Involving psychometric tests for input device evaluation with older people

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a preliminary study of using psychometric tests when testing input devices with older people. An experiment with twelve older computer users evaluating three commonly used input devices (mouse, touch screen and tablet-with-stylus) in two common computer tasks (browsing and playing solitaire), preceded by a questionnaire and psychometric tests (Simple Reaction Time, Mini Mental State Exam and Identical Picture), and concluded with debriefing interviews, is described. The paper concludes that psychometric tests can provide quantitative data that complement the information collected through the questionnaire and interview and that some psychometric data were the best predictor of task performance.

References

1. Allen, B. (1992). Cognitive differences in end user searching of a CD-ROM. In Proceedings of the 15th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Copenhagen, Denmark (pp. 298--309). New York: ACM Press.
2. Allen, B. (1994). Perceptual speed, learning and information retrieval performance. In Proceedings of the 17th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Dublin, Ireland (pp. 71--80). New York: Springer-Verlag.
3. Allen, T. J. (2002). The Online Reaction Time Test. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from Jim Allen Website: http://www.getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html
4. Buxton, W. (1990). A three-state model of graphical input. In D. Diaper, D. J. Gilmore, G. Cockton & B. Shackel, (Eds.), Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 Third International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT), Cambridge, UK (pp. 449--456). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
5. Byrne, M. D., John, B. E., Wehrle, N. S. & Crow, D. C. (1999). The tangled Web we wove: A taskonomy of WWW use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (pp. 544--551). New York: ACM Press.
6. Chaparro, A., Bohan, M., Fernandez, J., Choi, S. D. & Kattel, B. (1999). The Impact of Age on Computer Input Device Use: Psychophysical and Physiological Measures. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24, 503--513.
7. Chaparro, A., Rogers, M., Fernandez, J., Bohan, M., Choi, S. D. & Stumpfhauser, L. (2000). Range of Motion of the Wrist: Implications for Designing Computer Input Devices for the Elderly. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22(13--14), 633--637.
8. Charness, N. & Bosman, E. (1990). Human factors and Design for older adults. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds), Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. (pp. 446--463). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
9. Colman, A. M. (2003). Oxford Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. CREATE (2002). Aging, Information Technology, and the New Millenium (Summer 2002, Issue Briefs 6, 1--7). Retrieved 4-May, 2005, from The Edward R. Roybal Centers for Research on Applied Gerontology, Centre for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement Website: http://www.applied-gerontology.org/miami.pdf
11. Czaja, S. J., Sharit, J., Ownby, R., Roth, D. L. & Nair, S. (2001). Examining Age Differences in Performance of a Complex Information Search and Retrieval Task. Psychology and Aging, 16(4), 564--579.
12. Dix, A. J., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. D. & Beale, R. (2003). Human-computer interaction (3 ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
13. Douglas, S. A. & Mithal, A. K. (1997). The ergonomics of computer pointing devices. London: Springer.
14. dmoz. (2002). About the Open Directory Project. from dmoz Website: http://dmoz.org/about.html
15. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H. & Dermen, D. (1976). Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Educational Testing Service. Princeton, USA.
16. Field, A. (2000). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows: Advanced Techniques for Beginners. London: SAGE Publications.
17. Foley, J., Wallace, V. L. & Chan, P. (1984). The Human Factors of Computer Graphics Interaction Techniques. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer Graphics and Applications, 4(11), 13--48.
18. Folstein, M., Folstein, S. & McHugh, P. (1975). Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189--198.
19. Greenstein, J. S. (1997). Pointing Device. In M. G. Helander, T. K. Landauer & P. V. Prabhu (Eds), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. (pp. 1317--1348). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
20. Hinckley, K. (2002). Input Technologies and Techniques. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds), The Human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications. (pp. 151--168). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Jacob, R. J. K. (1996). Human-computer interaction: input devices. ACM Computing Surveys, 28(1), 177--179.
22. Kurlowicz, L. (1999). The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). Retrieved August 28, 2004, from The Hartford Institute for Geriatric Nursing, Division of Nursing, New York University Website: http://www.hartford.org/publications/trythis/issue03.pdf
23. Kurniawan, S. (2001). Using GOMS to predict older adults' search time of health information in a hierarchical structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,. Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. Detroit, Michigan, Wayne State University.
24. Laursen, B., Jensen, B. & Ratkevicius, A. (2001). Performance and muscle activity during computer mouse tasks in young and elderly adults. Eur J Appl Physiol., 84(4), 329--336.
25. Milner, N. P. (1988). A review of human performance and preferences with different input devices to computer systems. In D. Jones & R. Winder, (Eds.), People and Computers IV: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the British Computer Society -- Human-Computer Interaction Group, Manchester, UK (pp. 341--362). Cambridge University Press.
26. Preece, J., Rogers, Y. & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
27. Sears, A. & Shneiderman, B. (1991). High precision touchscreens: design strategies and comparisons with a mouse. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(4), 593--613.
28. Seidler, A., Hellenbrand, W., Robra, B., Vieregge, P., Nischan, P., Joerg, J., Oertel, W., Ulm, G. & Schneider, E. (1996). Possible environmental, occupational, and other etiologic factors for Parkinson's disease: a case-control study in Germany. Neurology, 46, 1275--1284.
29. Smith, M. W., Sharit, J. & Czaja, S. J. (1999). Aging, Motor Control, and the Performance of Computer Mouse Tasks. Human Factors, 4(3), 389--396.
30. Sutcliffe, A. (1995). Human-computer interface design (2 ed.). London: Macmillan.
31. Zaphiris, P., Shneiderman, B. & Norman, K. L. (2002). Expandable Indexes Versus Sequential Menus for Searching Hierarchies on the World Wide Web. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(3), 185--201.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • HCI design and evaluation methods

    • Interaction devices

      • Touch screens

  • Interaction design