Ergonomics Article Review: "Biomechanics and performance when using a standard and a vertical computer mouse"

IEN 557: Assignment #1, due Tuesday, October 21st

This assignment involves selecting one article for review from a scientific journal in the general area of human factors and ergonomics. You will be given a choice of three journals to select the article from: Human Factors, Ergonomics, or Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries (HFEMSI). On the Blackboard are three folders corresponding to each of these journals, with each folder containing a numbered list of articles in PDF format. The title of each of these PDF files is based on the first author’s name and the journal the article is taken from. You should browse through each of the folders to decide on an article that you are interested in reading and reviewing.

Your review should have a cover page with your name on top. Below your name you should specify the journal’s name, the title of the article, the authors’ names, and the year of the article. The next page should consist of one or more paragraphs that provide an overview of the article. The overview should not be simply a rehash of the Abstract of the article (which often also summarizes results). Rather, it should represent, in your own words, a short executive summary that captures why the researchers were interested in doing this research, what they were hoping to find or clarify, and their general approach to carrying out their investigation or report.

The next pages should contain the main body of your review of the article. To guide your review, you should write one (or more if you desire) paragraphs in response to each of the items below. Avoid simple Yes/No or one-word answers to these questions; substantiate your responses.

1. What issue or issues motivated the authors to pursue this research or write this article? Were these objectives made clear by the author(s)?

2. Was the presentation of this work clear and well-organized? If not, how could it have been improved?

3. What was the main approach or method(s) used by these authors in support of meeting their objectives? Were the methods clearly presented? Did you think these methods were appropriate for answering the study questions?

4. How appropriate and clear was the presentation of the analysis of the data and the findings? Were there any parts that were confusing?

5. What were the main findings? Did you feel that the conclusions which the authors reached were reasonable (i.e., did they seem to follow from the findings)?

6. Do you think the information presented in this article has implications for design or practice? Why or why not?

7. What do you feel were the major limitations, if any, of this work? How feasible do you think it would have been to overcome any such limitations? To what extent do you feel any such limitations diminish the value of this work?