A visual ergonomic evaluation of different screen types and screen technologies with respect to discrimination performance

Oetjen, Sophie; Ziefle, Martina

doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.01.008

Cited by 36 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, the use of computer‐based assessments presents some challenges. Previous research indicates that graphical or complex displays (Mazzeo & Harvey, 1988), speededness (Mead & Drasgow, 1993), screen/font size and resolution (Bridgeman, Lennon, & Jackenthal, 2003; Oetjen & Ziefle, 2009), the (in)ability to revise/review previous responses (Revuelta, Ximenez, & Olea, 2003; Vispoel, Rocklin, Wang, & Bleiler, 1999), and familiarity or practice time with computers (Taylor, Kirsch, Jamieson, & Eignor, 1999; Wang, Jiao, Young, Brooks, & Olson, 2008) may all affect student performance on computer‐based assessments. Moreover, full CBT implementation can be difficult due to limited resources at either the national or school level.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Comparability of Paper‐ and Computer‐Based Science Tests Across Sex and SES Subgroups

Randall

Sireci

et al. 2012

Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As access and reliance on technology continue to increase, so does the use of computerized testing for admissions, licensure/certification, and accountability exams. Nonetheless, full computer‐based test (CBT) implementation can be difficult due to limited resources. As a result, some testing programs offer both CBT and paper‐based test (PBT) administration formats. In such situations, evidence that scores obtained from different formats are comparable must be gathered. In this study, we illustrate how contemporary statistical methods can be used to provide evidence regarding the comparability of CBT and PBT scores at the total test score and item levels. Specifically, we looked at the invariance of test structure and item functioning across test administration mode across subgroups of students defined by SES and sex. Multiple replications of both confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch differential item functioning analyses were used to assess invariance at the factorial and item levels. Results revealed a unidimensional construct with moderate statistical support for strong factorial‐level invariance across SES subgroups, and moderate support of invariance across sex. Issues involved in applying these analyses to future evaluations of the comparability of scores from different versions of a test are discussed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Comparability of Paper‐ and Computer‐Based Science Tests Across Sex and SES Subgroups

Randall

Sireci

et al. 2012

Educational Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Legibility is one of the most commonly used ergonomic criteria for displays. [22][23][24][25] The 10 critical factors determining legibility are ambient luminance, illumination, contrast, color combinations, font, text size, letter size, visual crowding, and positional angle, and display. 26 Many studies have been conducted on legibility equations.…”

Section: Studies Related To Legibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of curved computer displays on visual performance, visual fatigue, and emotional image quality

Lim

Yan

2019

J Soc Info Display

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the effects of the curvature of curved computer displays on the visual performance, fatigue, and emotional image quality experienced by users during the performance of visual tasks. The characteristics of curved displays were compared and analyzed for different curvatures to investigate whether the curved displays showed improvements in terms of convenience of use when compared with flat displays. The visual performance results for the evaluated displays can be classified into three groups according to their response times, as (2000R = 2500R) > (3000R) > (3800R = 4500R = Flat). The visual fatigue results for average pupil size during a search task was 3.468 mm for flat and 3.355 mm for 2000R. This means that a 2000R curved display was found to be easier to use and thus generated less visual fatigue than a flat display when performing the same visual search task. Further, the results indicated that visual performance improved and visual fatigue decreased significantly as curvature increased. In this study, a curvature limit of 1700R was derived, when considering the image distortion of a 34‐in 21:9 curved display, and there was found to be no difference in the emotional image quality at curvatures greater than 2000R.

show abstract

“…In addition, users may adjust settings on portable computers for reasons other than ease of use -for example, a user may reduce the brightness of a portable display to preserve battery life, regardless of the impact this may have on viewing comfort. Oetjen and Ziefle (2009) note that in fact, while LCD/TFT screens, such as seen in laptops, are typically intended for a single user, they are often used in collaborative contexts, such as radiology or patient monitoring and in schools.…”

Section: Challenge 3: the Diverse Context Of Use Of Displaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pheasant and Haslegrave also note that a laptop screen is typically often only legible when viewed at a narrower range of angles. This property, anisotropy, is encountered when there is a deviation of luminance of more than 10 % depending on target location or viewing angle (Oetjen and Ziefle 2009;International Organisation for Standardization 2001), and studies have demonstrated that if a viewing angle is between 10 and 50 off-axis, performance will deteriorate (Oetjen et al 2005;Oetjen and Ziefle 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Displays in the Workplace

Sharples¹

2015

Handbook of Visual Display Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The way in which we use displays in the workplace is changing, with increasing diversity in display type, tasks, and context of use. This chapter outlines five challenges that we need to consider when designing and implementing displays in the workplace: (1) the need to continue to consider "traditional" personal computing; (2) the changing nature of displays in the workplace; (3) the diverse context of use of displays; (4) the need to predict how displays will be used in the future; and (5) considering displays as part of an interactive system. The chapter presents a set of display/human factor considerations that should be remembered when designing and evaluating displays in the workplace.

show abstract

A visual ergonomic evaluation of different screen types and screen technologies with respect to discrimination performance

Cited by 36 publications

References 27 publications

Evaluating the Comparability of Paper‐ and Computer‐Based Science Tests Across Sex and SES Subgroups

Evaluating the Comparability of Paper‐ and Computer‐Based Science Tests Across Sex and SES Subgroups

Effects of curved computer displays on visual performance, visual fatigue, and emotional image quality

Displays in the Workplace

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About