Complexity questionnaires of visual displays: A validation study of two information complexity questionnaires of visual displays

Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 391-411

  Ling, Chen ^a   Lopez, Miguel ^a   Shehab, Randa ^a  

^a University of Oklahoma   (United States)

Author keywords

Action complexity; Cognitive complexity; Information complexity; Perceptual complexity; Questionnaire validation; Website complexity

Indexed keywords

ACTION COMPLEXITY; COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY; INFORMATION COMPLEXITY; PERCEPTUAL COMPLEXITY; QUESTIONNAIRE VALIDATION;

WEBSITES;

SURVEYS;

EID: 84882242191     PISSN: 10908471     EISSN: 15206564     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20327     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education., (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Authors.
2. Card, S. K., Thomas, T. P., &, Newell, A., (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. Caswell, C. M., (1992). Choosing specifiers: An evaluation of the basic tasks model of graphical perception. Human Factors, 34 (5), 535-554.
4. Conway, A. R., &, Engle, R. W., (1996). Individual differences in working memory capacity: more evidence for a general capacity theory. Memory, 4 (6), 577-590.
5. Cronbach, L. J., (1971). Test validation. In, R. L. Thorndike, (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
6. Edmonds, B., (1999). What is complexity? The philosophy of complexity per se with application to some examples in evolution. In, F. Heylighen, &, D. Aerts, (Eds.), The evolution of complexity (pp. 1-18). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
7. Halford, G., Wilson, W., &, Phillips W., (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental and cognitive psychology. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 21 (6), 803-831.
8. Hart, S. G., &, Staveland, L. E., (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In, P. A. Hancock, &, N. Meshkati, (Eds.), Human mental workload. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.
9. ISO. (1998). ISO 9241: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (Part 11. Guidance on Usability).
10. Joseph, J. S., Chun, M., &, Nakayama, K., (1997). Attentional requirements in a "preattentive" feature search task. Nature, 387, 805-807.
11. Lewis, J. R., (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7 (1), 57-78.
12. Lewis, J. R., (2002). Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ-using data from five years of usability studies. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 14, 3-4, 463-488.
13. Liao, H., Guo, Y., Savoy, A., &, Salvendy, G., (2009). Content preparation guidelines for the web and information appliances: Cross-culture comparison. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
14. Lounsbury, J. W., Gibson, L. W., &, Saudargas, R. A., (2006). Scale development. In, F. T. Leong, &, J. T. Austin,. The psychology research handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
15. Maeda, J., (2006). The laws of simplicity: Design, technology, business, life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. McCloy, T., Derrick, W., &, Wickens, C., (1983). Workload assessment metrics-what happens when they dissociate? In Second Aerospace Behavioral Engineering Technology Conference Proceedings (P-132). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
17. Messick, S., (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performance as scientific inquiry into scoring meaning. American Psychologist, 9, 741-749.
18. Nunnally, J. C., (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19. Proctor, R. W., Vu, K. L., &, Salvendy, G., (2002). Content preparation and management for web design: Eliciting, structuring, searching, and displaying information. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 14 (1), 25-68.
20. Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., Mansfield, J., &, Jin, Z., (2005). Feature congestion: A measure of display clutter. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 761.
21. Sears, A. L., (1994). Automated metrics for user interface design and evaluation. International Journal of Biomedical Computing, 34 (1-4), 149-157.
22. Thompson, B., &, Daniel, L. G., (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56 (2), 197-208.
23. Tullis, T. S., (1984). A computer-based tool for evaluating alphanumeric displays. In, B. Shackel, (Ed.), Human-computer interaction: INTERACT '84. London: Elsevier Science Publisher.
24. Tullis, T. S. (1986). Optimizing the usability of alphanumeric displays. Proceedings of HCI '86 Conference on People and Computers, York, England, September, 1986.
25. Wickens, C. D., &, Hollands, J., (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26. Xing, J., (2004). Measures of information complexity and the implications for automation design. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. No: DOT/FAA/AM-04/17.
27. Xing, J. (2007). Information complexity in air traffic control displays. Technical Report to Federal Aviation Administration, DOT/FAA/AM-07/26.
28. Xing, J., (2008). Designing questionnaires for controlling and managing information complexity in visual displays. Technical Report to Federal Aviation Administration, DOT/FAA/AM-08/18.
29. Xing, J., &, Manning, C., (2005). Complexity and automation displays of air traffic control: Literature review and analysis. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. No: DOT/FAA/AM-05/04.