The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Getting access to what goes on in people's heads?: reflections on the think-aloud technique
Abstract
One of the basic usability testing techniques the HCI community draws on, and which stands out as unique, is thinking aloud. We introduce the many names, uses and modifications of the classical think aloud technique, and ask the rhetorical question: What do researchers think they get when they ask people to think aloud? We answer it by discussing the classical work of Ericsson and Simon(1984), in particular their distinction between vocalisation, verbalisation and retrospective reports and the relation to short term memory. Reintroducing the psychological perspective and the focus on higher order cognitive processes, we argue that access to subjective experience is possible in terms of introspection and describe a technique that invites the user to become a participant in the analysis of his or her own cognitive processes. We suggest that use of think aloud has as a prerequisite explicit descriptions of design, test procedure and framework for analysis. We point out, however, that if the aim is to get access to human thinking, HCI research may benefit from experimental 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.
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
“In addition, thinking aloud probably affects the user's task performance (Nielsen et al., 2002;van Someren, Barnard, & Sandberg, 1994;Guan, Lee, Cuddihy, & Ramey, 2006).”
From Gaze Path Stimulation in Retrospective Think-Aloud (2008) · cites this paper as Nielsen et al., 2002
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×
“events to which they may have no access and these assertions may bear little resemblance to the actual events” ( Nisbett & Wilson 1977, p. 247 ).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialDuncker, K. (1945) · Psychological Monographs · doi:10.1037/h0093599 · Cited by 2,938
Identifying potential CSCW applications by means of activity theory concepts: a case example
Kuutti, K., & Arvonen, T. (1992) · Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work - CSCW '92 · doi:10.1145/143457.150955 · Cited by 120
Cited by
'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage': Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions
Binns, R., Van Kleek, M., Veale, M., Lyngs, U., Zhao, J., & Shadbolt, N. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173951 · Cited by 691
“The cases were used to prompt reflection on various aspects of the decision, and any explanatory information provided, using a concurrent think-aloud process [51].”
Method'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage'; Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions
(2018) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/9wqxr · Cited by 161
Björling, E. A., & Rose, E. (2019) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti3010008 · Cited by 143
"Why is 'Chicago' deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humans
Lai, V., Liu, H., & Tan, C. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376873 · Cited by 123
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
Liu, H., Lai, V., & Tan, C. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479552 · Cited by 111
Kim, H. K., Han, S. H., Park, J., & Park, J. (2016) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2016.07.002 · Cited by 80
Carter, G., Monaghan, C., & Santin, O. (2020) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/hsc.12944 · Cited by 79
“Maps are hard for me”: Identifying How Older Adults Struggle with Mobile Maps
Yu, J. E., & Chattopadhyay, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3373625.3416997 · Cited by 33
Higgins, M. (2023) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47655-6_1 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Nielsen, J., Clemmensen, T., & Yssing, C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2002-10-19
- Pages
- 101-110
- OpenAlex
- W2146778625
- Cited by
- 315
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.30
- Type
- conference paper
- 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.
