The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interacting With Hypertext: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies
Abstract
The meta-analysis compared and synthesized the results of 23 experimental studies on hypertext. The analysis was based on 56 pairs of effect sizes and significance levels of the impact of users, tasks, and tools on interactions with hypertext. This analysis focused on three factors that prevailingly influence the use of hypertext: the cognitive styles and spatial ability of users; the complexity of tasks; and the structure of information organization and the visualization of the structure. The meta-analysis found that this group of experimental studies reported significantly discrepant findings, indicating that substantial differences exist among individual experiments. Individual differences in cognition did not yield enough evidence to conclude that the effect sizes are significantly apart from zero. The meta-analysis showed that the overall performance of hypertext users tended to be more effective than that of nonhypertext users, but the differences in efficiency measures were consistently in favor of nonhypertext users. Users benefited more from hypertext tools for open tasks. Overall, the complexity of tasks has the largest combined effect sizes. Graphical maps that visualize the organization of hypertext have significant impact on the usefulness of a hypertext system. This meta-analysis raised two issues concerned with the present hypertext literature: (a) the absence of a taxonomy of tasks for analyzing and comparing hypertext usability across studies, and (b) the weaknesses of the connections between abstract hypertext reference models and specific hypertext systems. These weaknesses may considerably undermine the significance of individual findings on hypertext usability. Results of the meta-analysis suggest that the discrepancies among empirical findings are related to these weaknesses. Future work on hypertext usability should emphasize task taxonomies along with longitudinal and ethnographic studies for a deep understanding of the interactions between users and hypertext. Recommended research issues for the future are highlighted in Section 5.
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
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Meta-analysis in social research
(1982) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(82)90011-8 · Cited by 3,853
Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey
Conklin (1987) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.1987.1663693 · Cited by 2,718
Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings across Studies
Feldman, J. M., Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1984) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258247 · Cited by 1,199
gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion
Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1988) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/58566.59297 · Cited by 1,088
The Dexter hypertext reference model
Halasz, F., & Schwartz, M. (1994) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/175235.175237 · Cited by 914
(2020) · The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society · doi:10.4135/9781483375519.n303 · Cited by 674
Finding facts vs. browsing knowledge in hypertext systems
Marchionini, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1988) · Computer · doi:10.1109/2.222119 · Cited by 442
Information-seeking strategies of novices using a full-text electronic encyclopedia
Marchionini, G. (1989) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(198901)40:1<54::aid-asi6>3.0.co;2-r · Cited by 386
Formative design evaluation of superbook
Egan, D. E., Remde, J. R., Gomez, L. M., Landauer, T. K., Eberhardt, J., & Lochbaum, C. C. (1989) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/64789.64790 · Cited by 342
Cited by
Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education
(2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-808-6 · Cited by 363
The production and use of semantically rich accounting reports on the Internet: XML and XBRL
Debreceny, R., & Gray, G. L. (2001) · International Journal of Accounting Information Systems · doi:10.1016/s1467-0895(00)00012-9 · Cited by 259
The interplay between self-regulation in learning and cognitive load
Seufert, T. (2018) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.004 · Cited by 227
The effects and interaction of spatial visualization and domain expertise on information seeking
Downing, R. E., Moore, J. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.040 · Cited by 117
Ignacio Madrid, R., Van Oostendorp, H., & Puerta Melguizo, M. C. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.06.005 · Cited by 99
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, C., & Rada, R.
- Venue
- Human-Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1996-06-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 125-156
- ISSN
- 0737-0024 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074241739
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 1.00
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interacting With Hypertext: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327051hci1102_2
- The paper
- Chen, C., & Rada, R. (1996). Interacting With Hypertext: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies. Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1102_2
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.