ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Don't overthink it: The paradoxical nature of expertise for the detection of errors in conceptual business process models.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive Factors in Process Model Comprehension-A Systematic Literature Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Business process models are widely used artifacts in design activities to facilitate communication about business domains and processes. Despite being an extensively researched topic, some aspects of conceptual business modeling are yet to be fully explored and understood by academicians and practitioners alike. We study the attentional characteristics specific to experts and novices in a semantic and syntactic error detection task across 75 Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) models. We find several intriguing results. Experts correctly identify more error-free models than novices, but also tend to find more false positive defects. Syntactic errors are diagnosed faster than semantic errors by both groups. Both groups spend more time on error-free models. Our findings regarding the ambiguous differences between experts and novices highlight the paradoxical nature of expertise and the need to further study how best to train business analysts to design and evaluate conceptual models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.