The DOI matches its Crossref record; 202 of the 202 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Engagement in HCI: Conception, Theory and Measurement
Open accessAbstract
Engaging users is a priority for designers of products and services of every kind. The need to understand users’ experiences has motivated a focus on user engagement across computer science. However, to date, there has been limited review of how Human--Computer Interaction and computer science research interprets and employs the concept. Questions persist concerning its conception, abstraction, and measurement. This article presents a systematic review of engagement spanning a corpus of 351 articles and 102 definitions. We map the current state of engagement research, including the diverse interpretation, theory, and measurement of the concept. We describe the ecology of engagement and strategies for the design of engaging experiences, discuss the value of the concept and its relationship to other terms, and present a set of guidelines and opportunities for future research.
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
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Naegele, K. D., & Goffman, E. (1956) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089106 · Cited by 25,991
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338
School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 · Cited by 12,581 · cited 3×
“School engagement has been described as malleable, responsive to contextual features, amenable to environmental change and as a ‘meta’ construct (Fredricks et al. 2004).”
BackgroundThe Logic of Scientific Discovery.
Hutchison, T. W., & Popper, K. R. (1959) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2550489 · Cited by 7,499
Picard, R. W. (1997) · MIT Press · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001 · Cited by 7,382
Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering—A Systematic Literature Review
Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009 · Cited by 4,537
A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004 · Cited by 2,890
A wandering mind is an unhappy mind
Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1192439 · Cited by 2,575
Cited by
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8 · Cited by 1,097
Technology Acceptance in Mobile Health: Scoping Review of Definitions, Models, and Measurement
Nadal, C., Sas, C., & Doherty, G. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/17256 · Cited by 320
Self-citationEcological momentary interventions for mental health: A scoping review
Balaskas, A., Schueller, S. M., Cox, A. L., & Doherty, G. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248152 · Cited by 235
Self-citationEngagement in digital interventions.
Nahum-Shani, I., Shaw, S. D., Carpenter, S. M., Murphy, S. A., & Yoon, C. (2022) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000983 · Cited by 177
Mohr, D. C., Schueller, S. M., Tomasino, K. N., Kaiser, S. M., Alam, N., Karr, C., Vergara, J. L., Gray, E. L., Kwasny, M. J., & Lattie, E. G. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/13609 · Cited by 116
Metadata
- Authors
- Doherty, K., & Doherty, G.
- Venue
- ACM Computing Surveys
- Published
- 2018-11-19
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1-39
- ISSN
- 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7341
- OpenAlex
- W2901843047
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 202
- FWCI
- 15.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Engagement in HCI: Conception, Theory and Measurement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/3234149
- The paper
- Doherty, K., & Doherty, G. (2019). Engagement in HCI: Conception, Theory and Measurement. ACM Computing Surveys. https://doi.org/10.1145/3234149
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.
