Literature DB >> 30487113

Extra-laboratorial usability tests: An empirical comparison of remote and classical field testing with lab testing.

Juergen Sauer1, Andreas Sonderegger2, Klaus Heyden2, Jasmin Biller2, Julia Klotz2, Andreas Uebelbacher2.   

Abstract

The present article examined the effects of using different extra-laboratorial testing procedures in usability testing. Three experiments were conducted using different artefacts (website, computer-simulated mobile phone, fully operational smartphone) to compare different methodological approaches in field testing (synchronous and asynchronous remote testing, classical field testing) to lab-based testing under different operational conditions (dual task demands, poor product usability). Typical outcome variables of usability testing were measured, including task completion time, click rate, perceived usability and workload. Overall, the results showed no differences between field and lab-based testing under favourable operational conditions. However, under difficult operational conditions (i.e. dual task demands, poor product usability) differences between field and lab-based testing emerged (corresponding to small and medium effect sizes). The findings showed a complex pattern of effects, suggesting that there was no general advantage of one testing procedure over another.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Asynchronous testing; Field testing; Remote testing; Synchronous testing; Usability test

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30487113     DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Ergon        ISSN: 0003-6870            Impact factor:   3.661


  2 in total

1.  Remote synchronous usability testing of public access defibrillators during social distancing in a pandemic.

Authors:  Hannah Currie; Adam Harvey; Raymond Bond; Justin Magee; Dewar Finlay
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations.

Authors:  Anne Collins McLaughlin; Patricia R DeLucia; Frank A Drews; Monifa Vaughn-Cooke; Anil Kumar; Robert R Nesbitt; Kevin Cluff
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 2.888

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.