Effect of evaluators' cognitive style on heuristic evaluation: Field dependent and field independent evaluators

International Journal of Human Computer Studies

Volumn 67, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 382-393

  Ling, Chen ^a   Salvendy, Gavriel ^b,c  

^a University of Oklahoma   (United States)

^b SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING   (United States)

^c TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Cognitive style; Field dependency; Heuristic evaluation

Indexed keywords

FELT; FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD; USABILITY ENGINEERING;

COGNITIVE STYLE; EVALUATION PERFORMANCE; EVALUATION RESULTS; FIELD DEPENDENCY; FIELD INDEPENDENTS; HEURISTIC EVALUATION; NEW YORK; NIELSEN; USABILITY EVALUATION METHODS; USABILITY PROBLEMS;

HEURISTIC METHODS;

EID: 59849119085     PISSN: 10715819     EISSN: 10959300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Allport G.W. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation (1937), Holt and Co, New York
2. Antonietti A., and Gioletta M.A. Individual differences in analogical problem solving. Personality and Individual Differences 18 5 (1995) 611-619
3. Bastien J.M.C., and Scapin D.L. Evaluating a user interface with ergonomic criteria. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 7 (1995) 105-121
4. Bias R.G. The pluralistic usability walkthrough: coordinated empathies. In: Nielsen J., and Mack R.L. (Eds) (1994), Usability Inspection Methods, New York 63-76
5. Chattratichart, J., Brodie, J., 2004. Applying user testing data to UEM performance metrics. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2004 Conference, Vienna, Austria, pp. 1119-1122.
6. Chen S.Y., and Macredie R.D. Cognitive styles and hypermedia navigation: development of a learning model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 1 (2002) 3-15
7. Cegarra J., and Hoc J. Cognitive styles as an explanation of experts' individual differences: a case study in computer-assisted troubleshooting diagnosis. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 64 2 (2006) 123-136
8. De Angeli A., Matera M., Costabile M.F., Garzotto F., and Paolini P. On the advantages of a systematic inspection for evaluating hypermedia usability. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 15 3 (2003) 315-335
9. Desurvire H.W., Lawrence D., and Atwood M. Empiricism versus judgment: comparing user interface evaluation methods on a new telephone-based interface. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 23 4 (1991) 58-59
10. Dillon A., and Watson C. User analysis in HCI-the historical lessons from individual differences research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45 (1996) 619-637
11. Egan D.E. Individual differences in human-computer interaction. In: Helander M. (Ed). Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (1988), Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam 543-568
12. Ford N. Levels and types of mediation in instructional systems: an individual differences approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43 (1995) 241-259
13. Ford N., Miller D., and Moss N. Web search strategies and human individual differences: cognitive and demographic factors, Internet attitudes, and approaches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56 7 (2005) 741-756
14. Hartson H.R., Andre T., and Williges R. Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 15 1 (2003) 145-181 (revised version), first appeared in 13(4), 373-410
15. Hertzum M., and Jacobsen N.E. The evaluator effect: a chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 13 4 (2001) 421-443
16. Kagan J., Rosman B., Day D., Albert J., and Philips N. Information processing in the child: significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs 78 (1964)
17. Kessner, M., Wood, J., Dillon, R.F., West, R.L., 2001. On the reliability of usability testing. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2001 Conference Extended Abstracts, Washington, DC, pp. 97-98.
18. Kim K.S. Implications of user characteristics in information seeking on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction 13 3 (2001) 323-340
19. Lavery D., Cockton G., and Atkinson M.P. A comparison of evaluation methods using structured usability reports. Behavior and Information Technology 16 (1997) 246-266
20. Ling, C., 2005. Advances in heuristic usability evaluation method. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
21. Ling C., and Salvendy G. Extension of heuristic evaluation method: a review and reappraisal. Ergnomia 27 3 (2005) 179-197
22. Ling C., and Salvendy G. Optimizing heuristic evaluation process in E-Commerce: use of Taguchi method. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 22 3 (2007) 271-287
23. Liu M., and Reed W.M. The relationship between the learning strategies and learning style in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior 10 (1994) 419-434
24. MacMillan N.A., and Creelman C.D. Detection Theory: a User's Guide (1991), Cambridge University Press, New York, NY
25. Monk A., Wright P., Haber J., and Davenport L. Improving You Human-Computer Interface (1993), Prentice Hall, London
26. Nielsen, J., 1992. Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In: Proceedings ACM CHI'92 Conference, Monterey, CA, May 3-7, pp. 373-380.
27. Nielsen J. Usability Engineering (1993), Academic Press, Boston, MA
28. Nielsen J. Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen J., and Mack R.L. (Eds). Usability Inspection Methods (1994), Wiley, New York, NY 24-62
29. Nielsen, J., Molich, R., 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI1990 Conference, Seattle, WA, pp. 249-256.
30. Oltman P., Raskin B., and Witkin H.A. The Group Embedded Figures Test (1971), Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA
31. Pask G., and Scott B.C. Learning strategies and individual competences. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 4 (1972) 217-253
32. Parkinson A., and Redmond J.A. Do cognitive styles affect learning performance in different computer media?. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 34 3 (2002) 39-43
33. Parkinson A., Redmond J.A., and Walsh C. Accommodating field-dependence: a cross-over study. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 36 3 (2004) 72-76
34. Polson P.G., Lewis C., Rieman J., and Wharton C. Cognitive walkthroughs: A method for theory- based evaluation of user interfaces. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 36 (1992) 741-773
35. Riding R.J., and Cheema I. Cognitive styles-an overview and integration. Educational Psychology 11 3/4 (1991) 193-215
36. Riding R.J., and Rayner S. Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies (1998), David Fulton Publish, London
37. Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J.A., Humburg, J., 2000. A toolkit for strategic usability: results from workshops, panels, and surveys. In: Little, R., Nigay, L. (Eds.), In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2000 Conference. New York, pp. 337-344.
38. Rubin J. Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests (1994), Wiley, New York, NY
39. Sears A. Heuristic walkthroughs: finding the problems without the noise. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 9 3 (1997) 213-234
40. Sein M.K., Bostrom R.P., Olfman L., and Davis S.D. Visualization ability as a predictor of user learning success. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 39 (1993) 599-620
41. Virzi R.A. Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects are enough?. Human Factors 34 4 (1992) 457-468
42. Wang P., Hawk W.B., and Tenopir C. Users' interaction with World Wide Web Resources: an exploratory study using a holistic approach. Information Processing and Management 36 (2000) 229-251
43. Wang, S.R., Jonassen, D.H., 1993. Investigating the effects of individual differences on performance in cognitive flexibility hypertexts. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
44. Witkin H.A., and Goodenough D.R. Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins (1981), International Universities Press, New York, NY
45. Witkin H.A., Oltman P.K., Raskin E., and Karp S.A. A Manual for the Group Embedded Figures Test (1971), Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA
46. Witkin H.A., Moore C.A., Goodenough D.R., and Cox P.W. Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research 47 (1977) 1-64