Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 320

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

Chen, Chaomei, Rada, Roy·1996·Human-Computer Interaction

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327051hci1102_2

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 320

Metadata

Authors
Chen, C., & Rada, R.
Venue
Human-Computer Interaction
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.