PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9769089

Ergonomics in consumer product evaluation: an evolving process.

L M Butters·R T Dixon
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As part of its commitment to empowering people to make informed consumer decisions, the Consumers' Association investigates the convenience aspects of a vast range of products, from cars to garden spades. Evaluation approaches include user trials, convenience checklists and expert appraisals. Our methodology is subject to constant review and refinement to ensure the highest levels of reliability, validity and auditability. We have a distinctive approach: our tests are designed to reflect consumer usage and to provide comparative data which is absolutely fair to all products. This paper discusses the evolving nature of that methodology within the "lifetime" of a product. Reasons for choosing each method are given as practical guidance for those involved in comparative testing.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicConsumer Product SafetyErgonomicsFocus GroupsHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L M Butters, R T Dixon. 1998. Ergonomics in consumer product evaluation: an evolving process.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-6870(97)88805-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Mistletoe for cancer? A systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

Mistletoe extracts are widely used in the treatment of cancer. The results of clinical trials are however highly inconsistent. We therefore conducted a systematic review of all randomised clinical trials of this unconventional therapy. Eight databases were searched to identify all studies that met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were independently validated and extracted by 2 authors and checked by the 3rd according to predefined criteria. Statistical pooling was not possible because of the heterogeneity of the primary studies. Therefore a narrative systematic review was conducted. Ten trials could be included. Most of the studies had considerable weaknesses in terms of study design, reporting or both. Some of the weaker studies implied benefits of mistletoe extracts, particularly in terms of quality of life. None of the methodologically stronger trials exhibited efficacy in terms of quality of life, survival or other outcome measures. Rigorous trials of mistletoe extracts fail to demonstrate efficacy of this therapy.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2003

On the non-inferiority of a diagnostic test based on paired observations.

Non-inferiority of a diagnostic test to the standard or the optimum test is a common issue in medical research. Often we want to determine if a new diagnostic test is as good as the standard reference test. Sometimes we are interested in an inexpensive test that may have an acceptably inferior sensitivity or specificity. While hypothesis testing procedures and sample size formulae for the equivalence of sensitivity or specificity alone have been proposed, very few studies have discussed simultaneous comparisons of both parameters. In this paper, we present three different testing procedures and sample size formulae for simultaneous comparison of sensitivity and specificity based on paired observations and with known disease status. These statistical procedures are then used to compare two classification rules that identify women for future osteoporotic fracture. Simulation experiments demonstrate that the new tests and sample size formulae give the appropriate type I and II error rates. Differences between our approach and the approach of Lui and Cumberland are discussed.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗