Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39290469›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2024

Usability testing of a conceptual model through retrospective cross-case analysis.

John Paul Mynott, Klara Kager

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2024. 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

2 authors.

John Paul MynottSchool of Education, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.
Klara KagerDepartment for Research on Teaching and Educational Interventons, University of Potsdam, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Qualitative conceptual models are commonly used in the scientific literature to make complex phenomena easier to understand. However, the effectiveness and usability of conceptual models to serve as analytical tools is rarely explored and tested, and there is a lack of guidelines for such analyses. This paper adapts and combines the methods of usability testing and cross-case analysis to describe a systematic protocol to facilitate the qualitative evaluation of conceptual models. Usability testing is an established method for identifying problems or shortcomings within a product and for assessing different dimensions of product usability: suitability, accessibility, relevance, and integrity. Cross-case analysis, on the other hand, is a qualitative research method for systematically comparing information from individual case studies and identifying commonalities and patterns that apply across cases. Taken together, these methodological approaches provide a structured way of retrospectively applying a conceptual model to existing literature and thereby evaluating its effectiveness in meeting its intended purpose.•We show how researchers can prepare, conduct, and synthesise the results of a usability test of a conceptual model.•We provide recommendations for the practical implementation of each step.•We outline the benefits, limitations, and ethical considerations that researchers should be aware of.

Indexed as

Conceptual modelCross-case analysisQualitative evaluationRetrospective analysisUsability testUsability Testing Conceptual Models

Identifiers

PMID39290469
PMCPMC11407020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.