• Gondy Leroy
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


The previous chapter discussed how a clearly defined goal helps the researcher or developer choose the type of study to perform. In this and the following chapter, it is assumed that an experiment, referred to as a user study, is to be executed. Different names are used to describe such studies depending on the discipline. For example, experiments, as they are called in psychology, are more often called user studies in informatics or randomized clinical trials in medicine. Regardless of the name used, the design of the study will influence whether any interesting results are found and the degree to which these results can be trusted and generalized beyond the study.


Mobile Phone Gestational Diabetes User Study Confusion Matrix Hawthorne Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Starks H, Diehr P, Curtis JR (2009) The challenge of selection bias and confounding in ­palliative care research. J Palliat Med 12(2):181–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kirk RE (1995) Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, MontereyGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosson MB, Carroll JM (2002) Usability engineering: scenario-based development of ­human-computer interaction. interactive technologies. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gorini A, Pallavicini F, Algeri D, Repetto C, Gaggioli A, Riva G (2010) Virtual reality in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorders. Stud Health Technol Inform 154:39–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sidani S, Miranda J, Epstein D, Fox M (2009) Influence of treatment preferences on validity: a review. Can J Nurs Res 41(4):52–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedman CP, Wyatt JC (2000) Evaluation methods in medical informatics. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maisiak RS, Berner ES (2000) Comparison of measures to assess change in diagnostic performance due to a decision support system. In: AMIA Fall Symposium, AMIA, pp 532–536Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goodman CS, Ahn R (1999) Methodological approaches of health technology assessment. Int J Med Inform 56:97–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kushniruk AW, Patel VL (2004) Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems. J Biomed Inform 37:56–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brender J (2006) Handbook of evaluation methods for health informatics (trans: Carlander L). Elsevier Inc, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirakowski J (2005) Summative usability testing: measurement and sample size. In: Bias RG, Mayhew DJ (eds) Cost-justifying usability: an update for the Internet Age. Elsevier, Ireland, pp 519–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yousefi-Nooraie R, Irani S, Mortaz-Hedjri S, Shakiba B (2010) Comparison of the efficacy of three PubMed search filters in finding randomized controlled trials to answer clinical ­questions. J Eval Clin Pract [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01554.x
  13. 13.
    Kullo IF, Fan J, Jyotishman Pathak, Savova GK, Zeenat Ali, Chute CG (2010) Leveraging informatics for genetic studies: use of the electronic medical record to enable a genome-wide association study of peripheral arterial disease. J Am Med Inform Assoc 17(5):568–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang B, Chen P, Zhang J, Zhao G, Zhang X (2010) Inferring protein-protein interactions using a hybrid genetic algorithm/support vector machine method. Protein Pept Lett 7(9):1079–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Apostolopoulou E, Raftopoulos V, Terzis K, Elefsiniotis I.(2010). Infection probability score, APACHE II and KARNOFSKY scoring systems as predictors of bloodstream infection onset in hematology-oncology patients. BMC infectious diseases, 26(10):135Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hanauer DA, Miela G, Chinnaiyan AM, Chang AE, Blayney D (2007) The registry case finding engine: an automated tool to identify cancer cases from unstructured, free-text pathology reports and clinical notes. J Am Coll Surg 205(5):690–697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Witten IH, Frank E (2000) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java. The Morgan Kaufmann Series in data management systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirakowski J (1996) The software usability measurement inventory: background and usage. In: Jordan P, Thomas B, Weerdmeester B (eds) Usability evaluation in industry. Taylor and Francis, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lewis JR (1995) IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum Comput Interact 7(1):57–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller T (2008) Dynamic generation of a health topics overview from consumer health information documents and its effect on user understanding, memory, and recall. Doctoral Dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, ClaremontGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leroy G, Chen H Med Textus (2002) An ontology-enhanced medical portal. In: Workshop on information technology and systems (WITS), BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nance DW, Naps TL (1995) Introduction to computer science: programming, problem ­solving, and data structures, 3rd edn. West Publishing Company, Minneapolis/St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xiao S, Bresler Y, Munson DC, Jr (2003). Fast Feldkamp algorithm for cone-beam computer tomography. In: 2003 international conference on image processing, IEEE, 14–17 September 2003, vol 813,pp II - 819–822, doi: 10.1109/ICIP.2003.1246806
  24. 24.
    Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL (1991) Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mast MS, Hall JA, Roter Dl (2007) Disentangling physician sex and physician communication style: their effects on patient satisfaction in a virtual medical visit. Patient Educ Couns 68:16–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sigall H, Aronson E, Hoose TV (1970) The cooperative subject: myth or reality? J Exp Soc Psychol 6(1):1–10. doi: doi:10.1016/0022-1031(70)90072-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Adair JG, Schachter BS (1972) To cooperate or to look good?: the subjects’ and experimenters’ perceptions of each others’ intentions. J Exp Soc Psychol 8:74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosnow RL, Suls JM, Goodstadt BE, Gitter AG (1973) More on the social pscyhology of the experiment: when compliance turns to self-defense. J Pers Soc Psychol 27(3):337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dixon-Woods M, Tarranta C (2009) Why do people cooperate with medical research? findings from three studies. Soc Sci Med 68(12):2215–2222. doi: doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.034 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J 100:464–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ammenwertha E, Gräber S, Herrmann G, Bürkle T, König J (2003) Evaluation of health information systems—problems and challenges. Int J Med Inform 71:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Adamis D, Martin FC, Treloar A, Macdonald AJD (2005) Capacity, consent, and selection bias in a study of delirium. J Med Ethics 31(3):137–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kho ME, Duffett M, Willison D, Cook DJ, Brouwers MC (2009) Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review. BMJ 338:b866. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b866
  34. 34.
    Leroy G, Helmreich S, Cowie J (2010) The influence of text characteristics on perceived and actual difficulty of health information. Int J Med Inform 79(6):438–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Leroy G, Helmreich S, Cowie JR (2010) The effects of linguistic features and evaluation perspective on perceived difficulty of medical text. In: Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), Kauai, 5–8 January 2010Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Baskerville JR (2010) Short report: what can educators learn from Clever Hans the Math Horse? Emerg Med Australas 22:330–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosenthal R (1965) Clever Hans: the horse of Mr. von Osten. Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc, NewyorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pfungst O (1911) Clever Hans (The Horse of Mr. von Osten): a contribution to experimental animal and human psychology. Henry Holt and Company, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Price DD, Finniss DG, Benedetti F (2008) A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: recent advances and current thought. Annu Rev Psychol 59:565–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roethlisberger FJ, Dickson WJ (1946) Management and the worker, 7th edn. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Landsberger HA (1958) Hawthorne revisited. Management and the worker, its critics, and developments in human relations in industry, vol IX. Corness studies in industrial and labor relations. W.F. Humphrey Press Inc, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Merrett F (2006) Reflections on the Hawthorne effect. Educ Psychol 26(1):143–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gale EAM (2004) The Hawthorne studies – a fable for our times? QJM Int J Med 97(7):439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Leonard K, Masatu MC (2006) Outpatient process quality evaluation and the Hawthorne effect. Soc Sci Med 63:2330–2340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cook RF, Billings DW, Hersch RK, Back AS, Hendrickson A (2007) A field test of a web-based workplace health promotion program to improve dietary practices, reduce stress, and increase physical activity: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 9(2):e17. doi: doi:10.2196/jmir.9.2.e17 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Miller T, Leroy G, Wood E (2006) Dynamic generation of a table of contents with consumer-friendly labels. In: American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) Annual Symposium, Washington DC, 11–15 November 2006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information Systems and TechnologyClaremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations