{"title":"Concurrent or Retrospective Thinking Aloud in Usability Tests? A Meta-Analytic Review","authors":"Morten Hertzum","doi":"10.1145/3665327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In usability tests, the users are commonly asked to think aloud to let the evaluator listen in on their thoughts. Two variants of this procedure involve that the users either think aloud while using the tested product (concurrent thinking aloud, CTA) or after using it (retrospective thinking aloud, RTA). This study reviews the studies that compare CTA and RTA to investigate what is gained and lost by using one or the other variant in a usability test. A total of 29 studies, reporting from 42 comparisons of CTA and RTA, matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analyses. The main differences are that for CTA task time is longer, but total time shorter, whereas for RTA the users verbalize more explanations, problem formulations, and design recommendations. In addition, CTA users probably experience the evaluator’s presence as less disturbing than RTA users do.","PeriodicalId":4,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Energy Materials","volume":"70 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Energy Materials","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3665327","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In usability tests, the users are commonly asked to think aloud to let the evaluator listen in on their thoughts. Two variants of this procedure involve that the users either think aloud while using the tested product (concurrent thinking aloud, CTA) or after using it (retrospective thinking aloud, RTA). This study reviews the studies that compare CTA and RTA to investigate what is gained and lost by using one or the other variant in a usability test. A total of 29 studies, reporting from 42 comparisons of CTA and RTA, matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analyses. The main differences are that for CTA task time is longer, but total time shorter, whereas for RTA the users verbalize more explanations, problem formulations, and design recommendations. In addition, CTA users probably experience the evaluator’s presence as less disturbing than RTA users do.
期刊介绍：
ACS Applied Energy Materials is an interdisciplinary journal publishing original research covering all aspects of materials, engineering, chemistry, physics and biology relevant to energy conversion and storage. The journal is devoted to reports of new and original experimental and theoretical research of an applied nature that integrate knowledge in the areas of materials, engineering, physics, bioscience, and chemistry into important energy applications.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
