Cited by 114Usability and User Interface DesignHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

Perspectives on Cognitive Task Analysis

Hoffman, Robert R., Militello, Laura G.·2008·Psychology Press eBooks

Abstract

Perspectives on cognitive task analysis , Perspectives on cognitive task analysis , کتابخانه الکترونیک و دیجیتال - آذرسا

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9780203809877

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The 'field of dreams' fallacy is well-known in other domains where it is also referred to as the 'designer fallacy' or 'designer-centered design'.

    “The 'fi eld of dreams ' fallacy is well-known in other domains where it is also referred to as the ' designer fallacy ' or ' designercentered design ' . 77”

    From Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities (2010) · cites this paper as [77]

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoffman, R. R., & Militello, L. G.
Venue
Psychology Press eBooks
Published
2008-09-09
OpenAlex
W2738143303
Cited by
114
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
FWCI
6.31
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychology Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
cognitive task analysis, task analysis, human cognition

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