Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36426262›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2022

Who is in the sample? An analysis of real and surrogate users as participants in user study research in the information technology fields.

Joni Salminen, Soon-Gyo Jung, Ahmed Kamel, Willemien Froneman, Bernard J Jansen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Joni SalminenQatar Computing Research Institute, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar.
Soon-Gyo JungQatar Computing Research Institute, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar.
Ahmed KamelDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-3791-5998
Willemien FronemanAfrica Open Institute, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Bernard J JansenQatar Computing Research Institute, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Constructing a sample of Objective: To determine how often user studies reported in peer-reviewed information technology literature sample Method: We analyzed 725 user studies reported in 628 peer-reviewed articles published from 2013 through 2021 in 233 unique conference and journal outlets, retrieved from the ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science archives. To study the sample selection choices, we categorized each study as generic ( Results: Our analysis of all 725 user studies shows that roughly two-thirds (75.4%) sampled Conclusions: Key findings are as follows: (a) the state of sampling Implications: The results imply a need for standard guidelines for reporting the types of users sampled for a user study. We provide a template for reporting user study sampling with examples.

Indexed as

Effect of user studiesExternal validitySamplingStudy participantsUser studiesValue of user types

Identifiers

PMID36426262
PMCPMC9680893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.