View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Usability Testing of BusinessThinking [TM] e-Learning CD-Roms with Older Adults

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Usability Testing of BusinessThinking [TM] e-Learning CD-Roms with Older Adults
Language: English
Authors: Stoltz-Loike, Marian, Morrell, Roger W., Loike, James D.
Source: Educational Gerontology. Nov-Dec 2005 31(10):765-786.
Availability: Customer Services for Taylor & Francis Group Journals, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420 (Toll Free); Fax: 215-625-8914.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2005
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Career Development, Internet, Adult Education, Older Adults, Technology Education, Business Education, Computer Software, Computer Peripherals, Program Evaluation
ISSN: 0360-1277
Abstract: BusinessThinking [TM] is a computer-based e-learning package designed to teach technology skills and business information to adults, ages 50-69, who remain in the workforce. This article outlines results from usability testing for the material on using technology applications (Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Excel and the Internet), and career development (career management and preretirement planning. In Study 1, a usability test was conducted to ensure that the material was user-friendly. In Studies 2 and 3, the PowerPoint and career development materials were redesigned according to the findings from Study 1. Results indicated that the redesign was effective in increasing navigation of the material.
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 41
Entry Date: 2005
Access URL: https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=M75382NV8H0KX766
Accession Number: EJ721475
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGHym5jy_7i5rMbgVmuEeUsAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCdsyLK1H5toeMdEPwIBEICBmkowfsrkMoYVocVeoxzmV4sH2ybC3-_9PfFlcRfAlt2b7MvNf6ZJhlSrTCjHjYDkng-RyloodWQH7RS69xX3APZL1oUPYHWHpoICTJosPuRXnfAyVC7BV4s4d-MMcGKdsPJTlaSTc0oPdxsn733uuiEJW6LYkfuc_tULaPB17Bw_8rQ9xWwed6leX7YjJIvMHKPj0dxM0sF92YI=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0018710982;egr01nov.05;2019Mar01.12:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0018710982-1">Usability Testing of BusinessThinking TM e-Learning CD-ROMs with Older Adults. </title> <p>BusinessThinking<sup>TM</sup> is a computer-based e-learning package designed to teach technology skills and business information to adults, ages 50–69, who remain in the workforce. This article outlines results from usability testing for the material on using technology applications (Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Excel and the Internet), and career development (career management and preretirement planning. In Study 1, a usability test was conducted to ensure that the material was user-friendly. In Studies 2 and 3, the PowerPoint and career development materials were redesigned according to the findings from Study 1. Results indicated that the redesign was effective in increasing navigation of the material.</p> <p>At the beginning of the new millennium, Americans over age 60 were the fastest growing new user group on the Internet in relation to younger new users (US Census Bureau, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref1">39</reflink>]). It is projected that by 2005, 48% of older adults (40.9 million people), representing about 23% of Internet users, will be online (Morrell, Dailey, Stoltz-Loike, Feldman, Mayhorn, Echt, & Podany, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref2">20</reflink>]). While this suggests that many older adults can capably use the Internet, their ability to successfully access web pages or use specific web sites has been shown to be related to a web site's design, navigation, and method of content delivery (see Morrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Certain problems occur when older adults use computers and the Internet. These problems have broad implications for the ability of older adults to use other forms of information technology. Older adults have more difficulty reading text from the screen on a monitor (Hutchison, Eastman, & Tirrito, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref4">15</reflink>]), require more time to acquire computer skills (Czaja & Sharit, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]; Czaja & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]), and make more errors than younger adults when learning how to perform computer tasks (Charness, Schumann, & Boritz, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]). It remains unclear how these age differences relate to visual issues; cognitive aspects such as age-related changes in verbal/spatial working memory, text comprehension, vocabulary ability, or perceptual speed; declining motor skills; past computer experience; or other factors (Echt, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]; Morrell & Echt, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref9">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>]). Furthermore, an optimal method for teaching computer skills to older adults has not been found (see Morrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref11">19</reflink>]). Moreover, there is no corpus of literature that specifies the most effective training method for teaching information technology skills to mature adults who are still in the workforce (Rosen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref12">28</reflink>]; Stites, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref13">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-2">e-LEARNING AND THE OLDER WORKER</hd> <p>e-learning is defined as computer-based training—via corporate intranets, the Internet, or a CD-ROM. It is an important emerging technology for training corporate employees. It has tremendous commercial potential, and can also build a level playing field across generations. Consequently, e-learning is an essential tool for enabling mature employees to build career development and technology skills. According to the Workflow Institute the current e-learning market is over $4.5 billion (Workflow Institute, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref14">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the past, organizational employees over the age of 50 expected corporate oversight of their careers, mobility based on seniority, and tenure within their organizations. Lifetime employment with a single organization that culminated in retirement was the norm. Over the last 2 decades, these norms have eroded as the work world was transformed. Now, computer-based technologies are the tools employees use for communicating, learning, and doing business. Yet, skills needed for mastering current and new technologies may be unfamiliar or inaccessible to mature employees, placing them at a disadvantage.</p> <p>It is important to note that 25% of the workforce is currently over age 50, and this number is expected to increase to 27% by 2007 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref15">38</reflink>]). This increase is primarily due to baby boomers postponing retirement (AARP, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>]). The majority (approximately 90%) of all workers over age 50 are between 50 and 69 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref17">38</reflink>]). Further, it is predicted that there will be fewer younger workers to replace mature employees' talent, expertise, knowledge, and experience in the future (Dohm, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref18">6</reflink>]; Drucker, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref19">7</reflink>]; Goldberg, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref20">13</reflink>][<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>]; US Census Bureau, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref22">38</reflink>]). This expectation is reinforced by presentations by leading-edge companies that reflect a significant transformation in attitudes toward mature employees. Many companies are already focusing on strategies for rehiring retirees (IBM, Working Mother Media, May, 2004), or retaining mature employees (IBM, Working Mother Media, May, 2004). Whether mature employees can effectively learn information via e-learning has not been previously documented. With the exception of our current work, there have been virtually no other studies comparing the impact of different delivery methods on mastering e-knowledge by mature employees (Rosen, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref23">28</reflink>]; Stites, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref24">32</reflink>]; Stoltz-Loike, Morrell, & Loike, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref25">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref26">35</reflink>]; in press).</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-3">THE IMPORTANCE OF CONDUCTING USABILITY TESTING</hd> <p>According to Mandel, "Usability is the glue that holds together all of the pieces that (hopefully) fit together and make up any product (1997, p. 101)." The value of usability testing is most easily understood by thinking about new technology products. If a user is unable to access information on a website, or learn from e-learning material, there may be scores of different factors that impact the user experience. These factors could include architecture, visual features, content, and familiarity of the user with the technology.</p> <p>In its basic sense, usability testing reveals whether potential users can actually use a product. Usability testing provides feedback to improve product design; to reduce and remove glitches, bugs and problems; to compare products and versions or prototypes; and to validate that products meet predetermined usability goals and objectives. Formal usability testing with information technology occurs in a laboratory environment. There, representative users are asked to test prototypes of the software. Test subjects perform a series of tasks that are considered representative and necessary for use of the product. Participants are asked to think aloud, and often the sessions are videotaped for later scoring and clarification of performances. Results from each iterative round of usability testing are employed to further refine and redesign the product to ensure its usability (see Mandel, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref27">16</reflink>]; Nielsen & Mack, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>]; Rubin, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>] for in-depth discussions of usability testing in general).</p> <p>Potential users of a product must, in a sense "test it out" before it goes into the marketplace. The testing is to see if the product is indeed usable and meets accessibility requirements—especially if prospective users have special needs. Usability testing must be "built into a product and tested during the design and development process" (Mandel, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref30">16</reflink>], p. 101). Usability testing can be of great value because no amount of careful and meticulous planning can predict all the problems that are going to be experienced when using information technology. Conducting usability testing ensures that extraneous factors are controlled. For commercial information technology products, conducting usability testing ensures that users can access and navigate the material.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-4">USABILITY TESTING WITH OLDER ADULTS</hd> <p>One of the areas where serious concentration is lacking is usability testing of information technology and web sites designed for use specifically by older adults (Morrell, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref31">19</reflink>]). To date, much of the research concerning e-learning focuses on material designed for K-12 curricula (see for example, Stites, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]). Little research focuses on designing and evaluating e-learning material for people over age 50. It is likely that age-related declines in vision, perception, comprehension, memory, and motor skills may interfere with the ability of older adults to use them effectively and efficiently (Mead, Lamson, & Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>]; Morrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref34">19</reflink>]). In order to guide the design of accessible information technology for older adults, the National Institute on Aging and the National Library of Medicine (NIA/NLM) have developed a set of guidelines. These guidelines may also be used to develop protocols when conducting usability testing with older adults. The design principles include: (a) consistent organizational structure for the material presented; (b) consistent placement of links and directional buttons and icons; (c) the limitation of the number of levels of navigation; and (d) a distinct method of content delivery—such as the use of short paragraphs that can be read on one screen to reduce scrolling (Morrell, in press; Morrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]). In addition, the guidelines recommend the use of: specific text sizes (12–14 point); font (Helvetica); font style (medium or bold); colors (e.g., not placing blue and green in close proximity); writing styles (use of active voice and 6th-grade reading level); and graphics (use of illustrations, animation, and video). (For more details see Department of Health and Human Services, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref36">5</reflink>]; Morrell, in press; Morrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref37">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-5">BUSINESSTHINKING TM</hd> <p>BusinessThinking is a new, innovative educational product developed by SeniorThinking, LLC. It has e-learning platforms or Very Fast Learning Modules (VFLMs) that enable people over age 50 to quickly understand and master technology applications and other information. At present, BusinessThinking includes a variety of courses and is composed of four technology tracks (Excel, PowerPoint, Internet, and Word Revision function—with a number of courses within each track). There are also four tracks on career development (including career management, preretirement planning, the new economy, and job search—with a number of courses within each track). The present research focuses on five training modules included within the BusinessThinking technology package: internet search engines (Internet), Excel, PowerPoint, Word Revision function (Revision), and career development (Careers). All of the BusinessThinking products can be accessed in one of three ways: (a) directly from corporate intranets; (b) via CD-ROMs; or (c) via password-protected link to the SeniorThinking website. Companies can purchase BusinessThinking for their corporate intranets off-the-shelf. They can also work with SeniorThinking to customize the product to specific company parameters. Custom parameters could include matching content to business goals/strategies, or to specific learning parameters for mature workers (see Stoltz-Loike, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref38">33</reflink>] for an in-depth description of the BusinessThinking products).</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-6">SUMMARY</hd> <p>Although older adults may be disadvantaged in the performance of some computer tasks relative to younger adults, it has been reliably shown that older adults can readily acquire and retain computer skills over time (see Morrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>] for an overview of this research). Older adults may derive many benefits from computer interactions that may ultimately increase their ability to live independently, maintain their value as employees, and remain competitive in the job market (Stoltz-Loike, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref40">33</reflink>]; Morrell, in press). Furthermore, recent findings have shown that older adults can master technology-based learning and other material in CD-ROM format. (Herrmann, & Plude, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref41">14</reflink>]; Plude & Schwartz, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref42">26</reflink>]; Practical Memory Institute, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]; Saczynski, Rebok, Whitfield, & Plude ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]); Stoltz-Loike, Morrell, & Loike, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref45">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref46">36</reflink>]). Inview of such benefits, the overarching goals of the present research were: (a) to develop material customized to mature adults by following the NIA guidelines; and (b) to demonstrate via usability testing that the material we developed was accessible and effective e-learning material for mature adults.</p> <p>The three studies outlined in this paper review the results of usability testing for the subsets of the BusinessThinking material that include familiar technology applications and the career development material. In the first study, we evaluated the usability of the technology material (Excel, PowerPoint, Internet Search, and Microsoft Word Revision function) to ensure that it was user-friendly and easy to navigate for people over age 50. Based on results of the first usability study, much of the e-learning material was completely revised and redesigned. The results of Study 2 indicated that the redesign was effective and that mature adults were able to effectively use and navigate the PowerPoint material. In Study 3, we evaluated the usability of the BusinessThinking career development material, which is different in character, design, and architecture than the e-courses tested in Studies 1 and 2. Study 3 was designed to evaluate the ability to generalize the usability testing that we developed. Study 3 was also to determine whether or not our VFLM e-learning platform could be applied to different kinds of course material.</p> <p>Material in all of the studies was designed using the NIA guidelines (Morrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref47">19</reflink>]) for designing websites that are elder-friendly (National Institute on Aging, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref48">23</reflink>]). In the studies described in this article, we had three questions: (a) Can mature adults capably use e-learning material? (b) Are the NIA guidelines sufficient for designing e-learning material, or is other criteria also important? and (c) Based on the research described in this article, are there additional guidelines that can be proposed as criteria for designing material for mature adults?</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-7">METHOD</hd> <p>All participants in this research were recruited through the five SeniorNet computer training facilities located in southern Maryland, metropolitan Washington, DC, and northern Virginia. SeniorNet is the largest online organization of older adults in the country whose members have an interest and eagerness to work with technology products. A senior staff member at the Center for Productive Aging for the Jewish Council for the Aging (JCA), the administrative group that oversees the SeniorNet training centers located throughout the metropolitan Washington, DC area coordinated the recruitment of participants with the research team. Individual participants were tested in a quiet, private room and a moderator was available at all times for assistance. A moderator and senior volunteers from SeniorNet were also available during group activities to provide aid for individual participants. The testing was held at the Chevy Chase, Maryland SeniorNet training center. This facility is easily accessible by car and subway for all residents of the metropolitan Washington, DC area. There is also ample free parking provided near the testing site. English was the first language of all individuals, and there were no signs of dementia or vision problems within any samples described in the studies outlined below. All participants were paid $50 for participating.</p> <p>In the first study, a usability test was administered to evaluate navigational features of the e-learning courses. The test was conducted for each of the four training modules included within the BusinessThinking Technology Package: Internet Search Engines (Internet), Excel, PowerPoint, and Word Revision Function (Revision).</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-8">STUDY 1: DETERMINING THE USABILITY OF EACH OF THE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0018710982-9">Participants</hd> <p>There were 7 male participants and 13 female participants across conditions ranging in age from 55 to 68 (mean = 62.2, <emph>SD</emph> = 3.27). All participants had at least a high school education and 5 of the participants stated that that their ethnic background was African American or "other". The other participants were White. A large majority of the participants indicated that they perceived their health as good to excellent. The vocabulary score of the entire sample was at or above the norm for this age group. The participants' self-ratings indicated that they had a wide range of computer skills and experience and, therefore, could be considered representative of the mature population of current users of a computer and/or the Internet. There were 5 participants in the usability testing for each module, and participants were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions. Demographic data and self-ratings of computer skills are outlined in the Appendix.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-10">Procedure</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0018710982-11">Search Task Scoring</hd> <p>A strict approach was used in scoring according to these criteria:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • Pass: Found the correct information without using more than two extra steps.</item> <p></p> <item> • Fail: Interventions were needed; questions were asked of the moderator; the participant did not complete the task; or the participant took more than two extra steps to complete the search.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0018710982-12">Instruments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0018710982-13">Demographics Questionnaire</hd> <p>A demographics questionnaire was administered to define the sample of participants by gender, age, level of education, race, perceived health, health in relation to others their own age, and to determine if English was their first language.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-14">Prior Experience with Technology Questionnaire</hd> <p>The Prior Experience with Electronic Technology Questionnaire was modified from an instrument developed by K.V. Echt, Ph.D., Research Health Scientist at the Rehabilitation Research & Development Center, VA Medical Center, Decatur, GA (2002). Items in this instrument include: previous use of computers for business and personal purposes; prior use of other electronic devices; estimate of current Web use; frequency of Web use, and self-rating of computer skills. This instrument has been shown to be extremely reliable in predicting performance on computer tasks among mature adults.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-15">Opinions Questionnaire</hd> <p>This questionnaire, developed by Roger W. Morrell, Ph.D., represents a cumulative individual impression before a participant performs the series of moderator-instructed tasks for usability assessment. It is scored using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>) to Strongly Agree (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>) on 30 items. A 4 or better represents a passing score, or 80%, for that individual question and for that category. An average sample score of 4 or above is considered to be an indication that there is a consensus of approval on an item within a questionnaire, or across items within a category.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-16">Shipley Institute of Living Scale—Vocabulary Subtest/Gardner & Monge Vocabulary Test</hd> <p>The vocabulary subtest of the Shipley Institute for Living Scale (Shipley, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]) consists of 40 multiple-choice items in which the respondent is asked to choose which of four words is closest in meaning to a target word. The vocabulary subtest relies on verbal skills that include reading ability, verbal comprehension, acquired knowledge, long-term memory, and concept formation. Comparisons to administration of the vocabulary subtest in related research indicates that an average score of 34.5 correct responses would be representative of the general population for adults aged 50—69 (Park et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref52">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-17">Mini-Mental State Exam</hd> <p>The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a widely used instrument for assessing cognitive mental status (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref53">10</reflink>]; Folstein, Folstein, & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref54">11</reflink>]). The MMSE represents a brief, standardized method by which to grade cognitive mental status. It assesses orientation, attention, immediate and short-term recall, language, and the ability to follow simple verbal and written commands. Results indicate level of cognitive function.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-18">Vision Assessment: Snellen Eye Chart</hd> <p>Snellen Vision Test is a standard test to assess visual acuity. A score of 20/20—20/30 corrected binocular vision is an acceptable range to indicate there are no visual problems that might interfere with this research.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-19">RESULTS FOR STUDY 1</hd> <p>The Opinions Questionnaire was administered throughout the usability testing. A summary of responses for each technology topic is presented below and outlined in Table 1. On average, most of the material received a score of about 4, indicating that users were satisfied with the BusinessThinking material.</p> <p>Table 1. Overall average opinions questionnaire score for each technology topic of the technology courses</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Topic</td><td>Overall opinions</td><td>Navigation</td><td>Information presented</td><td>Design</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Internet</td><td>3.9</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>Excel</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.6</td><td>4.4</td><td>4.0</td></tr><tr><td>PowerPoint</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.3</td><td>3.7</td><td>4.0</td></tr><tr><td>Word revision</td><td>3.3</td><td>4.1</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.9</td></tr><tr><td><p id="TFN0001">*1 = Low satisfaction, 5 = High satisfaction; Entries represent the average score within a category of items across participants.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0018710982-20">Internet</hd> <p>Participants were satisfied with their ability to move around the software, and with the information presented in the software. However, there was slightly lower satisfaction, as indicated in Table 1, in their overall opinions of the software. Participants were somewhat unsatisfied with the design of the software. The illustrations/photographs did not seem to be helpful, and the underlined links were difficult to click on. Some comments were made citing the lack of interactivity as a problem.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-21">Excel</hd> <p>Participants were satisfied with the design of the software and with the information presented in the software. Slightly lower satisfaction was expressed with the overall program and the lack of interactivity.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-22">PowerPoint</hd> <p>Participants were satisfied with all aspects of the software. There was a slightly lower satisfaction rating for the information presented. Several participants suggested breaking up some of the courses into smaller units to make them seem less overwhelming.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-23">Word Revision</hd> <p>Participants had somewhat lower satisfaction ratings for all aspects of the software, except for the ability to move around the software. They wanted to see more "excitement" in the layout and design and the addition of interactivity. Suggestions were made to break up the different courses into smaller units so the courses would not seem so long.</p> <p>Results of the usability test indicated that participants had few problems opening the software package, finding and opening the technology content areas on the index page, moving from page to page within the courses, and returning to the Index of Courses page. They had slightly greater problems with moving from course to course, as 25% of the participants did not realize that this could be accomplished by using the pull-down menu. The FAQs section and the dictionary were easily found. However, significant problems arose when participants were asked to find subcategory information about how to contact SeniorThinking and to locate the What We Mean, Tips, and Terms of Use information. It should be noted that, although this information may be important, it is not crucial for navigating the software efficiently. Therefore, the four software programs appeared to be quite usable, but could be improved with a few revisions. The percentages of successful task completions are outlined in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2. Scoring of search tasks for each of the technology courses</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Usability task</td><td>Internet</td><td>Excel</td><td>Power point</td><td>Word revision</td></tr><tr><td /><td>%</td><td>%</td><td>%</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> 1. Open to index of courses.</td><td>100</td><td>80</td><td>60</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 2. Open the beginning course</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td> 3. Work through this entire course.</td><td>100</td><td>80</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 4. Go back __ pages and then return.</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td> 5. Open new course and go to end of course.</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td> 6. Return to the beginning of course.</td><td>60</td><td>100</td><td>80</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 7. Open the FAQS section.</td><td>60</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 8. Find the answer to a question.</td><td>60</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 9. Move between courses.</td><td>80</td><td>40</td><td>100</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>10. Open subcategory information.</td><td>40</td><td>80</td><td>80</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>11. Open 2nd subcategory.</td><td>80</td><td>60</td><td>40</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>12. Return to index of courses.</td><td>60</td><td>100</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td><p id="TFN0002">*Search tasks are abbreviated in the table. Entries represent the % of participants passing tasks.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0018710982-24">STUDY 2. A USABILITY TEST WAS ADMINISTERED ON THE REVISED POWERPOINT COURSES</hd> <p>Based on the results and feedback from participants in Study 1, the PowerPoint courses were completely redesigned to make them more user-friendly and attractive. The following results compare the findings from the usability test in Study 1 for the original PowerPoint course with the new findings in Study 2 for the revised PowerPoint course.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-25">Participants</hd> <p>Three females and four males participated in this phase of the testing, ranging in age from 54 to 68 (mean = 62.4, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.89). Two of the participants had high school diplomas, two had some college education, two had college degrees, and the remaining person had postcollege education. Participant's perceived health ranged from good to excellent. Two of the participants were African American, five were White, and one listed his ethnic background as "other." The participants scored above the norm on the vocabulary subtest of the Shipley Institute for Living Scale (mean = 36.4). One of the participants self-rated her computer skills at level 2, three at level 3, two at level 4, and one at level 5 (1 = no skills, 5 = highly skilled). Individual data are outlined in the Appendix.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-26">Procedure</hd> <p>Identical testing procedures, instruments, and scoring methods were used as in the first study.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-27">RESULTS FOR STUDY 2</hd> <p>The revised PowerPoint program appeared to be extremely usable. In general, performance increased on some usability tasks from 40—80% with the original version to 86—100% with the revised version as outlined in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3. Scoring of search tasks for the original PowerPoint and the revised PowerPoint courses</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Usability task</td><td>Original PowerPoint (%)</td><td>Revised PowerPoint (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> 1. Open the index of courses page.</td><td>60</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 2. Open Basic PowerPoint.</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 3. Go through this entire course until you reach the end.</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 4. Go back three pages, watch video, return to this page.</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 5. Open course on PowerPoint icons and go to the end.</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 6. Go back to the beginning of this course.</td><td>80</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 7. Open the FAQS section.</td><td>100</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td> 8. Find the answer to one question.</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 9. Open the courses on word and return to the courses on PowerPoint.</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>10. Open the Dictionary section.</td><td>80</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>11. Where would you go to find the terms of use agreement for Business Thinking?</td><td>40</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>12. Return to the index of courses</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td><p id="TFN0003">*Entries represent the % of participants passing tasks.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The participants who were tested with the original and revised versions of the PowerPoint courses were satisfied with almost all aspects of the BusinessThinking software for both versions. All but one of the average ratings by category of response were at least 4 or above (see Table 4). Overall satisfaction ratings for the two versions of the programs were the same. However, greater satisfaction ratings were observed for the revised PowerPoint program when compared to the original program in other categories of responses.</p> <p>Table 4. Overall average ratings on the opinions questionnaire for original and revised PowerPoint software</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Version of software</td><td>Overall opinions</td><td>Navigation</td><td>Information presented</td><td>Design</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Original</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.3</td><td>3.7</td><td>4.0</td></tr><tr><td>Revised</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.4</td><td>4.3</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td><p id="TFN0004">*1 = Low satisfaction, 5 = High satisfaction; Entries represent the average score within a category of items across participants.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A slightly higher rating was recorded when the participants were asked their opinions of the navigation system for the revised version when compared to the original version. Both ratings were above 4. Thus, navigation was not seen to be a problem by the participants with either version, as was verified in the usability testing outlined above. However, when the participants were asked about their opinions concerning the information presented, the revised program was rated much higher than the original program (4.3 compared to 3.7). This finding suggests that dividing the courses into smaller units (Parts I and II) and reducing the amount of text on a page so that less scrolling is required made a noticeable difference in the manner in which the material included in the revised program was viewed. These points were well documented when usability testing of the original courses was performed. The design of the revised program was also rated somewhat higher than the original version (4.3 compared to 4.0). This is likely the result of removing some of the glitches (including duplicate logos that appeared when some successive pages were opened) from the program, as well as more focus on consistent design of the pages.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-28">STUDY 3. A USABILITY TEST OF THE ABILITY OF MATURE ADULTS TO LEARN CAREER DEVELOPMENT INFORMA...</hd> <p>This study used a subset of the BusinessThinking courses that focused on business skills related to career management and preretirement planning (and will be referred to as Careers). The objective was to evaluate the user-friendliness and navigational features of the material via usability testing.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-29">Participants</hd> <p>Three females and four males participated in the testing of the Careers courses, ranging in age from 54 to 67 (mean = 63.6, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.54). There was a range of educational backgrounds (from high school to advanced degrees), and the participants' ratings of their own health was good to excellent. Two of the participants were African American and the remaining five were White. All participants scored above the norm on the vocabulary test. Four of the participants self-rated their computer skills at level 3, two at level 4, and one at level 5. Individual data are outlined in the Appendix.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-30">Procedure</hd> <p>Identical testing procedures, instruments, and scoring methods were used as in the first study. Tasks were revised to reflect the career development content. However, task performance paralleled the same requirements as in the first two studies.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-31">RESULTS FOR STUDY 3</hd> <p>There were two major findings: (a) The software was usable by mature adults. The performance on the usability tasks was almost perfect, as outlined in Table 5. Only one problem was observed when two participants had difficulty finding information under the section entitled Find the Questions about Company Benefits. Finding this information was not critical to navigating the entire software program; (b) Mature adults liked the software. Participants were clearly satisfied with the product, as shown in Table 6. The participants ranked the overall course as a 4, and reported their highest satisfaction with the navigation of the material (mean = 4.8). The average satisfaction rating for the information presented was 4.4, and the average satisfaction rating for the overall design was 4.3.</p> <p>Table 5. Scoring of search tasks for the career development courses</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Usability task</td><td>% of participants passing task</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> 1. Open the BusinessThinking program to the index of courses page.</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 2. Open the section on Pre-Retirement.</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 3. Open the section on health & vitality.</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 4. Open the getting Older quiz and work through the entire quiz.</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 5. Open the course on careers.</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 6. Open the section on working and retiring.</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 7. Work through the end of the article on Part-time work.</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 8. Open the section on career moves.</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td> 9. Reopen the section on Pre-Retirement.</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>10. Find the list of questions to ask about company Benefits.</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>11. Open the section on the new economy.</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>12. Return to the index of courses.</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 6. Overall average rating on the opinions questionnaire for career development courses</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Opinion score</td><td>Overall opinions</td><td>Navigation</td><td>Information presented</td><td>Design</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Rating</td><td>4.0</td><td>4.8</td><td>4.4</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td><p id="TFN0005">*1 = Low satisfaction, 5 = High satisfaction; Entries represent the average score within a category of items across participants.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0018710982-32">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The results of this study contribute substantially to the literature on developing e-learning material for mature adults. Using the NIA/NLM guidelines (Morrell, et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref55">20</reflink>]) on designing websites for older adults as a starting point, we developed e-learning material to train people over age 50 to use common technology applications. The study answered the three questions outlined at the start of this article:</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-33">Can Mature Adults Capably Use e-Learning Material?</hd> <p>Findings from all three studies indicated that mature adults can use the e-learning BusinessThinking material. In all studies, the participants were able to competently move through the material and find different courses and information. In Study 1, participants had some difficulty in successfully completing tasks that required multiple steps. However, in Studies 2 and 3, after specific navigational features were redesigned to make them more obvious and more comprehensible, there was significant improvement in the ability of participants to move from course to course and to find the beginning of the course (which are both multistep processes). Additionally, after the material redesign, participants were better able to find ancillary material that would enable them to better use the BusinessThinking courses, such as the Technology Dictionary.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-34">Are the NIA Guidelines Sufficient for Designing e-Learning Material, or Are Other Criteria al...</hd> <p>The NIA guidelines (Morrell, in press; Morrell, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref56">19</reflink>]) are necessary but not sufficient for designing e-learning material. Results from these studies demonstrated that the criteria outlined, such as text features, color, graphics, site design, navigation, and content delivery, were critical to well-designed e-learning material for mature adults. However, usability testing was needed to tease out the other problems that would be encountered by potential users.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-35">Based on the Research, are There Additional Guidelines that can be Proposed as Criteria for D...</hd> <p>Because participants are expected to use the material for a significant length of time, as they learn or review material, the attractiveness of the design is more important in e-learning material than in other material designed for older adults. Typically, users do not use more than a few pages on any particular website. Navigational features need to be clearly marked and easily identified so that users can find different content. However, that seems to be the limit of what needs to be well-designed. In contrast, for most e-learning material, site architecture and layout become much more important.</p> <p>For example, we compared using words and icons to move from one page to another. In Study 1, participants were asked to "please click here to go to the next page." In Study 2, participants were given the option to select a Next Page icon (Figure 1) instead, which they found much more appropriate and helpful for site navigation.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 The next page icon.</p> <p>Additionally, other—factors, such as incorporating knowledge and familiarity with computer-based training—appear to be important in designing e-learning for mature adults. These factors affect the pacing of the material, the need to review specific content information, and the need to define terms that may be more familiar to other more-experienced technology users.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-36">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>Several major conclusions can be drawn from these studies. First, mature adults can capably use e-learning material when it is custom-designed for them. The NIA guidelines and sensitivity to specific cognitive and perceptual aspects of normal aging provide important touch points for designing this material. Second, the NIA guidelines may be enough to guarantee that mature adults can use e-learning material, but they are not sufficient to guarantee that the material design will be interesting enough to encourage older adults to use it. Instead, repeated usability testing involving both measurements of specific criteria and solicitation of verbal feedback are necessary to design e-learning material that mature adults will want to use. Third, some people over age 50 are still involved in business endeavors, others are not, or may not use technology at work. For all mature adults, it is critical to clearly lay out how various technology applications may be used and applied at work and in nonwork situations. This practical description will increase the motivation of people over age 50 to commit time to use e-learning material. Finally, this study demonstrated that people over age 50 are able to use e-learning material if it is designed to meet their specific needs.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-37">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>This research was supported by The National Institute on Aging, Grant #NIH-SBIR A6317G1, awarded to Marian Stoltz-Loike, Ph.D. The authors thank Micki Gordon, Director, Center for Productive Aging and Information Resources, Jewish Council for the Aging, Rockville, MD for assistance in recruiting participants, and the individuals at the SeniorNet Training Center in Chevy Chase, MD for participating in this research.</p> <hd id="AN0018710982-38">APPENDIX</hd> <hd1 id="AN0018710982-39">Demographic characteristics and self-rated computer skills of the samples</hd1> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td><bold>Internet</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>62</td><td>62</td><td>64</td><td>61</td><td>63</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Female</td><td>Male</td><td>Female</td><td>Female</td><td>Male</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>Post college</td><td>Post college</td><td>College degree</td><td>Post college</td><td>Post college</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td>African American</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Vocabulary score</td><td>37</td><td>37</td><td>40</td><td>39</td><td>38</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Self-rate computer skills</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Excel</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>68</td><td>64</td><td>64</td><td>63</td><td>56</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Male</td><td>Female</td><td>Female</td><td>Female</td><td>Female</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>Post college</td><td>Post college</td><td>Post college</td><td>College degree</td><td>High school</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>African American</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Vocabulary score</td><td>36</td><td>37</td><td>38</td><td>38</td><td>36</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Self-rated computer skills</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>PowerPoint</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>62</td><td>63</td><td>57</td><td>62</td><td>63</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Female</td><td>Female</td><td>Female</td><td>Female</td><td>Female</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>Post college</td><td>Some college</td><td>High school</td><td>Post college</td><td>High school</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>White</td><td>African American</td><td>White</td><td>Other</td><td>White</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Vocabulary score</td><td>37</td><td>37</td><td>38</td><td>38</td><td>34</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Self-rated computer skills</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Word revision</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>64</td><td>64</td><td>66</td><td>58</td><td>55</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Male</td><td>Male</td><td>Male</td><td>Female</td><td>Male</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>College degree</td><td>Post college</td><td>Some college</td><td>Some college</td><td>Post college</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>White</td><td>African American</td><td>Other</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Vocabulary score</td><td>36</td><td>37</td><td>32</td><td>38</td><td>40</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Self-rated computer skills</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><bold>Revised PowerPoint</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>66</td><td>62</td><td>64</td><td>65</td><td>68</td><td>54</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Male</td><td>Male</td><td>Female</td><td>Male</td><td>Female</td><td>Male</td><td>Female</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>Some college</td><td>Post college</td><td>High school</td><td>Some college</td><td>College degree</td><td>High school</td><td>College degree</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td>Other</td><td>African American</td><td>White</td><td>African American</td></tr><tr><td>Vocabulary score</td><td>39</td><td>37</td><td>39</td><td>30</td><td>38</td><td>34</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Self-rated computer skills</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Career development</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>54</td><td>66</td><td>64</td><td>62</td><td>67</td><td>66</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Female</td><td>Male</td><td>Female</td><td>Male</td><td>Male</td><td>Female</td><td>Male</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>Post college</td><td>Some college</td><td>High school</td><td>High school</td><td>Post college</td><td>Post college</td><td>High school</td></tr><tr><td>Race</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td>African American</td><td>White</td><td>White</td><td>African American</td></tr><tr><td>Vocabulary score</td><td>39</td><td>37</td><td>38</td><td>36</td><td>39</td><td>39</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Self-rated computer skills</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td><p id="TFN0006">*Self-rated computer skills: 1 = No skills, 5 = Highly skilled.</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ref id="AN0018710982-40"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref16" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> AARP. (2003). Staying ahead of the curve: The AARP working in retirement study. Available online: <ulink href="http://research.aarp.org/econ/multiwork%5f2003.html">http://research.aarp.org/econ/multiwork%5f2003.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Charness , N. , Schumann , C. , & Boritz , G. (1992). Training older adults in word processing: Effects of age, training technique and computer anxiety. International Journal of Technology and Aging , 5 , 79 – 105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Czaja , S. J. & Lee , C. C. (2001). The internet and older adults: Design challenges and opportunities. In N. Charnes , D. C. Parks , & B. A. Sabel (Eds.), Communication, technology and aging: Opportunities and challenges for the future (pp. 60 – 80). NY : Springer Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Czaja , S. J. & Sharit , J. (1993). Age differences in the performance of computer-based work. Psychology and Aging , 8 , 59 – 67. [CSA] [CROSSREF]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref36" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Health & Human Services. (2004). Research-based web design & usability guidelines. Available online: <ulink href="http://usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines.html">http://usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref18" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dohm , A. (2000 July). Gauging the labor force effects of retiring baby-boomers. Monthly Labor Review , 17 – 25. [CSA]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref19" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Drucker , P. (2001 , November 3). The next society: A survey of the near future. The Economist , Special section , 1 – 20. [CSA]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> K. V. , Echt (2002). Designing web-based health information for older adults: Visual considerations and design directives. In R. W. Morrell (Ed.), Older adults, health information, and the world wide web (pp. 61 – 88). Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref8" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Echt , K. V. (2001). Designing web-based information for older adults: Visual considerations and design directives. In R. W. Morrell (Ed.), Older adults, health information, and the world wide web. Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Folstein , M. F. , Folstein , S. E. , & McHugh , P. R. (1975). Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research , 12 , 189 – 198. [CSA] [CROSSREF]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Folstein , M. F. , Folstein , S. E. , & Miller , R. (1993). MiniMental state: A practical guide for crading the cognitive states of patients for clinicians. Journal of Psychiatric Research , 12 , 189 – 198. [CSA] [CROSSREF]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldberg , B. (2001). Needed. Experienced workers. Harvard Business Review , F0107B. [CSA]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldberg , B. (2000). Age works: What corporate America must do to survive the graying of the workforce. NY : Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herrmann , D. J. & Plude , D. (1998). The effectiveness of face-name memory training as a function of training technologies and learning ability (Technical Report). Terre Haute , IN : Practical Memory Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchison , D. , Eastman , C. , & Tirrito , T. (1997). Designing user interfaces for older adults. Educational Gerontology , 23 , 497 – 513. [CSA]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mandel , T. (1997). The elements of user interface design. New York : Wiley Computer Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mead , S. E. , Lamson , N. , & Rogers , W. A. (2002). Human factors guidelines for web site usability: Health-oriented web sites for older adults. In R. W. Morrell (Ed.), Older adults, health information, and the World Wide Web (pp. 89 – 108). Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrell , R. W. (in press). <ulink href="http://www.nihseniorhealth.gov">www.nihseniorhealth.gov</ulink> : The process of construction and revision in the development of a model web site for use by older adults. International Journal: Universal Access in the Information Society. [CSA]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrell , R. W. (2004 , July). Technology and older adults: Evolution, myths, & revolution. Paper presented at the Older Users Wired Workshop sponsored by AARP, HHS, and GSA Washington DC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrell , R. W. , Dailey , S. R. , Stoltz-Loike , M. , Feldman , C. , Mayhorn , C. B. , Echt , K. V. , & Podany , K. I. (2004). Older adults and information technology: A compendium of scientific research and web site accessibility guidelines. Bethesda , MD : National Institute on Aging.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrell , R. W. & Echt , K. V. (1996 a). Designing instructions for computer use by older adults. In A. D. Fisk & W. A. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and the older adult. New York : Academic press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrell , R. W. & Echt , K. V. (1996 b). Instructional design for older computer users: The influence of cognitive factors. In W. A. Rogers , A. D. Fisk , & N. Walker (Eds.), Aging and skilled performance: Advances in theory and applications. Hillsdale , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute on Aging. (2002). Making your web site senior friendly: A checklist. Bethesda , MD : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nielsen , J. & Mack , R. (Eds.). (1994). Usability inspection methods. New York : Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park , D. C. , Hertzog , C. , Leventhal , H. , Morrell , R. W. , Leventhal , E. , Birchmore , D. , Martin , M. , & Bennett , J. (1999). Medication adherence in rheumatoid arthritis patients: Older is wiser. JAGS , 47 , 172 – 183. [CSA]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plude , D. J. & Schwartz , L. K. (1996). The promise of compact disc interactive memory training with the elderly. Educational Gerontology , 22 , 507 – 521. [CSA]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Practical Memory Institute. (2000). The validity of memory training provided by Memory Works CDs. PMI Technical Reports , 2 , 1 – 13. [CSA]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosen , D. J. (2000). Using electronic technology in adult literacy education. In J. Comings , B. Garner , and C. Smith (Eds.) Review of Adult Learning and Literacy (Vol. 1 , pp. 304 – 315). USA : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubin , J. (1994). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective usability tests. New York : Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saczynski , J. S. , Rebok , G. W. , Whitfield , K. E. , & Plude , D. J. (2004). Effectiveness of CD-ROM memory training as a function of with-session autonomy. Cognitive Technology , 9 , 24 – 32. [CSA]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shipley , W. C. (1986). Shipley institute of living scale. Los Angeles : Western Psychological Services.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stites , R. (2004). Implications of new learning technologies and adult literacy learning. In J. Comings , B. Garner , and C. Smith (Eds.) Review of Adult Learning and Literacy (Vol. 4 , pp. 109 – 155). Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoltz-Loike , M. , Morrell , R. W. , & Loike , J. (2004). An overview of usability testing and assessment of knowledge and skills acquisition of businessthinking e-Learning courses (Technical Report #052604). Jamaica, NY : SeniorThinking.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoltz-Loike , M. (2004 , September). Designing e-Learning material for mature employees: Blending innovation in business and technology. Paper presented at Aging by Design Conference. Boston , MA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoltz-Loike , M. , Morrell , R. W. , & Loike , J. (2005). A comparison of two blended learning formats and simple e-Learning. Manuscript in preparation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoltz-Loike , M. , Morrell , R. W. , & Loike , J. (In press). Can e-Learning be used as a successful training format for people over age 50? A pilot study. Gerontechnology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoltz-Loike , M. , Morrell , R. W. , & Loike , J. (2003). Usability and Knowledge Assessment of BusinessThinking TM software program: Career development (Technical Report #112103). Jamaica, NY : SeniorThinking.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). Employed persons by detailed industry, sex, and age, Table 16. Available online: <ulink href="http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat3.pdf">http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat3.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> US Census Bureau. (2002). Changes in adult work habits. Available online: <ulink href="http://www.census.gov">http://www.census.gov</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Workflow Institute. (2004). US Learning Tech Market Report: 2004–2008. Available online: <ulink href="http://www.internettime.com/workflow/newsletters/August%20Newsletter.htm">http://www.internettime.com/workflow/newsletters/August%20Newsletter.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Working Mother Media. (2004). Getting a grip on generational diversity. Online Webinar, May 19, 2004.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Marian Stoltz-Loike; RogerW. Morrell and JamesD. Loike</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref54"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ721475
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Usability Testing of BusinessThinking [TM] e-Learning CD-Roms with Older Adults
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stoltz-Loike%2C+Marian%22">Stoltz-Loike, Marian</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Morrell%2C+Roger+W%2E%22">Morrell, Roger W.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Loike%2C+James+D%2E%22">Loike, James D.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Gerontology%22"><i>Educational Gerontology</i></searchLink>. Nov-Dec 2005 31(10):765-786.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Customer Services for Taylor & Francis Group Journals, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420 (Toll Free); Fax: 215-625-8914.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2005
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Career+Development%22">Career Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Internet%22">Internet</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adult+Education%22">Adult Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Older+Adults%22">Older Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Education%22">Technology Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Business+Education%22">Business Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Software%22">Computer Software</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Peripherals%22">Computer Peripherals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Evaluation%22">Program Evaluation</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0360-1277
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: BusinessThinking [TM] is a computer-based e-learning package designed to teach technology skills and business information to adults, ages 50-69, who remain in the workforce. This article outlines results from usability testing for the material on using technology applications (Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Excel and the Internet), and career development (career management and preretirement planning. In Study 1, a usability test was conducted to ensure that the material was user-friendly. In Studies 2 and 3, the PowerPoint and career development materials were redesigned according to the findings from Study 1. Results indicated that the redesign was effective in increasing navigation of the material.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 41
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2005
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=M75382NV8H0KX766" linkWindow="_blank">http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=M75382NV8H0KX766</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ721475
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ721475
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 765
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Career Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Internet
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adult Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Older Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Business Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Software
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Peripherals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Evaluation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Usability Testing of BusinessThinking [TM] e-Learning CD-Roms with Older Adults
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stoltz-Loike, Marian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Morrell, Roger W.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Loike, James D.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2005
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0360-1277
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 31
            – Type: issue
              Value: 10
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Gerontology
              Type: main
ResultId 1