Traditionally, symbol comprehension is tested using open-ended, written responses. However, responses are often so brief that they may fail to indicate a participant's true understanding of some symbols. In the present study, several test methods were compared to the standard written method to determine if they produce better symbol comprehension performance. The four alternative methods included: written test with probe questioning after all responses were provided, oral test without probe questioning, oral test with probe questioning after responses for all symbols were provided, and oral test with probe questioning after each partially correct or incorrect response. The probe or follow-up questioning technique is taken from the cognitive interview procedure used in eyewitness identification research to elicit more detailed responses. Participants reported their interpretations of 31 safety symbols in one of the 5 test method conditions. Results showed that the test methods that included follow-up questioning elicited more information from participants, and increased comprehension rates in both oral and written test formats. The results have implications for cost-effective symbol design and evaluation.
BRANTLEY, KIMBERLY. Oral and Written Symbol Comprehension Testing: The Benefit of Cognitive Interview Probing. (Under the direction of Michael Wogalter.) Traditionally, symbol comprehension is tested using open-ended, written responses. However, responses are often so brief that they may fail to indicate a participant's true understanding of some symbols. In the present study, several test methods were compared to the standard written method to determine if they produce better symbol comprehension performance. The four alternative methods included: written test with probe questioning after all responses were provided, oral test without probe questioning, oral test with probe questioning after responses for all symbols were provided, and oral test with probe questioning after each partially correct or incorrect response. The probe or follow-up questioning technique is taken from the cognitive interview procedure used in eyewitness identification research to elicit more detailed responses. Participants reported their interpretations of 31 safety symbols in one of the five test method conditions. Results showed that the test methods that included follow-up questioning elicited more information from participants, and increased comprehension rates in both oral and written test formats. The results have implications for cost-effective symbol design and evaluation.
The purpose of this experiment was to examine the effects of warning quality and human factors expert testimony on decision making in consumer product injury cases. Participants read summaries of consumer product accidents, where a no, poor or good warning was present. In two conditions, human factors (HF) expert testimony was included, giving an opinion on the quality of the product warnings. Participants allocated percentages of responsibility to the manufacturer, retailer, and consumer, as if they were jury members assigned to the cases. Results showed differences in allocations of responsibility among conditions. Manufacturers were allocated more responsibility when there was no warning on the product or when a poor warning was present and a HF expert testified that a better warning could have been used. Allocations did not differ between poor and good warning conditions, possibly because participants viewing poor warnings lacked knowledge of the way a good warning would look. The results have implications for warning design, the use of HF expert witnesses, and jury decision making.
Two experiments evaluated pictorial symbols intended to warn consumers of a child chokinghazard. In Experiment 1, participants used the Zwaga (1989) comprehension estimation procedure to estimate the percentage of the U.S. population they felt would understand the intended meaning of IS symbols designed to depict a choking hazard. For the symbol with the highest comprehension estimate, participants indicated that 74% of the population would correctly interpret the intended meaning: choking. All of the top-rated symbols contained similar combinations of features, including crossedhands, a protruding tongue, and a frontal face orientation. But interestingly, symbols with lower comprehension estimates also contained a different set of similar features. In Experiment 2, small groups of participants constructed multiple panel choking hazard symbols from the set of 15 symbols in the first experiment. As in the first experiment, there was a high degree of consistency among participants' responses. Unexpectedly, the first and last symbols selected for this three-panel sequence were among symbols that received the lowest comprehension estimates in the first experiment. These fmdings seem to confirm that symbol comprehensibility can be influenced by context. Implications ofthis study for future research are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.