see every claim other papers make about this one.
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
Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research
Rayner, K. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 · Cited by 7,979
Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001 · Cited by 3,537
Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions.
Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.181 · Cited by 1,417
Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking
Clark, H. (2002) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00017-3 · Cited by 1,235
Research works printed but not linked: 49
- cooke, 2008, how do users search web home pages? an eye-tracking study of multiple navigation menus, Tech Commun, 55, 176
- cooke, 2005, Eye tracking: How it works and how it relates to usability, Tech Commun, 52, 456
- 10.1177/154193129003401719 · DOI · Paper page
- van den haak, 2007, evaluation of an informational web site: three variants of the think-aloud method compared, Tech Commun, 54, 58
- 10.1109/TPC.2006.885865 · doi:10.1109/tpc.2006.885865
- 10.1016/j.intcom.2004.07.007 · DOI
- jacob, 2003, Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research, 573
- 10.1037/h0027443 · DOI
- 10.1177/154193129003401720 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/01449290701773842 · DOI
- 10.1109/TPC.2004.828205 · DOI
- rubin, 1994, Handbook of Usability Testing How to Plan Design and Conduct Effective Tests
- 10.1080/0044929031000 · DOI · Paper page
- byrne, 2003, The Human-computer interaction handbook, 97
- 10.1145/502907.502908 · DOI
- 10.2307/356600 · doi:10.2307/356600 · Paper page
- 10.2307/358259 · DOI
- 10.2307/376913 · doi:10.2307/376913
- nielsen, 1993, Usability Engineering
- 10.2307/377376 · doi:10.2307/377376
- dumas, 1994, A Practical Guide to Usability Testing
- schneiderman, 1998, Designing the User Interface Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction
- 10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50013-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/47.867941 · DOI
- goffman, 1981, Forms of Talk, 197
- 10.1109/47.44537 · DOI
- 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0203_2 · DOI
- 10.1109/IPCC.1988.24046 · doi:10.1109/ipcc.1988.24046
- ericsson, 1980, Protocol Analysis
- 10.1016/0010-0285(90)90004-N · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0003-066X.47.6.802 · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.47.6.802 · Paper page
- 10.1037/0096-3445.122.2.166 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BF03202637 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/47.867942 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145044 · DOI
- anderson, 1993, Rules of the Mind
- holtzblatt, 2003, The Human-computer interaction handbook, 941
- 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.61 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/IPCC.1988.24019 · doi:10.1109/ipcc.1988.24019
- 10.1097/00006324-199507000-00005 · doi:10.1097/00006324-199507000-00005
- ramey, 1987, usability testing: conducting the test procedure itself, Proc Int Professional Communication Conf, 131
- 10.1109/47.44542 · DOI
- krug, 2005, Don't Make Me Think A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability
- redish, 2007, Letting Go of the Words Writing Web Content That Works
- 10.1016/0042-6989(77)90207-3 · DOI
- nielsen, 2006, Prioritizing Web Usability
- wesolowsky, 1976, Multiple Regression and Analysis of Variance
- 10.1086/266577 · DOI · Paper page
- ericsson, 1988, concurrent verbal reports on reading and text compression, Text, 8, 295, 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.4.295 · DOI
Cited by
Harte, R., Glynn, L., Rodríguez-Molinero, A., Baker, P. M., Scharf, T., Quinlan, L. R., & ÓLaighin, G. (2017) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/humanfactors.5443 · Cited by 399
Atwal, A., Money, A., & Harvey, M. (2014) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3723 · Cited by 52
Prokop, M., Pilař, L., & Tichá, I. (2020) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s20102750 · Cited by 48
Mijumbi-Deve, R., Rosenbaum, S. E., Oxman, A. D., Lavis, J. N., & Sewankambo, N. K. (2017) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0200-1 · Cited by 43
Wardle, C., Urbani, S., & Wang, E. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/79961 · Cited by 43
“This method has shown to be useful in usability test settings in order to understand people’s behavior with particular technologies [68,69], including a previous iteration of a study observing and listening to people search for health information online [70].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooke, L.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 202-215
- ISSN
- 0361-1434
- 1558-1500
- Cited by
- 128
- References
- 4
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.
