Version 0.2 Page 1 of 37

15-Nov-10

NISTIR 7742

Customized Common Industry Format

Template for Electronic Health Record

UsabilityTesting

Robert M. Schumacher

User Centric. Inc,

Svetlana Z. Lowry

Information Access Division

Information Technology Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Patrick D. Gallagher, Director
Version 0.2 Page 2 of 37

15-Nov-10

NISTIR 7742

Customized Common Industry Format

Template for Electronic Health Record

UsabilityTesting

Robert M. Schumacher

User Centric. Inc,

Svetlana Z. Lowry

Information Access Division

Information Technology Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

November 2010

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Patrick D. Gallagher, Director
Version 0.2 Page 3 of 37

15-Nov-10

Customized Common Industry Format

Template for Electronic Health Record

UsabilityTesting

INTENDED AUDIENCE

This document provides a template for the modified version of Software engineering —

Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation(SQuaRE) — Common Industry

Format (CIF) for usability test reports (ISO/IEC 25062:2006(E)), the Common Industry

Format (CIF) usability test report. This version of the CIF has been customized for use in

usability testing of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) by usability administrator(s) and

data logger(s). The template enables usability engineers to effectively communicate the

results of EHR usability testing.

INTENDED PURPOSE

The intention of the CIF is to help vendors demonstrate evidence of usability in their final

product in a format that allows both independent evaluation of a single product and

comparison across multiple products. This document has been prepared as a template to

guide EHR usability test administrators meet the usability processes approach put forth

by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The following customized

CIF template is intended to assist EHR vendors, healthcare providers, and researchers in

reporting the results of usability testing for each system tested.

USING THIS DOCUMENT

This document is not intended to be a tutorial on usability or usability testing.1To work

with this document you should have expertise with common usability industry practices

1

Excellent starting points for information are www.usability.gov and www.upassoc.org as well as

Dumas, J., Redish, J. (1994) A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Dana Chisnell & Jeffrey Rubin Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct
Version 0.2 Page 4 of 37

15-Nov-10

and with standard ISO/IEC 25062:2006.2The ISO document is intended for the reporting

of summative (i.e., quantitative) studies. The modifications here allow for the reporting of

qualitative findings (i.e., formative) but strongly recommend and encourage the collection

of quantitative measures of user performance.

Reports delivered using this template should conform to the major headings and content

areas outlined below. Minor deviations from the outline and format are acceptable, but

the reports should follow the template in all material aspects. This template includes the

following sections:3

 Executive Summary

 Introduction

 Method

 Results

 Appendices

In addition to these sections, the modified CIF must also include a title page; a sample

title page is included in the template example.

When completing the modified CIF template, it is highly recommended that EHR usability

test administrator(s) and their data logger(s) refer to the instructions and guidance in

order to properly complete this template.

The sample data provided in this template is an example or placeholder of the types of

content that may be useful in completing the modified CIF template. Gray background

text (bounded in square brackets) needs to be replaced by the EHRs’ supplied

information. It is important to note that this sample content is not to be taken literally or

as a starting point.

Effective Tests (2nd ed.) Wiley, 2008.

Schumacher (2009). Handbook of Global User Research. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufman.

2

This document can be purchased from:

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=43046. 

3

Each of these sections has a corresponding section in the ISO/IEC 25062.
Version 0.2 Page 5 of 37

15-Nov-10

EHR Usability Test Report of [Name of Product and

Version Tested]

Report based on ISO/IEC 25062:2006 Common Industry Format for Usability Test Reports

[Full Name of Product and Version Tested]

Date of Usability Test: [Date Usability Test Was Conducted]

Date of Report: [Date Report Was Prepared]

Report Prepared By: [Name of System Test Laboratory (STL)]

[STL Contact Person, Title and Affiliation]

[STL Phone Number]

[STL Email Address]

[STL Mailing Address]

Table of Contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

2 INTRODUCTION 10

3 METHOD 10

3.1 PARTICIPANTS 10

3.2 STUDY DESIGN 11

3.3 TASKS 12

3.4 PROCEDURE 13

3.5 TEST LOCATION 14

3.6 TEST ENVIRONMENT 15

3.7 TEST FORMS AND TOOLS 15

3.8 PARTICIPANT INSTRUCTIONS 16

3.9 USABILITY METRICS 17

4 RESULTS 19

4.1 DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING 19

4.2 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS 20

5 APPENDICES 22

5.1 APPENDIX 1: SAMPLE RECRUITING SCREENER 23

5.2 Appendix 2: PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS 26

5.3 Appendix 3: NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT AND INFORMED CONSENT

FORM

5.4

27

Appendix 4: EXAMPLE MODERATOR’S GUIDE 29

5.5 Appendix 5: SYSTEM USABILITY SCALE QUESTIONNAIRE 36

5.6 APPENDIX 6: INCENTIVE RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM 36
Version 0.2 Page 6 of 37

15-Nov-10
Version 0.2 Page 7 of 37

15-Nov-10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A usability test of [name of product, version, and type of EHR] was

conducted on [date] in [location] by [test laboratory]. The purpose of this

test was to test and validate the usability of the current user interface,

and provide evidence of usability in the EHR Under Test (EHRUT).

During the usability test, [XX] healthcare providers [and/or other intended

users] matching the target demographic criteria served as participants

and used the EHRUT in simulated, but representative tasks.

This study collected performance data on [xx] tasks typically conducted

on an EHR:

Find information in Patient Summary screen

Use patient chart to find lab results

Check vital signs

[Continue with list]

During the [time, e.g., xx minute] one-on-one usability test, each

participant was greeted by the administrator and asked to review and

sign an informed consent/release form (included in Appendix 3); they

were instructed that they could withdraw at any time. Participants [had /

did not have] prior experience with the EHR.4

The administrator

introduced the test, and instructed participants to complete a series of

tasks (given one at a time) using the EHRUT. During the testing, the

administrator timed the test and, along with the data logger(s) recorded

user performance data on paper and electronically. The administrator

did not give the participant assistance in how to complete the task.

4

If training or help materials were provided, describe the nature of it. The recommendation is

that all participants be given the opportunity to complete training similar to what a real end user

would receive prior to participating in the usability test.
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 8 of 37

Participant screens, head shots and audio were recorded for subsequent analysis. 

The following types of data were collected for each participant: 

 Number of tasks successfully completed within the allotted time without 

assistance

 Time to complete the tasks

 Number and types of errors 

 Path deviations

 Participant’s verbalizations

 Participant’s satisfaction ratings of the system 

All participant data was de-identified – no correspondence could be made from the 

identity of the participant to the data collected. Following the conclusion of the 

testing, participants were asked to complete a post-test questionnaire and were 

compensated with [insert dollar amount or other incentive] for their time. Various 

recommended metrics, in accordance with the examples set forth in the NIST Guide 

to the Processes Approach for Improving the Usability of Electronic Health Records, 

were used to evaluate the usability of the EHRUT. Following is a summary of the 

performance and rating data collected on the EHRUT.

Measure

Task N

Task 

SuccessPath 

Deviation Task Time Errors

Task 

Ratings

5=Easy

#

Mean

(SD)

Deviations 

(Observed 

/ Optimal)

Mean

(SD)

Deviations 

(Observed 

/ Optimal)

Mean

(SD)

Mean 

(SD)

1.[Find item on patient 

summary screen]

2.[Use patient chart to 

find lab results]

3.[Check vital signs]

Etc.
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 9 of 37

The results from the System Usability Scale scored the subjective satisfaction with 

the system based on performance with these tasks to be: [xx].

1

In addition to the performance data, the following qualitative observations were 

made:

- Major findings

o [Details might include observations of user reactions to work flows, 

navigation, types of errors, screen designs, things that tested well, etc.]

- Areas for improvement 

o [Provide details]

 

1

See Tullis, T. & Albert, W. (2008). Measuring the User Experience. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufman (p. 

149). Broadly interpreted, scores under 60 represent systems with poor usability; scores over 80 would be 

considered above average.
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 10 of 37

INTRODUCTION

The EHRUT(s) tested for this study was (were) [name of product, version

and class]. Designed to present medical information to healthcare

providers in [facility types and specialty setting], the EHRUT consists of

[description of system and how it is used]. The usability testing attempted

to represent realistic exercises and conditions.

The purpose of this study was to test and validate the usability of the

current user interface, and provide evidence of usability in the EHR

Under Test (EHRUT). . To this end, measures of effectiveness,

efficiency and user satisfaction, such as [list some specific metrics (e.g.,

time on task)], were captured during the usability testing.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

A total of [XX] participants were tested on the EHRUT(s). Participants in

the test were [types of healthcare providers]. Participants were recruited

by [name of recruiter/recruiting firm] and were compensated [insert dollar

amount or other incentive (optional)] for their time. In addition,

participants had no direct connection to the development of or

organization producing the EHRUT(s). Participants were not from the

testing or supplier organization. Participants were given the opportunity

to have the same orientation and level of training as the actual end users

would have received.

For the test purposes, end-user characteristics were identified and

translated into a recruitment screener used to solicit potential

participants; an example of a screener is provided in Appendix [1].
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 11 of 37

Recruited participants had a mix of backgrounds and demographic

characteristics conforming to the recruitment screener. The following is a

table of participants by characteristics, including demographics,

professional experience, computing experience and user needs for

assistive technology. Participant names were replaced with Participant

IDs so that an individual’s data cannot be tied back to individual

identities.

Part

ID Gender Age Education

Occupation/

role

Professional

Experience

Computer

Experience

Product

Experience

Assistive

Technology

Needs

1

2

N

[##, i.e., total number of participants recruited] participants (matching the

demographics in the section on Participants) were recruited and [##, i.e.,

total number of participants who showed] participated in the usability

test. [##, i.e., number who failed to show] participants failed to show for

the study.

Participants were scheduled for [time, e.g., xx minute] sessions with

[time, e.g., xx minutes] in between each session for debrief by the

administrator(s) and data logger(s), and to reset systems to proper test

conditions. A spreadsheet was used to keep track of the participant

schedule, and included each participant’s demographic characteristics as

provided by the recruiting firm.

STUDY DESIGN

Overall, the objective of this test was to uncover areas where the

application performed well – that is, effectively, efficiently, and with

satisfaction – and areas where the application failed to meet the needs of
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 12 of 37

the participants. The data from this test may serve as a baseline for

future tests with an updated version of the same EHR and/or comparison

with other EHRs provided the same tasks are used. In short, this testing

serves as both a means to record or benchmark current usability, but also

to identify areas where improvements must be made.

During the usability test, participants interacted with [number of] EHR(s).

Each participant used the system in the same location, and was provided

with the same instructions. The system was evaluated for effectiveness,

efficiency and satisfaction as defined by measures collected and

analyzed for each participant:

Number of tasks successfully completed within the allotted time

without assistance

Time to complete the tasks

Number and types of errors

Path deviations

Participant’s verbalizations (comments)

Participant’s satisfaction ratings of the system

Additional information about the various measures can be found in

Section 3.9 on Usability Metrics.

TASKS

A number of tasks were constructed that would be realistic and

representative of the kinds of activities a user might do with this EHR,

including:

1. Find patient’s last visit date in patient summary screen

2. Find results of recent blood work

3.Check and record vital signs 4. 

[add all tasks in short form]
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 13 of 37

Tasks were selected based on their frequency of use, criticality of

function, and those that may be most troublesome for users.6

Tasks

should always be constructed in light of the study objectives.

PROCEDURES

Upon arrival, participants were greeted; their identity was verified and

matched with a name on the participant schedule. Participants were then

assigned a participant ID.7

Each participant reviewed and signed an

informed consent and release form (See Appendix 3). A representative

from the test team witnessed the participant’s signature.

To ensure that the test ran smoothly, two staff members participated in

this test, the usability administrator and the data logger. The usability

testing staff conducting the test was experienced usability practitioners

with [Number of years of experience, educational backgrounds, and

qualifications of the test administrator(s) and data logger(s)].

The administrator moderated the session including administering

instructions and tasks. The administrator also monitored task times,

obtained post-task rating data, and took notes on participant comments.

A second person served as the data logger and took notes on task

success, path deviations, number and type of errors, and comments.

Participants were instructed to perform the tasks (see specific

instructions below):

 As quickly as possible making as few errors and deviations as

possible.

6 Constructing appropriate tasks is of critical importance to the validity of a usability test. These

are the actual functions, but most tasks contain larger and more fleshed out context that aligns

with the sample data sets available in the tested EHR. Please consult usability references for

guidance on how to construct appropriate tasks.

7

All participant data must be de-identified and kept confidential.
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 14 of 37

 Without assistance; administrators were allowed to give

immaterial guidance and clarification on tasks, but not

instructions on use.

 Without using a think aloud technique.

For each task, the participants were given a written copy of the task.

Task timing began once the administrator finished reading the question.

The task time was stopped once the participant indicated they had

successfully completed the task. Scoring is discussed below in Section

3.9.

Following the session, the administrator gave the participant the post-test

questionnaire (e.g., the System Usability Scale, see Appendix 5),

compensated them for their time, and thanked each individual for their

participation.

Participants' demographic information, task success rate, time on task,

errors, deviations, verbal responses, and post-test questionnaire were

recorded into a spreadsheet.

Participants were thanked for their time and compensated. Participants

signed a receipt and acknowledgement form (See Appendix 6) indicating

that they had received the compensation.

TEST LOCATION

The test facility included a waiting area and a quiet testing room with a

table, computer for the participant, and recording computer for the

administrator. Only the participant and administrator were in the test

room. All observers and the data logger worked from a separate room

where they could see the participant’s screen and face shot, and listen to
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 15 of 37

the audio of the session. To ensure that the environment was

comfortable for users, noise levels were kept to a minimum with the

ambient temperature within a normal range. All of the safety instruction

and evacuation procedures were valid, in place, and visible to the

participants.

TEST ENVIRONMENT

The EHRUT would be typically be used in a healthcare office or facility.

In this instance, the testing was conducted in [describe facilities]. For

testing, the computer used a [computer type] running [operating system].

The participants used [interaction style, e.g., a mouse and keyboard]

when interacting with the EHRUT.

The [EHRUT] used [description of the display including screen size,

resolution and color settings. If print-based, include the media size and

print resolution.] The application was set up by the [vendor or test

laboratory] according to the vendor’s documentation describing the

system set-up and preparation. The application itself was running on a

[platform] using a [training / test database] on a [LAN / WAN] connection.

Technically, the system performance (i.e., response time) was

representative to what actual users would experience in a field

implementation. Additionally, participants were instructed not to change

any of the default system settings (such as control of font size).

TEST FORMS AND TOOLS

During the usability test, various documents and instruments were used,

including:

1. Informed Consent

2. Moderator’s Guide
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 16 of 37

3. Post-test Questionnaire

4. Incentive Receipt and Acknowledgment Form

Examples of these documents can be found in Appendices 3-6

respectively. The Moderator’s Guide was devised so as to be able to

capture required data.

The participant’s interaction with the EHRUT was captured and recorded

digitally with screen capture software running on the test machine. A

[video / web] camera recorded each participant’s facial expressions

synced with the screen capture, and verbal comments were recorded

with a microphone. 8The test session were electronically transmitted to a

nearby observation room where the data logger observed the test

session.

PARTICIPANT INSTRUCTIONS

The administrator reads the following instructions aloud to the each

participant (also see the full moderator’s guide in Appendix [B4]):

Thank you for participating in this study. Your input is very

important. Our session today will last about [XX minutes]. During

that time you will use an instance of an electronic health record.

I will ask you to complete a few tasks using this system and

answer some questions. You should complete the tasks as

quickly as possible making as few errors as possible. Please try

to complete the tasks on your own following the instructions very

closely. Please note that we are not testing you we are testing

the system, therefore if you have difficulty all this means is that

something needs to be improved in the system. I will be here in

case you need specific help, but I am not able to instruct you or

provide help in how to use the application.

Overall, we are interested in how easy (or how difficult) this

system is to use, what in it would be useful to you, and how we

could improve it. I did not have any involvement in its creation,

so please be honest with your opinions. All of the information

8

There are a variety of tools that record screens and transmit those recordings across a local

area network for remote observations.
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 17 of 37

that you provide will be kept confidential and your name will not

be associated with your comments at any time. Should you feel

it necessary you are able to withdraw at any time during the

testing.

Following the procedural instructions, participants were shown the EHR

and as their first task, were given time ([XX] minutes) to explore the

system and make comments. Once this task was complete, the

administrator gave the following instructions:

For each task, I will read the description to you and say “Begin.”

At that point, please perform the task and say “Done” once you

believe you have successfully completed the task. I would like to

request that you not talk aloud or verbalize while you are doing

the tasks. 9I will ask you your impressions about the task once

you are done.

Participants were then given [XX] tasks to complete. Tasks are listed in

the moderator’s guide in Appendix [B4].

USABILITY METRICS

According to the NIST Guide to the Processes Approach for Improving

the Usability of Electronic Health Records, EHRs should support a

process that provides a high level of usability for all users. The goal is for

users to interact with the system effectively, efficiently, and with an

acceptable level of satisfaction. To this end, metrics for effectiveness,

efficiency and user satisfaction were captured during the usability testing.

The goals of the test were to assess:

1. Effectiveness of [EHRUT] by measuring participant success

rates and errors

2. Efficiency of [EHRUT] by measuring the average task time

and path deviations

9

Participants should not use a think-aloud protocol during the testing. Excessive verbalization or

attempts to converse with the moderator during task performance should be strongly

discouraged. Participants will naturally provide commentary, but they should do so, ideally, after

the testing. Some verbal commentary may be acceptable between tasks, but again should be

minimized by the moderator.
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 18 of 37

3. Satisfaction with [EHRUT] by measuring ease of use ratings

DATA SCORING

The following table (Table [x]) details how tasks were scored, errors

evaluated, and the time data analyzed.10

Measures Rationale and Scoring

Effectiveness:

Task Success

A task was counted as a “Success” if the participant was able to

achieve the correct outcome, without assistance, within the time

allotted on a per task basis.

The total number of successes were calculated for each task and then

divided by the total number of times that task was attempted. The

results are provided as a percentage.

Task times were recorded for successes. Observed task times divided

by the optimal time for each task is a measure of optimal efficiency.

Optimal task performance time, as benchmarked by expert

performance under realistic conditions, is recorded when constructing

tasks. Target task times used for task times in the Moderator’s Guide

must be operationally defined by taking multiple measures of optimal

performance and multiplying by some factor [e.g., 1.25] that allows

some time buffer because the participants are presumably not trained

to expert performance. Thus, if expert, optimal performance on a task

was [x] seconds then allotted task time performance was [x * 1.25]

seconds. This ratio should be aggregated across tasks and reported

with mean and variance scores.

Effectiveness:

Task Failures

If the participant abandoned the task, did not reach the correct answer

or performed it incorrectly, or reached the end of the allotted time

before successful completion, the task was counted as an “Failures.”

No task times were taken for errors.

The total number of errors was calculated for each task and then

divided by the total number of times that task was attempted. Not all

deviations would be counted as errors.11 This should also be

expressed as the mean number of failed tasks per participant.

On a qualitative level, an enumeration of errors and error types should

be collected.

Efficiency:

Task Deviations

The participant’s path (i.e., steps) through the application was

recorded. Deviations occur if the participant, for example, went to a

wrong screen, clicked on an incorrect menu item, followed an incorrect

link, or interacted incorrectly with an on-screen control. This path was

compared to the optimal path. The number of steps in the observed

path is divided by the number of optimal steps to provide a ratio of path

deviation.

10 An excellent resource is Tullis, T. & Albert, W. (2008). Measuring the User Experience.

Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufman. Also see www.measuringusability.com

11 Errors have to be operationally defined by the test team prior to testing.
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 19 of 37

It is strongly recommended that task deviations be reported. Optimal

paths (i.e., procedural steps) should be recorded when constructing

tasks.

Efficiency:

Task Time

Each task was timed from when the administrator said “Begin” until the

participant said, “Done.” If he or she failed to say “Done,” the time was

stopped when the participant stopped performing the task. Only task

times for tasks that were successfully completed were included in the

average task time analysis. Average time per task was calculated for

each task. Variance measures (standard deviation and standard error)

were also calculated.

Satisfaction:

Task Rating

Participant’s subjective impression of the ease of use of the

application was measured by administering both a simple post-task

question as well as a post-session questionnaire. After each task, the

participant was asked to rate “Overall, this task was:” on a scale of 1

(Very Difficult) to 5 (Very Easy). These data are averaged across

participants. 12

Common convention is that average ratings for systems judged easy

to use should be 3.3 or above.

To measure participants’ confidence in and likeability of the [EHRUT]

overall, the testing team administered the System Usability Scale

(SUS) post-test questionnaire. Questions included, “I think I would

like to use this system frequently,” “I thought the system was easy to

use,” and “I would imagine that most people would learn to use this

system very quickly.” See full System Usability Score questionnaire in

Appendix 5.13

Table [x]. Details of how observed data were scored.

RESULTS

DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

The results of the usability test were calculated according to the methods

specified in the Usability Metrics section above. Participants who failed to

follow session and task instructions had their data excluded from the

analyses [Provide details if there are data exclusions.]. [Provide any

12 See Tedesco and Tullis (2006) for a comparison of post-task ratings for usability tests.

Tedesco, D. & Tullis, T. (2006) A comparison of methods for eliciting post-task subjective ratings

in usability testing. Usability Professionals association Conference, June 12 – 16, Broomfield,

CO.

13 The SUS survey yields a single number that represents a composite measure of the overall

perceived usability of the system. SUS scores have a range of 0 to 100 and the score is a

relative benchmark that is used against other iterations of the system.
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 20 of 37

details of testing irregularities or issues that affected data collection or

interpretation of the results.]

The usability testing results for the EHRUT are detailed below (see Table [x])14.

The results should be seen in light of the objectives and goals outlined in Section 

3.2 Study Design. The data should yield actionable results that, if corrected, yield 

material, positive impact on user performance. [Furthermore, the data should be 

presented in forms such as the table below so that the tasks can be easily 

identified and their performance results examined and compared.]

Measure

Task N

Task 

SuccessPath 

Deviation Task Time Errors

Task 

Ratings

5=Easy

#

Mean

(SD)

Deviations 

(Observed 

/ Optimal)

Mean

(SD)

Deviations 

(Observed 

/ Optimal)

Mean

(SD)

Mean 

(SD)

1.[Find item on patient 

summary screen]

2.[Use patient chart to 

find lab results]

3.[Check vital signs]

Etc.

The results from the SUS (System Usability Scale) scored the subjective 

satisfaction with the system based on performance with these tasks to be: 

[xx]. Broadly interpreted, scores under 60 represent systems with

poor usability; scores over 80 would be considered above average.15

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

14 Note that this table is an example. You will need to adapt it to report the actual data collected. 

15 See Tullis, T. & Albert, W. (2008). Measuring the User Experience. Burlington, MA: Morgan

Kaufman (p. 149).
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 21 of 37

[The discussion should commence with a narrative discussion of each of

the major areas in light of the findings]

EFFECTIVENESS

[Narrative of the effectiveness of the EHRUT in light of the findings. E.g.,

Based on the success, failure and path deviation data ...]

EFFICIENCY

[Narrative of the efficiency of the EHRUT in light of the findings. E.g.,

Based on the observations of the task time and deviation data ...]

SATISFACTION

[Narrative of the satisfaction data of the EHRUT in light of the findings.

E.g., Based on the task ratings and SUS results data ...]

MAJOR FINDINGS

[Narrative discussion of the interpretation of the quantitative findings,

verbal report of the participants, and observations from the

administrators and data loggers]

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

[Narrative discussion of the interpretation of the quantitative findings,

verbal report of the participants, and observations from the

administrators and data loggers]
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 22 of 37

APPENDICES

The following appendices include supplemental data for this usability test

report. Following is a list of the appendices provided:

1: Sample Recruiting screener

2: Participant demographics

3: Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and Informed Consent

Form

4: Example Moderator’s Guide

5: System Usability Scale Questionnaire

6: Incentive receipt and acknowledgment form

It is important to note that these Appendices are examples only. They

are not intended to be used exactly as rendered below.

For example, the intended users of the system will determine sampling

requirements which drive screener questions. Likewise, the goals of

the study will determine the exact tasks and data to be recorded; this

will create the tasks and data collection plan in the moderator’s guide.

See some of the previously cited references for examples of these

documents.
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 23 of 37

Appendix 1: SAMPLE RECRUITING SCREENER

The purpose of a screener to ensure that the participants selected represent the target

user population as closely as possible. (Portions of this sample screener are taken from

www.usability.gov/templates/index.html#Usability and adapted for use.)

Recruiting Script for Recruiting Firm

Hello, my name is , calling from [Insert name of recruiting firm]. We

are recruiting individuals to participate in a usability study for an electronic health record.

We would like to ask you a few questions to see if you qualify and if would like to

participate. This should only take a few minutes of your time. This is strictly for research

purposes. If you are interested and qualify for the study, you will be paid to participate.

Can I ask you a few questions?

Customize this by dropping or adding questions so that it reflects your EHR’s primary audience

1. [If not obvious] Are you male or female? [Recruit a mix of participants]

2. Have you participated in a focus group or usability test in the past xx months? [If yes,

Terminate]

3. Do you, or does anyone in your home, work in marketing research, usability research, web

design [...etc.]? [If yes, Terminate]

4. Do you, or does anyone in your home, have a commercial or research interest in an electronic

health record software or consulting company? [If yes, Terminate]

5. Which of the following best describes your age? [23 to 39; 40 to 59; 60 - to 74; 75 and older]

[Recruit Mix]

6. Which of the following best describes your race or ethnic group? [e.g., Caucasian, Asian,

Black/African-American, Latino/a or Hispanic, etc.]

7. Do you require any assistive technologies to use a computer? [if so, please describe]

Professional Demographics Customize this to reflect your EHR’s primary audience

8. What is your current position and title? (Must be healthcare provider)

 RN: Specialty

 Physician: Specialty _

 Resident: Specialty

 Administrative Staff

 Other [Terminate]
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 24 of 37

9. How long have you held this position?

10. Describe your work location (or affiliation) and environment? (Recruit according to the

intended users of the application) [e.g., private practice, health system, government clinic,

etc.]

11. Which of the following describes your highest level of education? [e.g., high school

graduate/GED, some college, college graduate (RN, BSN), postgraduate (MD/PhD), other

(explain)]

Computer Expertise Customize this to reflect what you know about your EHR’s audience

12. Besides reading email, what professional activities do you do on the computer? [e.g., access

EHR, research; reading news; shopping/banking; digital pictures; programming/word

processing, etc.] [If no computer use at all, Terminate]

13. About how many hours per week do you spend on the computer? [Recruit according to the

demographics of the intended users, e.g., 0 to 10, 11 to 25, 26+ hours per week]

14. What computer platform do you usually use? [e.g., Mac, Windows, etc.]

15. What Internet browser(s) do you usually use? [e.g., Firefox, IE, AOL, etc.]

16. In the last month, how often have you used an electronic health record?

17. How many years have you used an electronic health record?

18. How many EHRs do you use or are you familiar with?

19. How does your work environment patient records? [Recruit according to the demographics of

the intended users]

 On paper

 Some paper, some electronic

 All electronic

Contact Information If the person matches your qualifications, ask

Those are all the questions I have for you. Your background matches the people we're

looking for. [If you are paying participants or offering some form of compensation,

mention] For your participation, you will be paid [amount].

Would you be able to participate on [date, time]? [If so collect contact information]

May I get your contact information?

 Name of participant:

 Address:

 City, State, Zip:

 Daytime phone number:

 Evening phone number:

 Alternate [cell] phone number:

 Email address:
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 25 of 37

Before your session starts, we will ask you to sign a release form allowing us to

videotape your session. The videotape will only be used internally for further study if

needed. Will you consent to be videotaped?

This study will take place at [location]. I will confirm your appointment a couple of days before

your session and provide you with directions to our office. What time is the best time to reach

you?
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 26 of 37

Appendix 2: PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS

The report should contain a breakdown of the key participant demographics. A representative list

is shown below.

Following is a high-level overview of the participants in this study.

Gender

Men [X]

Women [X]

Total(participants) [X]

Occupation/Role

RN/BSN [X]

Physician [X]

Admin Staff [X]

Total(participants) [X]

Years of Experience

Years experience [X]

Facility Use of EHR

All paper [X]

Some paper, some

electronic

[X]

All electronic [X]

Total(participants) [X]

As an appendix to the report, the full participant breakdown (de-identified) should be included.
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 27 of 37

Appendix 3: NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT AND INFORMED CONSENT FORM

These are sample forms. The non-disclosure agreement is discretionary. Other examples may

be found at www.usability.gov.

Non-Disclosure Agreement

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of _ _, 2010, between

(“the Participant”) and the testing organization Test Company

located at Address.

The Participant acknowledges his or her voluntary participation in today’s usability study may

bring the Participant into possession of Confidential Information. The term "Confidential

Information" means all technical and commercial information of a proprietary or confidential

nature which is disclosed by Test Company, or otherwise acquired by the Participant, in the

course of today’s study.

By way of illustration, but not limitation, Confidential Information includes trade secrets,

processes, formulae, data, know-how, products, designs, drawings, computer aided design files

and other computer files, computer software, ideas, improvements, inventions, training methods

and materials, marketing techniques, plans, strategies, budgets, financial information, or

forecasts.

Any information the Participant acquires relating to this product during this study is confidential

and proprietary to Test Company and is being disclosed solely for the purposes of the

Participant’s participation in today’s usability study. By signing this form the Participant

acknowledges that s/he will receive monetary compensation for feedback and will not disclose

this confidential information obtained today to anyone else or any other organizations.

Participant’s printed name: 

Signature: Date:
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 28 of 37

Informed Consent

Test Company would like to thank you for participating in this study. The purpose of this study is to

evaluate an electronic health records system. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to perform

several tasks using the prototype and give your feedback. The study will last about 60 minutes. At the

conclusion of the test, you will be compensated for your time.

Agreement

I understand and agree that as a voluntary participant in the present study conducted by Test Company I am

free to withdraw consent or discontinue participation at any time. I understand and agree to participate in

the study conducted and videotaped by the Test Company.

I understand and consent to the use and release of the videotape by Test Company. I understand that the

information and videotape is for research purposes only and that my name and image will not be used for

any purpose other than research. I relinquish any rights to the videotape and understand the videotape may

be copied and used by Test Company without further permission.

I understand and agree that the purpose of this study is to make software applications more useful and

usable in the future.

I understand and agree that the data collected from this study may be shared with outside of Test Company

and Test Company’s client. I understand and agree that data confidentiality is assured, because only deidentified data – i.e., identification numbers not names – will be used in analysis and reporting of the

results.

I agree to immediately raise any concerns or areas of discomfort with the study administrator. I understand

that I can leave at any time.

Please check one of the following:

 YES, I have read the above statement and agree to be a participant.

 NO, I choose not to participate in this study.

Signature: Date:
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 29 of 37

Appendix 4: EXAMPLE MODERATOR’S GUIDE

Only three tasks are presented here for illustration.

EHRUT Usability Test

Moderator’s Guide

Administrator 

Data Logger

Date Time

Participant #

Location 

Prior to testing

 Confirm schedule with Participants

 Ensure EHRUT lab environment is running properly

 Ensure lab and data recording equipment is running properly

Prior to each participant:

 Reset application

 Start session recordings with tool

Prior to each task:

 Reset application to starting point for next task

After each participant:

 End session recordings with tool

After all testing

 Back up all video and data files
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 30 of 37

Orientation (X minutes)

Thank you for participating in this study. Our session today will last XX minutes. During that

time you will take a look at an electronic health record system.

I will ask you to complete a few tasks using this system and answer some questions. We are

interested in how easy (or how difficult) this system is to use, what in it would be useful to you,

and how we could improve it. You will be asked to complete these tasks on your own trying to do

them as quickly as possible with the fewest possible errors or deviations. Do not do anything

more than asked. If you get lost or have difficulty I cannot answer help you with anything to do

with the system itself. Please save your detailed comments until the end of a task or the end of the

session as a whole when we can discuss freely.

I did not have any involvement in its creation, so please be honest with your opinions.

The product you will be using today is describe the state of the application, i.e., production

version, early prototype, etc. Some of the data may not make sense as it is placeholder data.

We are recording the audio and screenshots of our session today. All of the information that you

provide will be kept confidential and your name will not be associated with your comments at any

time.

Do you have any questions or concerns?

Preliminary Questions (X minutes)

What is your job title / appointment?

How long have you been working in this role?

What are some of your main responsibilities?

Tell me about your experience with electronic health records.
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 31 of 37

Task 1: First Impressions (XXX Seconds)

This is the application you will be working with. Have you heard of it?

If so, tell me what you know about it.

Yes No

 Show test participant the EHRUT.



 Please don’t click on anything just yet. What do you notice? What are you able to do here?

Please be specific.

Notes / Comments:
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 32 of 37

Task 2: Patient Summary Screen (XXX Seconds)

Take the participant to the starting point for the task.

Before going into the exam room and you want to review Patient’s chief complaint, history, and

vitals. Find this information.

Success:

 Easily completed

 Completed with difficulty or help :: Describe below

 Not completed

Comments:

Task Time: Seconds

Optimal Path: Screen A  Screen B  Drop Down B

1  “OK” Button  Screen X...

 Correct

 Minor Deviations / Cycles :: Describe below

 Major Deviations :: Describe below

Comments:

Observed Errors and Verbalizations:

Comments:

Rating:

Overall, this task was:

Show participant written scale: “Very Difficult” (1) to “Very Easy” (5)

Administrator / Notetaker Comments:
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 33 of 37

Task 3: Find Lab Results (XXX Seconds)

Take the participant to the starting point for the task.

On her last visit, you sent Patient to get a colonscopy. Locate these results and review the notes

from the specialist.

Success:

 Easily completed

 Completed with difficulty or help :: Describe below

 Not completed

Comments:

Task Time: Seconds

Optimal Path: Screen A  Screen B  Drop Down B

1  “OK” Button  Screen X...

 Correct

 Minor Deviations / Cycles :: Describe below

 Major Deviations :: Describe below

Comments:

Observed Errors and Verbalizations:

Comments:

Rating:

Overall, this task was:

Show participant written scale: “Very Difficult” (1) to “Very Easy” (5)

Administrator / Notetaker Comments:
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 34 of 37

Task 4: Prescribe medication (XXX Seconds)

Take the participant to the starting point for the task. Ensure that this patient has a drug-drug

and a drug-food allergy to the drug chosen. This will put force the participant to find other drugs

and use other elements of the application.

After examining Patient, you have decided to put this patient on a statin – drug name. Check for

any interactions and place an order for this medication.

Success:

 Easily completed

 Completed with difficulty or help :: Describe below

 Not completed

Comments:

Task Time: Seconds

Optimal Path: Screen A  Screen B  Drop Down B

1  “OK” Button  Screen X...

 Correct

 Minor Deviations / Cycles :: Describe below

 Major Deviations :: Describe below

Comments:

Observed Errors and Verbalizations:

Comments:

Rating:

Overall, this task was:

Show participant written scale: “Very Difficult” (1) to “Very Easy” (5)

Administrator / Notetaker Comments:
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 35 of 37

Final Questions (X Minutes)

What was your overall impression of this system?

What aspects of the system did you like most?

What aspects of the system did you like least?

Were there any features that you were surprised to see?

What features did you expect to encounter but did not see? That is, is there anything that is

missing in this application?

Compare this system to other systems you have used.

Would you recommend this system to your colleagues?

Administer the SUS
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 36 of 37

Appendix 5: SYSTEM USABILITY SCALE QUESTIONNAIRE

In 1996, Brooke published a “low-cost usability scale that can be used for global assessments of systems

usability” known as the System Usability Scale or SUS.16 Lewis and Sauro (2009) and others have

elaborated on the SUS over the years. Computation of the SUS score can be found in Brooke’s paper, in at

http://www.usabilitynet.org/trump/documents/Suschapt.doc orin Tullis and Albert (2008).

1. I think that I would like to use this

system frequently

2.I found the system unnecessarily

complex

3.I thought the system was easy

to use

4.I think that I would need the

support of a technical person to

be able to use this system

5.I found the various functions in

this system were well integrated

6.I thought there was too much

inconsistency in this system

7.I would imagine that most people

would learn to use this system

very quickly

8.I found the system very

cumbersome to use

9.I felt very confident using the

system

10. I needed to learn a lot of

things before I could get going

with this system

Strongly Strongly

disagree agree

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

16 Brooke, J.: SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, P. W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.

A., McClelland (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry pp. 189--194. Taylor & Francis, London, UK

(1996). SUS is copyrighted to Digital Equipment Corporation, 1986.

Lewis, J R & Sauro, J. (2009) "The Factor Structure Of The System Usability Scale." in Proceedings of the

Human Computer Interaction International Conference (HCII 2009), San Diego CA, USA

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
15-Nov-10

Version 0.2 Page 37 of 37

Appendix 6: INCENTIVE RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM

Acknowledgement of Receipt

I hereby acknowledge receipt of $ _ for my participation in a research study run by Test

Company.

Printed Name: _

Address: _

_

Signature: Date:

UsabilityResearcher: _

Signature of Usability Researcher:

Date: _

Witness:

Witness Signature: _

Date: _