Estimación del tamaño de la muestra para pruebas de usabilidad
Open accessAbstract
Una de las estrategias empleadas para asegurar que una interfaz satisfaga los requerimientos del usuario es la aplicación de pruebas de usabilidad. Cuando se aplican tales pruebas una de las incógnitas a despejar es el tamaño de la muestra. Dado que, realizar pruebas en forma extensiva es costoso, reducir al mínimo el número de participantes puede contribuir en gran medida a una gestión exitosa de los recursos de un proyecto. Aunque se han propuesto un número significativo de modelos para estimar el tamaño de la muestra en una prueba de usabilidad, todavía no hay consenso acerca del tamaño óptimo. Varios estudios afirman que de 3 a 5 usuarios son suficientes para descubrir el 80% de los problemas en la interfaz de un sistema. Sin embargo, otros tantos estudios cuestionan la validez de esta aseveración. El presente estudio analizó los datos obtenidos de las pruebas de usuario de una aplicación web para verificar la regla práctica conocida comúnmente como “el número mágico 5”. El resultado del análisis mostró que la regla de los 5 usuarios subestima significativamente el tamaño de la muestra requerida para conseguir niveles razonables de detección de problemas.
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
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?
Current evidence shows that 80% of usability problems can be identified with 4 to 9 participants and 95% with 9 participants.
“Current evidence shows that 80% of usability problems can be identified with 4 to 9 participants and 95% with 9 participants [64]”
From Development and usability testing of a web-based and therapist-assisted coping skills program for managing psychosocial problems in individuals with hand and upper limb injuries: Mixed methods study (2020) · cites this paper as [64]
The Introduction describes the small-sample rule as a debated claim, not an established finding. In §4.2 (page unavailable), the paper says nine users were an underestimate for finding 80% of problems in one dataset: the calculation using the true discovery rate required 14. It reports that finding 90% required 20 users in one dataset and 10 in the other, contrary to the claim that nine users can identify 95%. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems
Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. (1993) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '93 · doi:10.1145/169059.169166 · Cited by 1,961 · see citing works
Refining the Test Phase of Usability Evaluation: How Many Subjects Is Enough?
Virzi, R. A. (1992) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/001872089203400407 · Cited by 1,237 · see citing works
Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing
Faulkner, L. (2003) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03195514 · Cited by 1,053 · see citing works
The Evaluator Effect: A Chilling Fact About Usability Evaluation Methods
Hertzum, M., & Jacobsen, N. E. (2001) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc1304_05 · Cited by 419 · see citing works
Number of people required for usability evaluation: the 10±2 rule
Hwang, W., & Salvendy, G. (2010) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1735223.1735255 · Cited by 410 · see citing works
Sample sizes for usability studies: Additional considerations
Lewis, J. R. (1994) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/001872089403600215 · Cited by 341 · see citing works
Determining Usability Test Sample Size
Nielsen, J., Lewis, J. D., & Turner, C. (2006) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780849375477.ch597 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Spool, J. M., & Schroeder, W. (2001) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/634067.634236 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Lindgaard, G., & Chattratichart, J. (2007) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1240624.1240839 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Why and when five test users aren’t enough
Woolrych, A., & Cockton, G. (2001) · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Determining Usability Test Sample Size
(2006) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780849375477-616 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Relaxing the homogeneity assumption in usability testing
Caulton, D. A. (2001) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290010020648 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Bevan, N., Barnum, C. M., Cockton, G., Nielsen, J., Spool, J. M., & Wixon, D. R. (2003) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/765891.765936 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Evaluation of Procedures for Adjusting Problem-Discovery Rates Estimated From Small Samples
Lewis, J. R. (2001) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc1304_06 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
The Magic number 5: is it enough for web testing?
Barnum, C. M. (2002) · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 16 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Virtual Reality Simulation in Nursing and Midwifery Education
Saab, M. M., McCarthy, M. J., O’Mahony, B., Cooke, E., Hegarty, J. M., Murphy, D., Walshe, N., & Noonan, B. J. (2023) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000001010 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Apraiz, A., Lasa, G., Montagna, F., Blandino, G., Triviño-Tonato, E., & Dacal-Nieto, Á. (2023) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems11090448 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Hsieh, Y., Howe, T.-H., Lee, M.-T., Tai, R.-Y., & Chen, C.-C. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-90698-6 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Norouzkhani, N., Norouzi, S., Faramarzi, M., Bahari, A., Shokri‐Shirvani, J., Eslami, S., & Tabesh, H. (2025) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-024-02842-3 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Zielke, M. A., Zakhidov, D., Lo, T., Craig, S. D., Rege, R., Pyle, H., Meer, N. V., & Kuo, N. (2025) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2323280 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Apraiz, A., Lasa, G., Mazmela, M., Arana-Arexolaleiba, N., Serrano-Muñoz, A., Elguea-Aguinaco, Í., & Etxabe, A. (2025) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-025-01224-7 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Beyeler, M., Légeret, C., Kiwitz, F., & van der Horst, K. (2023) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/47913 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Cross-Platform Usability Model Evaluation
Majrashi, K., Hamilton, M., Uitdenbogerd, A. L., & Al-Megren, S. (2020) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti4040080 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Babatunde, F. O., MacDermid, J., Grewal, R., Macedo, L., & Szekeres, M. (2020) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/17088 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Picatoste, A., Justel, D., & Mendoza, J. M. F. (2025) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2025.02.013 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Apraiz, A., Lasa, G., Mazmela, M., Arana-Arexolaleiba, N., Elguea, Í., Escallada, O., Osa, N., & Etxabe, A. (2025) · Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2025.103045 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Tundjungsari, V., Putranto, B. P. D., Ulum, M. B., & Anwar, N. (2025) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/66781 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Tomas, V., Hsu, S., Kingsnorth, S., Anagnostou, E. A., Kirsh, B. H., & Lindsay, S. (2023) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/44354 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Human–Computer Interaction Cognitive Behavior Modeling of Command and Control Systems
Li, N., Chen, X., Feng, Y., & Huang, J. (2021) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2021.3138247 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Malone, L. A., Mendonca, C. J., Mohanraj, S., Misko, S. R., Moore, J., Brascome, J. M., & Thirumalai, M. (2023) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/38484 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Bennett, A. W., & Loose, S. M. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16020557 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Interactive generative system supporting participatory house design
Kwieciński, K., & Słyk, J. (2022) · Automation in Construction · doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104665 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Evaluating a clinical decision support point of care instrument in low resource setting
Tegenaw, G. S., Amenu, D., Teklemariam, G. K., Verbeke, F., Cornelis, J. P., & Jansen, B. (2023) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-023-02144-0 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Mendonca, C. J., Malone, L. A., Mohanraj, S., & Thirumalai, M. (2023) · JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · doi:10.2196/41993 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Higa, J., Nkatha, S., Herrera, R. R., Marcus, H. J., Yoo, S., BLANDFORD, A. E., & Opie, J. (2024) · International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11548-024-03225-9 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Lahidalga, I. R. D. A., Mendiburu-Valor, E., Justel, D., & Mendoza, J. M. F. (2025) · Results in Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2025.105199 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Having a Smarter City through Digital Urban Interfaces: An Evaluation Method
Gutiérrez, L. C. A., Martín‐Gutiérrez, J., & Guerra, M. S. D. R. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9173498 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Graetz, I., Hernandez, S., Arshad, S., Byers, K., Meisel, J. L., Sadigh, G., Sakach, E. A., Gogineni, K., & Torres, M. A. (2024) · JCO Oncology Practice · doi:10.1200/op.24.00031 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Saab, M. M., O’Donovan, M. R., Koç, İ., Kenny, J., Hrdlička, J., Wild, J., Zielina, M., Hrdličková, L., Rusínová, K., Loučka, M., et al. (2026) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2026.106985 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Martins, J., Bandiera‐Paiva, P., Neto, A. R., de Carvalho, L. R. B., Padrini-Andrade, L., Machado, V. T., Junior, A. C. D. S., & Sun, S. Y. (2022) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-022-01916-4 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
A mobile app (IDoThis) for multiple sclerosis self-management: development and initial evaluation
Salimzadeh, Z., Damanabi, S., Ferdousi, R., Shaafi, S., & Kalankesh, L. R. (2022) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-022-02078-z · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Assessing AI Explainability: A Usability Study Using a Novel Framework Involving Clinicians
Kibria, M. G., Kucirka, L. M., & Mostafa, J. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) · doi:10.1109/ichi64645.2025.00069 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
New Method for Museum Archiving: “Quantitative Analysis Meets Art History”
Kim, M. (2022) · Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage · doi:10.1145/3531018 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Goueth, R., Holt, K., Eden, K., & Hoffman, A. S. (2023) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/47298 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Williams, C. J., Varnfield, M., Stott, A., & Duff, J. S. (2024) · Perioperative Care and Operating Room Management · doi:10.1016/j.pcorm.2024.100415 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Developing a small participant framework: An investigation of mode choice influential factors
Pan, M., Isham, E. A., & Ryan, A. (2023) · Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2023.100978 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Cervical consistency index is a valid predictor of preterm birth in low-risk pregnant women
Pooransari, P., Salehi, F., Afrakhteh, M., Mirzamoradi, M., Gargari, S. S., & Samani, O. G. (2018) · Universa Medicina · doi:10.18051/univmed.2018.v37.150-158 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Bernaerts, S., Witte, N. A. J. D., der Auwera, V. V., Bonroy, B., Muraru, L., Bamidis, P. D., Frantzidιs, C. A., Kourtidou‐Papadeli, C., Azevedo, N., Garatea, J., et al. (2021) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/34537 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Exploring the Usability of Phone-Based Virtual Reality in Management-Communication Training
Zielke, M. A., Zakhidov, D., Shringarpure, M. P., DeFries, E., Avila, R., Keul, J., Turner, D. C., Hargrove, S. A., Bateman, S., & Young, C. (2021) · PRESENCE Virtual and Augmented Reality · doi:10.1162/pres_a_00391 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
User Testing of the Veteran Delegation Tool: Qualitative Inquiry
Haun, J. N., Melillo, C., Schneider, T., Merzier, M. M., Klanchar, S. A., Fowler, C. A., & Benzinger, R. C. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/40634 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Mendonca, C. J., Mohanraj, S., Rogers, R. R., Malone, L. A., Thirumalai, M., Rimmer, J. H., & Brown, D. A. (2025) · INQUIRY The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing · doi:10.1177/00469580251366158 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Specialists and patients perspectives of eJamar and exergames for upper limb rehabilitation
Cela, A., Oña, E. D., & Jardón, A. (2026) · Critical Public Health · doi:10.1080/09581596.2025.2611634 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Lindsay, S., Thomson, N., Moll, S. E., Colantonio, A., & Stinson, J. (2023) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/38540 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Analisis Dan Perancangan Antarmuka Situs Portal Belajar Bagi Penyandang Dyschromatopsia
Sumolang, P. A., Delima, R., & Suwarno, S. (2024) · Jurnal Ilmiah FIFO · doi:10.22441/fifo.2023.v15i2.004 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Mabanza, N. (2023) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-26190-9_17
Virtual Reality Warisan Sejarah Lampung: Pengalaman Interaktif dan Edukatif di Desa Negeri Katon
Muhammad, M. A., Pratama, M., Utaminingtyas, I. W., Sulistiono, W. E., Martinus, M., Djausal, G. P., Mardiana, M., Herlinawati, H., Despa, D., & Khotimah, S. N. (2023) · Nemui Nyimah · doi:10.23960/nm.v3i1.59
Moreno, M. P. S., Vivas, L., Sarmiento, E. A. R., & Vivas, J. R. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2434768 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Membrilla-Mesa, M. D., Heredia‐Jimenez, J., DiCaudo, C., Serrano-Garcia, M. A., Bonilla, Y. A., Ruíz-Zafra, Á., Benghazi, K., Noguera, M., de Andres, A. O., Perez-Garcia, S., et al. (2025) · JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · doi:10.2196/60867
Madhusanka, S., Ravindran, A., Annalingam, G., Gamage, D., Jayasinghe, U., Bandara, D. L., & Ragel, R. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-89813-6_4
Salimzadeh, Z., Damanabi, S., Ferdousi, R., Shaafi, S., & Kalankesh, L. R. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26553740
Salimzadeh, Z., Damanabi, S., Ferdousi, R., Shaafi, S., & Kalankesh, L. R. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26553743
Tegenaw, G. S., Amenu, D., Ketema, G., Verbeke, F., Cornelis, J. P., & Jansen, B. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26579354
Martins, J., Bandiera‐Paiva, P., Neto, A. R. B., de Carvalho, L. R. B., Padrini-Andrade, L., Machado, V. T., da Silva Junior, A. C., & Sun, S. Y. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20218363
Uncovering Usability Issues in Mobile Government Applications: A User-Centered Approach
Alabdulrahman, R., Alqahtani, F. H., & Binkhonain, M. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3614165
Design and evaluation of an enhanced radiation protection apron for healthcare facilities
Olaniyan, A. O., Uzorka, A., & Kaptilla, T. (2025) · Radiation Physics and Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2025.113502
Vikatou, T., Jubb, C., Angioi, M., Versace, E., Abdallah, D., Weber, X., Cavallaro, A., & Morrissey, D. (2026) · Physical Therapy in Sport · doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2026.101889
Gwiaździński, P., Reuter, M., Dubis, J., Osiński, D., & Wierzchoń, M. (2026) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2026.2699832
- Authors
- Cazañas, A., De San Miguel, A., & Parra, E.
- Venue
- Enfoque UTE
- Publisher
- Universidad Tecnologica Equinoccial
- Published
- 2017-02-24
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 172-185
- ISSN
- 1390-6542 (ISSN-L)
- 1390-9363
- OpenAlex
- W2609016669
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- es
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Enfoque UTE (publishedVersion)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- usability testing, sample size determination, user testing, web application usability, problem identification, user interface evaluation, statistical power
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
