NASA RTLX as a Novel Assessment Tool for Determining Cognitive Load and User Acceptance of Expert and User-based UsabilityEvaluation Methods

Background: Mobile health applications are frequently used to manage different health conditions. Diabetes is one disease where these are used in patients’ personalized disease self-management, but where the usability is often deficient. Two methods to assess usability are the cognitive walkthrough (CW), which is expert-based and the think aloud (TA) which is userbased. Both offer advantages and disadvantages and detect many types of usability problems affecting the user. There is a lack of research, however, on how the usability evaluators themselves experience performing these methods and the method impact. This can be an important aspect to include due to its possible implications for the evaluation. Objectives: In this article the focus was particularly on assessing the evaluators’ cognitive load and method acceptance while performing the described methods. Methods: In addition to the number of usability problems, and the system usability scores (SUS), the NASA RTLX instrument, novel for this purpose, was used together with in-depth interviews to assess the usability methods’ cognitive impact. Results: A total of 12 evaluators, six per method, detected 18 usability problems with the CW. Twenty were found with the TA. The SUS scores were 23.75 and 59.58 respectively. For both methods, users experienced a similarly high cognitive load with a RTLX score of 56.11 for CW and 53.47 for TA. According to the evaluators, both methods were cognitively demanding. Conclusion: The results highlight the potential significance of these dimensions for inclusion in the usability evaluation and in decision-making purposes between different usability evaluation methods.

[1]  Randall D. Spain,et al.  Measurement Invariance of the Nasa TLX , 2008 .

[2]  Kristie Lee Young,et al.  An Examination of the Effect of Google Glass on Simulated Lane Keeping Performance , 2015 .

[3]  Philip T. Kortum,et al.  Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale , 2009 .

[4]  M. Helfand,et al.  Mobile Applications for Self-Management of Diabetes , 2018 .

[5]  P. Ravaud,et al.  Taxonomy of the burden of treatment: a multi-country web-based qualitative study of patients with chronic conditions , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[6]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[7]  Cathleen Wharton,et al.  Cognitive Walkthroughs: A Method for Theory-Based Evaluation of User Interfaces , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[8]  Sugandha Gupta A Comparative study of Usability Evaluation Methods , 2015 .

[9]  Susan G. Hill,et al.  Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: Are paired comparisons necessary? In A , 1989 .

[10]  Barrett S. Caldwell,et al.  An Empirical Study of Usability Testing: Heuristic Evaluation Vs. User Testing , 2002 .

[11]  Deborah A. Greenwood,et al.  A Systematic Review of Reviews Evaluating Technology-Enabled Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support , 2017, Journal of diabetes science and technology.

[12]  J. Gaskins,et al.  Comparison of Industry-Leading Energy Devices for Use in Gynecologic Laparoscopy: Articulating ENSEAL versus LigaSure Energy Devices. , 2017, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[13]  Roberto G. Rodriguez PhD,et al.  Effects of a Large Area Glare Source in Cognitive Efficiency and Effectiveness in Visual Display Terminal Work , 2012 .

[14]  Peter G. Polson,et al.  Theory-Based Design for Easily Learned Interfaces , 1990, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[15]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[16]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[17]  Clayton Lewis,et al.  TASK-CENTERED USER INTERFACE DESIGN A Practical Introduction , 2006 .

[18]  Nancy Staggers,et al.  Quantifying usability: an evaluation of a diabetes mHealth system on effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction metrics with associated user characteristics , 2015, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[19]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Verbal reports as data. , 1980 .

[20]  Mattias Georgsson NASA RTLX as a Novel Assessment for Determining Cognitive Load and User Acceptance of Expert and User-Based Evaluation Methods Exemplified Through a mHealth Diabetes Self-Management Application Evaluation , 2019, pHealth.

[21]  Cathleen Wharton,et al.  The cognitive walkthrough method: a practitioner's guide , 1994 .

[22]  Andrea Elvira Pattini,et al.  Effects of a Large Area Glare Source in Cognitive Efficiency and Effectiveness in Visual Display Terminal Work , 2012 .

[23]  Evon M. O. Abu-Taieh,et al.  Comparative Study , 2020, Definitions.

[24]  Moshe Eizenman,et al.  An on-road assessment of cognitive distraction: impacts on drivers' visual behavior and braking performance. , 2007, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[25]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems , 1993, INTERCHI.

[26]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[27]  Vimla L. Patel,et al.  Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems , 2004, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[28]  Jean F Wyman,et al.  Usability and clinical efficacy of diabetes mobile applications for adults with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review. , 2017, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[29]  David W. Bates,et al.  Usability of Commercially Available Mobile Applications for Diverse Patients , 2016, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[30]  Melinda D. Maryniuk,et al.  Diabetes Self-management Education and Support in Type 2 Diabetes , 2015, The Diabetes educator.

[31]  Robin Jeffries,et al.  User interface evaluation in the real world: a comparison of four techniques , 1991, CHI.

[32]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Verbal reports on thinking. , 1987 .

[33]  Sandra G. Hart,et al.  Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later , 2006 .

[34]  Robert A. Virzi,et al.  Refining the Test Phase of Usability Evaluation: How Many Subjects Is Enough? , 1992 .

[35]  Alison Richardson,et al.  Rethinking the patient: using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the changing dynamics of illness , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[36]  Gabriele Kasper,et al.  Introspection in second language research , 1989 .

[37]  Jason C. Goldwater Human Factors and Usability in Mobile Health Design – Factors for Sustained Patient Engagement in Diabetes Care , 2014 .

[38]  Clare-Marie Karat,et al.  Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation , 1992, CHI.

[39]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Effectiveness of user testing and heuristic evaluation as a function of performance classification , 2002, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[40]  M. Khosrow-Pour Managing Information Technology Resources in Organizations in the Next Millennium , 1999 .

[41]  Erik Frøkjær,et al.  Prediction of usability: Comparing method combinations , 1999 .