Dataset Information

Performance, workload, and usability in a multiscreen, multi-device, information-rich environment.

ABSTRACT: Potential benefits of multiscreen and multiple device environments were assessed using three different computing environments. A single factor, within-subject study was conducted with 18 engineering students in a laboratory experiment. Three levels for the computing environment factor included one with a desktop computer with a single monitor (control, condition A); one with a desktop with dual monitors, as well as a single tablet computer (condition B); and one with a desktop with a single monitor, as well as two tablet computers (condition C). There was no statistically significant difference in efficiency or workload when completing scenarios for the three computing environments. However, a dual monitor desktop with a single tablet computer (B) was the ideal computing environment for the information-rich engineering problem given to participants, supported by significantly fewer errors compared to condition C and significantly higher usability ratings compared to conditions A and C. A single desktop monitor with two tablet computers (C) did not provide any advantage compared to a single desktop monitor (A).

SUBMITTER: Saleem JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7924668 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance, workload, and usability in a multiscreen, multi-device, information-rich environment.

Saleem Jason J JJ Weiler Dustin T DT

PeerJ. Computer science 20180910

Potential benefits of multiscreen and multiple device environments were assessed using three different computing environments. A single factor, within-subject study was conducted with 18 engineering students in a laboratory experiment. Three levels for the computing environment factor included one with a desktop computer with a single monitor (control, condition A); one with a desktop with dual monitors, as well as a single tablet computer (condition B); and one with a desktop with a single moni ...[more]

PMID: 33816815

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionElectronic audit and feedback (e-A&F) systems are used worldwide for care quality improvement. They measure health professionals' performance against clinical guidelines, and some systems suggest improvement actions. However, little is known about optimal interface designs for e-A&F, in particular how to present suggested actions for improvement. We developed a novel theory-informed system for primary care (the Performance Improvement plaN GeneratoR; PINGR) that covers the four principal interface components: clinical performance summaries; patient lists; detailed patient-level information; and suggested actions. As far as we are aware, this is the first report of an e-A&F system with all four interface components.Objectives(1) Use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate the usability of PINGR with target end-users; (2) refine existing design recommendations for e-A&F systems; (3) determine the implications of these recommendations for patient safety.MethodsWe recruited seven primary care physicians to perform seven tasks with PINGR, during which we measured on-screen behaviour and eye movements. Participants subsequently completed usability questionnaires, and were interviewed in-depth. Data were integrated to: gain a more complete understanding of usability issues; enhance and explain each other's findings; and triangulate results to increase validity.ResultsParticipants committed a median of 10 errors (range 8-21) when using PINGR's interface, and completed a median of five out of seven tasks (range 4-7). Errors violated six usability heuristics: clear response options; perceptual grouping and data relationships; representational formats; unambiguous description; visually distinct screens for confusable items; and workflow integration. Eye movement analysis revealed the integration of components largely supported effective user workflow, although the modular design of clinical performance summaries unnecessarily increased cognitive load. Interviews and questionnaires revealed PINGR is user-friendly, and that improved information prioritisation could further promote useful user action.ConclusionsComparing our results with the wider usability literature we refine a previously published set of interface design recommendations for e-A&F. The implications for patient safety are significant regarding: user engagement; actionability; and information prioritisation. Our results also support adopting multi-method approaches in usability studies to maximise issue discovery and the credibility of findings.

Project description:BackgroundRobotic spine surgery has continued to evolve since its US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2004, with products now including real-time video guidance and navigation during surgery. As the market for robotic surgical devices evolves, it is important to consider usability factors.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to determine the user experience of a surgical-assistive robotic device. The secondary objective was to evaluate workload, usability, the After-Scenario Questionnaire (ASQ), and the System Usability Scale (SUS). In addition, this study compares the workload, usability, and satisfaction survey of the device among different occupational groups using the device.MethodsDoctors (n=15) and nurses (n=15), the intended users of the surgical assistant robot, participated in the usability evaluation. Participants performed essential scenarios for the surgical assistant robot and provided scenario-specific satisfaction (ASQ), workload (NASA Task Load Index), and usability (SUS) scores.ResultsBoth doctors and nurses had task success rates of 85% or higher for each scenario. ASQ results showed that both doctors and nurses were least satisfied with ease of completing the task of registration (group 1: mean 4.73, SD 1.57 and group 2: mean 4.47, SD 1.8), amount of time it took (group 1: mean 4.47, SD 1.63 and group 2: mean 4.40, SD 2.09), and support information satisfaction (group 1: mean 5.13, SD 1.50 and group 2: mean 5.13, SD 1.89). All participants had low workloads, and the overall Task Load Index score had a P value of .77, which is greater than .05. The SUS results showed that the overall usability mean for doctors was 64.17 (SD 16.52) and the mean for nurses was 61.67 (SD 19.18), with a P value of .84, which is greater than .05, indicating no difference between the 2 groups.ConclusionsIn this study, doctors and nurses evaluated the interaction of the device in a simulated environment, the operating room. By evaluating the use experience and usability of the device with real intended users, we can develop a more effective and convenient user interface.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous studies have revealed widespread clinician frustration with the usability of electronic health records (EHRs) that is counterproductive to adoption of EHR systems to meet the aims of health-care reform. With poor system usability comes increased risk of negative unintended consequences. Usability issues could lead to user error and workarounds that have the potential to compromise patient safety and negatively impact the quality of care.[1] While there is ample research on EHR usability, there is little information on the usability of laboratory information systems (LISs). Yet, LISs facilitate the timely provision of a great deal of the information needed by physicians to make patient care decisions.[2] Medical and technical advances in genomics that require processing of an increased volume of complex laboratory data further underscore the importance of developing user-friendly LISs. This study aims to add to the body of knowledge on LIS usability.MethodsA survey was distributed among LIS users at hospitals across the United States. The survey consisted of the ten-item System Usability Scale (SUS). In addition, participants were asked to rate the ease of performing 24 common tasks with a LIS. Finally, respondents provided comments on what they liked and disliked about using the LIS to provide diagnostic insight into LIS perceived usability.ResultsThe overall mean SUS score of 59.7 for the LIS evaluated is significantly lower than the benchmark of 68 (P < 0.001). All LISs evaluated received mean SUS scores below 68 except for Orchard Harvest (78.7). While the years of experience using the LIS was found to be a statistically significant influence on mean SUS scores, the combined effect of years of experience and LIS used did not account for the statistically significant difference in the mean SUS score between Orchard Harvest and each of the other LISs evaluated.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicate that overall usability of LISs is poor. Usability lags that of systems evaluated across 446 usability surveys.

Dataset Information

Performance, workload, and usability in a multiscreen, multi-device, information-rich environment.

Publications

Performance, workload, and usability in a multiscreen, multi-device, information-rich environment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets