Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8070799

Sample sizes for usability studies: additional considerations.

J R Lewis
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recently, Virzi (1992) presented data that support three claims regarding sample sizes for usability studies: (1) observing four or five participants will allow a usability practitioner to discover 80% of a product's usability problems, (2) observing additional participants will reveal fewer and fewer new usability problems, and (3) more severe usability problems are easier to detect with the first few participants. Results from an independent usability study clearly support the second claim, partially support the first, but fail to support the third. Problem discovery shows diminishing returns as a function of sample size. Observing four to five participants will uncover about 80% of a product's usability problems as long as the average likelihood of problem detection ranges between 0.32 and 0.42, as in Virzi. If the average likelihood of problem detection is lower, then a practitioner will need to observe more than five participants to discover 80% of the problems. Using behavioral categories for problem severity (or impact), these data showed no correlation between problem severity (impact) and rate of discovery. The data provided evidence that the binomial probability formula may provide a good model for predicting problem discovery curves, given an estimate of the average likelihood of problem detection. Finally, data from economic simulations that estimated return on investment (ROI) under a variety of settings showed that only the average likelihood of problem detection strongly influenced the range of sample sizes for maximum ROI.

Explore related subjects

Equipment DesignErgonomicsEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansMonte Carlo MethodOffice AutomationProbabilityResearch DesignSampling StudiesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J R Lewis. 1994. Sample sizes for usability studies: additional considerations.. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089403600215

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1997

Surface and peripheral doses of dynamic and physical wedges.

PURPOSE: The physical and dosimetric differences between three different wedge systems on a multileaf collimator (MLC) equiped linear accelerator are discussed in this report. In particular, the in-field and peripheral surface doses from these wedge systems are measured and their clinical differences discussed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A parallel-plate chamber was used in a solid water phantom to measure the surface doses of the wedges. Published correction factors were used to convert relative ionization to relative surface dose. Measurements were performed for 6 and 18 MV photon beams for different field sizes, source-surface distances (SSD), and distances outside the field for peripheral dose measurements. Surface-dose profiles across a field in the wedge-gradient direction were measured for the dynamic and upper wedges. Dose profiles in the nonwedge gradient direction were measured for open beam as well as the three wedges using films at depths of maximum dose (d(max)). RESULTS: At 85 cm SSD, surface doses on the central axis under a dynamic wedge or upper wedges are similar to those of an open field, while those of a lower wedged field are as much as 100% higher. Differences in surface doses due to beam energy are relatively minor compared with differences due to SSD or wedge systems. Dynamic and upper wedges produce similar peripheral doses, much lower than those produced by the lower wedges. The surface dose profile across the field under the dynamic wedge has a higher slope than that under the upper wedge, when the difference in wedge angles is compensated for by normalization to the dose profile at d(max). In the nonwedge gradient direction, the dose profiles at d(max) of both the upper and the lower wedges demonstrate a marked effect of oblique filtration of the primary beam, resulting in an off-axis ratio at 80% of the field width of 0.95, in contrast to the off-axis ratio of 1.05 in the open and the dynamic wedged fields. CONCLUSIONS: The three wedge systems produce significantly different surface and peripheral doses that should be considered in properly choosing a wedge system for clinical use. Dynamic wedge and upper wedge systems deliver surface and peripheral doses similar to those of open fields and much lower than the lower wedge system. Both physical wedge systems degrade beam profiles in the nonwedged direction.

Equipment Design↗