一种以工作为中心的系统用户评价方法

IF 2.2 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making Pub Date : 2021-07-25 DOI:10.1177/15553434211028474
E. Roth, A. Bisantz, Xiaomei Wang, Tracy C. Kim, A. Z. Hettinger
{"title":"一种以工作为中心的系统用户评价方法","authors":"E. Roth, A. Bisantz, Xiaomei Wang, Tracy C. Kim, A. Z. Hettinger","doi":"10.1177/15553434211028474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"New systems are often based on optimistic assumptions of how they will improve human performance. In the cognitive engineering tradition, these assumed benefits are regarded as hypotheses that need to be tested. An important element of a system user evaluation is to determine whether the hypothesized benefits are realized. Evaluation may also uncover unsupported aspects of performance or unanticipated side-effects of introducing the new technology that need to be addressed. We present a work-centered approach to user evaluation intended to meet these objectives, focusing specifically on design of tailored user-feedback questionnaires (work-centered questionnaires) that are intended to be diagnostic of how specific system elements do, or do not, support work. We summarize two recent evaluation studies we have conducted that illustrate our approach and the diagnostic power of work-centered questionnaires. We discuss how the goals and approach of a work-centered evaluation differ from more traditional approaches to usability evaluation that emphasize the use of standardized questionnaires and broad assessments of usability.","PeriodicalId":46342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","volume":"15 1","pages":"155 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15553434211028474","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Work-Centered Approach to System User-Evaluation\",\"authors\":\"E. Roth, A. Bisantz, Xiaomei Wang, Tracy C. Kim, A. Z. Hettinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15553434211028474\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"New systems are often based on optimistic assumptions of how they will improve human performance. In the cognitive engineering tradition, these assumed benefits are regarded as hypotheses that need to be tested. An important element of a system user evaluation is to determine whether the hypothesized benefits are realized. Evaluation may also uncover unsupported aspects of performance or unanticipated side-effects of introducing the new technology that need to be addressed. We present a work-centered approach to user evaluation intended to meet these objectives, focusing specifically on design of tailored user-feedback questionnaires (work-centered questionnaires) that are intended to be diagnostic of how specific system elements do, or do not, support work. We summarize two recent evaluation studies we have conducted that illustrate our approach and the diagnostic power of work-centered questionnaires. We discuss how the goals and approach of a work-centered evaluation differ from more traditional approaches to usability evaluation that emphasize the use of standardized questionnaires and broad assessments of usability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46342,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"155 - 174\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15553434211028474\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434211028474\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434211028474","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

新系统通常基于对如何提高人类绩效的乐观假设。在认知工程传统中,这些假定的益处被视为需要检验的假设。系统用户评估的一个重要元素是确定假设的利益是否实现。评估还可能发现需要解决的引入新技术的未支持的性能方面或意外的副作用。我们提出了一种以工作为中心的用户评估方法,旨在实现这些目标,特别关注量身定制的用户反馈问卷(以工作为核心的问卷)的设计,旨在诊断特定系统元素如何支持或不支持工作。我们总结了最近进行的两项评估研究,这些研究说明了我们的方法和以工作为中心的问卷的诊断能力。我们讨论了以工作为中心的评估的目标和方法与更传统的可用性评估方法有何不同,后者强调使用标准化问卷和对可用性的广泛评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Work-Centered Approach to System User-Evaluation
New systems are often based on optimistic assumptions of how they will improve human performance. In the cognitive engineering tradition, these assumed benefits are regarded as hypotheses that need to be tested. An important element of a system user evaluation is to determine whether the hypothesized benefits are realized. Evaluation may also uncover unsupported aspects of performance or unanticipated side-effects of introducing the new technology that need to be addressed. We present a work-centered approach to user evaluation intended to meet these objectives, focusing specifically on design of tailored user-feedback questionnaires (work-centered questionnaires) that are intended to be diagnostic of how specific system elements do, or do not, support work. We summarize two recent evaluation studies we have conducted that illustrate our approach and the diagnostic power of work-centered questionnaires. We discuss how the goals and approach of a work-centered evaluation differ from more traditional approaches to usability evaluation that emphasize the use of standardized questionnaires and broad assessments of usability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Is the Pull-Down Effect Overstated? An Examination of Trust Propagation Among Fighter Pilots in a High-Fidelity Simulation A Taxonomy for AI Hazard Analysis Understanding Automation Failure Integrating Function Allocation and Operational Event Sequence Diagrams to Support Human-Robot Coordination: Case Study of a Robotic Date Thinning System Adapting Cognitive Task Analysis Methods for Use in a Large Sample Simulation Study of High-Risk Healthcare Events.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1