Computerized Card Sort Training Tool: Is it Comparable to Manual Card Sorting?

One way to determine training needs and to evaluate learning is to measure how trainees organize knowledge using a card sorting task. While card sorting is a valid tool for assessing knowledge organization, it can be work intensive and error-prone when it is manually administered. For this reason, w...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 2002, Vol.46 (25), p.2049-2053
Hauptverfasser: Harper, Michelle E., Jentsch, Florian, Van Duyne, Lori Rhodenizer, Smith-Jentsch, Kimberly, Sanchez, Alicia D.
Format: Review
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2053
container_issue 25
container_start_page 2049
container_title Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
container_volume 46
creator Harper, Michelle E.
Jentsch, Florian
Van Duyne, Lori Rhodenizer
Smith-Jentsch, Kimberly
Sanchez, Alicia D.
description One way to determine training needs and to evaluate learning is to measure how trainees organize knowledge using a card sorting task. While card sorting is a valid tool for assessing knowledge organization, it can be work intensive and error-prone when it is manually administered. For this reason, we developed a software tool that computerizes the card sort task. We present a study that was conducted to determine whether the computerized version of card sorting is comparable to the manual sort. One-hundred eight participants completed two card sorts, either two manual sorts, one manual and one computerized sort, or two computerized sorts. No differences were found between the administration methods with respect to card sort accuracy, test-retest scores, and number of piles created. Differences between the two methods were found in administration time and length of the pile labels. These differences disappeared after one computerized administration. We conclude that a computerized card sorting task is just as effective at eliciting knowledge as a manual card sort.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/154193120204602512
format Review
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>sage_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_154193120204602512</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_154193120204602512</sage_id><sourcerecordid>10.1177_154193120204602512</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1322-56e6faace033f88f41f065e890a562b98f16c9448a3576caa8d65ae586c21e1a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKxDAYhYMoWEdfwFVeoE7-3Jq6ESleBkZdWNflnzYZOnSaIWkX-vS2jOBCcHU233c4HEKugd0AZNkSlIRcAGecSc24An5CEg46TxXT2SlJZiCdiXNyEeOOMS4yIRPyWvj9YRxsaL9sQwsMDX33YaBlwLZv-y0tve9u6SrSdqAziwE3naWDpy_Yj9j9OhN9d0nOHHbRXv3kgnw8PpTFc7p-e1oV9-u0BsF5qrTVDrG2TAhnjJPgmFbW5AyV5pvcONB1LqVBoTJdI5pGK7TK6JqDBRQLwo-9dfAxBuuqQ2j3GD4rYNX8SPX3kUlaHqWIW1vt_Bj6aeN_xjeK4V98</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>review</recordtype></control><display><type>review</type><title>Computerized Card Sort Training Tool: Is it Comparable to Manual Card Sorting?</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Harper, Michelle E. ; Jentsch, Florian ; Van Duyne, Lori Rhodenizer ; Smith-Jentsch, Kimberly ; Sanchez, Alicia D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Harper, Michelle E. ; Jentsch, Florian ; Van Duyne, Lori Rhodenizer ; Smith-Jentsch, Kimberly ; Sanchez, Alicia D.</creatorcontrib><description>One way to determine training needs and to evaluate learning is to measure how trainees organize knowledge using a card sorting task. While card sorting is a valid tool for assessing knowledge organization, it can be work intensive and error-prone when it is manually administered. For this reason, we developed a software tool that computerizes the card sort task. We present a study that was conducted to determine whether the computerized version of card sorting is comparable to the manual sort. One-hundred eight participants completed two card sorts, either two manual sorts, one manual and one computerized sort, or two computerized sorts. No differences were found between the administration methods with respect to card sort accuracy, test-retest scores, and number of piles created. Differences between the two methods were found in administration time and length of the pile labels. These differences disappeared after one computerized administration. We conclude that a computerized card sorting task is just as effective at eliciting knowledge as a manual card sort.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1541-9312</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1071-1813</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-5067</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/154193120204602512</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2002, Vol.46 (25), p.2049-2053</ispartof><rights>2002 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1322-56e6faace033f88f41f065e890a562b98f16c9448a3576caa8d65ae586c21e1a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1322-56e6faace033f88f41f065e890a562b98f16c9448a3576caa8d65ae586c21e1a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/154193120204602512$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/154193120204602512$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>313,314,776,780,788,21798,27899,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harper, Michelle E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jentsch, Florian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Duyne, Lori Rhodenizer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith-Jentsch, Kimberly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanchez, Alicia D.</creatorcontrib><title>Computerized Card Sort Training Tool: Is it Comparable to Manual Card Sorting?</title><title>Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting</title><description>One way to determine training needs and to evaluate learning is to measure how trainees organize knowledge using a card sorting task. While card sorting is a valid tool for assessing knowledge organization, it can be work intensive and error-prone when it is manually administered. For this reason, we developed a software tool that computerizes the card sort task. We present a study that was conducted to determine whether the computerized version of card sorting is comparable to the manual sort. One-hundred eight participants completed two card sorts, either two manual sorts, one manual and one computerized sort, or two computerized sorts. No differences were found between the administration methods with respect to card sort accuracy, test-retest scores, and number of piles created. Differences between the two methods were found in administration time and length of the pile labels. These differences disappeared after one computerized administration. We conclude that a computerized card sorting task is just as effective at eliciting knowledge as a manual card sort.</description><issn>1541-9312</issn><issn>1071-1813</issn><issn>2169-5067</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>review</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>review</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtKxDAYhYMoWEdfwFVeoE7-3Jq6ESleBkZdWNflnzYZOnSaIWkX-vS2jOBCcHU233c4HEKugd0AZNkSlIRcAGecSc24An5CEg46TxXT2SlJZiCdiXNyEeOOMS4yIRPyWvj9YRxsaL9sQwsMDX33YaBlwLZv-y0tve9u6SrSdqAziwE3naWDpy_Yj9j9OhN9d0nOHHbRXv3kgnw8PpTFc7p-e1oV9-u0BsF5qrTVDrG2TAhnjJPgmFbW5AyV5pvcONB1LqVBoTJdI5pGK7TK6JqDBRQLwo-9dfAxBuuqQ2j3GD4rYNX8SPX3kUlaHqWIW1vt_Bj6aeN_xjeK4V98</recordid><startdate>200209</startdate><enddate>200209</enddate><creator>Harper, Michelle E.</creator><creator>Jentsch, Florian</creator><creator>Van Duyne, Lori Rhodenizer</creator><creator>Smith-Jentsch, Kimberly</creator><creator>Sanchez, Alicia D.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200209</creationdate><title>Computerized Card Sort Training Tool: Is it Comparable to Manual Card Sorting?</title><author>Harper, Michelle E. ; Jentsch, Florian ; Van Duyne, Lori Rhodenizer ; Smith-Jentsch, Kimberly ; Sanchez, Alicia D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1322-56e6faace033f88f41f065e890a562b98f16c9448a3576caa8d65ae586c21e1a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>reviews</rsrctype><prefilter>reviews</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harper, Michelle E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jentsch, Florian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Duyne, Lori Rhodenizer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith-Jentsch, Kimberly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanchez, Alicia D.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harper, Michelle E.</au><au>Jentsch, Florian</au><au>Van Duyne, Lori Rhodenizer</au><au>Smith-Jentsch, Kimberly</au><au>Sanchez, Alicia D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>GEN</ristype><atitle>Computerized Card Sort Training Tool: Is it Comparable to Manual Card Sorting?</atitle><jtitle>Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting</jtitle><date>2002-09</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>25</issue><spage>2049</spage><epage>2053</epage><pages>2049-2053</pages><issn>1541-9312</issn><issn>1071-1813</issn><eissn>2169-5067</eissn><abstract>One way to determine training needs and to evaluate learning is to measure how trainees organize knowledge using a card sorting task. While card sorting is a valid tool for assessing knowledge organization, it can be work intensive and error-prone when it is manually administered. For this reason, we developed a software tool that computerizes the card sort task. We present a study that was conducted to determine whether the computerized version of card sorting is comparable to the manual sort. One-hundred eight participants completed two card sorts, either two manual sorts, one manual and one computerized sort, or two computerized sorts. No differences were found between the administration methods with respect to card sort accuracy, test-retest scores, and number of piles created. Differences between the two methods were found in administration time and length of the pile labels. These differences disappeared after one computerized administration. We conclude that a computerized card sorting task is just as effective at eliciting knowledge as a manual card sort.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/154193120204602512</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1541-9312
ispartof Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2002, Vol.46 (25), p.2049-2053
issn 1541-9312
1071-1813
2169-5067
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1177_154193120204602512
source SAGE Complete
title Computerized Card Sort Training Tool: Is it Comparable to Manual Card Sorting?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T11%3A57%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-sage_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Computerized%20Card%20Sort%20Training%20Tool:%20Is%20it%20Comparable%20to%20Manual%20Card%20Sorting?&rft.jtitle=Proceedings%20of%20the%20Human%20Factors%20and%20Ergonomics%20Society%20Annual%20Meeting&rft.au=Harper,%20Michelle%20E.&rft.date=2002-09&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=25&rft.spage=2049&rft.epage=2053&rft.pages=2049-2053&rft.issn=1541-9312&rft.eissn=2169-5067&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/154193120204602512&rft_dat=%3Csage_cross%3E10.1177_154193120204602512%3C/sage_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_154193120204602512&rfr_iscdi=true