Data Collection in the Palm of Your HandA Case StudyKel.docx

Data Collection in the Palm of Your Hand:
A Case Study
Kelly A. Spain and Chad A. Phipps
Department of Psychology
Wichita State University
Michael E. Rogers
Department of Kinesiology and Sport Studies
Barbara S. Chaparro
Department of Psychology
Portable computing is an emerging technology that allows
computing to occur practi-
cally anywhere. Going beyond the typical use as the “pocket-
sized organizer,” new
methods of using handheld devices are being developed. One
new method is to use
handheld devices to collect data in the field. The portability of
handheld devices allows
for data collection in virtually any setting and frees the
researcher from the confines of
the laboratory. This article describes the process of converting a
paper-and-pencil
method of data collection to a 3Com Palm Pilot

™
III application. An iterative design
process was used to evaluate the ease of use of the new
application. The new applica-
tion (a) substantially reduced time to transfer the data to a
database, (b) did not inter-
fere with the task, (c) allowed the user to accomplish the same
tasks as with the paper
method while adding functionality beyond the paper method,
and (d) was rated as
easy to use.
Recent advances in computing technology have led to a
dramatic increase in the
availability of handheld computing devices such as palm-sized
computers, per-
sonal digital assistants, personal information managers, and pen
tablets. Recent re-
search in this area has focused on input techniques such as
handwriting recognition
(e.g., MacKenzie & Chang, 1999; MacKenzie, Nonnecke,
Riddersma, McQueen, &
Meltz, 1994) and different (on-screen) soft keyboards (Bohan,
Phipps, Chaparro, &
Halcomb, 1999; MacKenzie et al., 1994; MacKenzie, Zhang, &
Soukoreff, 1999). This
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER
INTERACTION, 13(2), 231–243
Copyright © 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kelly A. Spain is now at IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Kelly A. Spain, IBM,
555 Bailey Avenue, San Jose, CA 95141.

E-mail: [email protected]
research is beginning to provide useful insight for input
techniques, and research is
arising to provide insight into uses beyond the “personal
organizer” and into the
realm of data collection (e.g., see Drury, 1987; Johnston,
Rushby, & Maclean, 2000;
Schwartz, Neale, Marco, Shiffman, & Stone, 1999). Designing
for these devices can
be difficult due to the small screen size, input techniques (e.g.,
selection, text entry),
navigation, and potential cognitive interference with the main
task.
Mobile computing devices provide an opportunity to drastically
change the
manner in which research data is collected. Computerized data
collection has be-
come more popular in today’s research settings; however, it is
not always possible
to use a computer. Desktop computers are not easily moved
from one location to
another, and although laptop computers provide more mobility,
they are costly.
Thus, many researchers use paper-and-pencil questionnaires to
collect participant
responses. However, paper-and-pencil data collection presents
several problems to
the researcher. First, paper-and-pencil information can be lost
or misplaced. Sec-
ond, the process of transferring data for analysis may be time
consuming and
prone to user error. Third, the use of paper can be cumbersome

by constantly hav-
ing to shuffle papers to ensure the correct sequence of questions
is being followed.
The use of a mobile handheld computing device to collect data
could alleviate these
problems. By using a handheld device, the data can be
electronically transferred to
a computer database for analysis. This process eliminates the
need to transcribe
from the paper forms; thus the integrity of the data is
maintained throughout the
process, from collection to analysis. The software could also
automatically order
and present the questions, allowing the researcher to focus on
conducting the as-
sessment. The purpose of this study was to replace a paper-and-
pencil method of
data collection with a method employing a handheld device.
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Psychology and Kinesiology and Sport Studies (KSS)
departments at Wichita
State University modified paper-and-pencil fitness assessment
forms to work
within the confines of the 3Com Palm Pilot™III (Palm). In an
attempt to understand
the physical capabilities of the aged, the KSS department
collects performance data
on different physical activities of older (age 60 or older)
clients. This information is
then compared to a national database, which helps identify
clients who are at risk
for disabilities. Exercise routines are recommended and the
benefits of the exercise
can be determined over time by repeating the assessments.

Examples of data col-
lected include performance on muscle strength, aerobic
endurance, flexibility, and
motor ability activities.
The KSS department sought to find a way to eliminate the need
for manual data
entry into a database and to make the data entry as efficient as
possible. The assess-
ment data are collected in a variety of settings, therefore
providing an opportunity
to use a handheld device in lieu of a notebook computer or
paper-and-pencil forms.
The Palm device was chosen due to its small size and low cost.
The use of a
handheld device allows for direct transfer of the data from the
assessments to the
database in which they are stored. From this database, these
data can be manipu-
lated for final analysis.
232 Spain et al.
2. REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROJECT
To successfully shift the data collection process to the Palm
application, the follow-
ing requirements were established:
• The use of the Palm should not interfere with data collection.
The clients and
assessments are the focus. We were concerned that the use of
the Palm might
interfere with the assessment process by either adding time to

the process or
by hindering interactions between the assessor and clients.
• The use of the Palm should not add any time to the assessment
session. The
clients are participating for both their own benefit and for
research purposes.
Their time is valuable and any extra time added to the process
may discourage
them from participating in or completing the process.
• The Palm forms should be capable of recording data for
multiple clients. Cli-
ents are often tested in pairs (i.e., couples). With the paper
method, the user
can flip between papers as each participant’s data is entered on
the assess-
ment form. The nature of the Palm does not allow for this, but
the alternative
must be useable.
• Anything that the Palm could do for the user would be
considered an added
improvement. Without taking control away from the user, we
wanted to auto-
mate what we could in the process, allowing for more time
focused on the as-
sessment process itself.
3. METHOD
An iterative design process was employed to determine whether
the Palm applica-
tion could meet the previously mentioned requirements. A task
analysis was con-
ducted in which we observed the actual assessment process. The

results of the task
analysis guided the design process and application
functionality.
3.1. Task Analysis
The first step of the task analysis was to view the current paper
form. The assess-
ment form, including demographic and assessment information,
fills approxi-
mately 1.5 pages of an 8½" × 11" sheet of paper. The assessor
places the form on a
clipboard and marks on it using a pencil. Some assessments
require timing and unit
measurement, so the assessors also carry a stopwatch and ruler
with them as
needed.
The testing environment. Although the testing environment may
differ
based on location, the layout is virtually the same. Different
assessment stations are
arranged to minimize the client’s time spent waiting. Once the
older clients arrive at
the assessment site, an assessor records their demographic
information on a blank
Portable Data Collection 233
assessment form. This information includes name, address,
height, and weight
data. The form is then given to the client and the client is
directed to the next assess-
ment station. The testing session lasts approximately 30 to 40

min. This time varies
due to the variation in the participant’s individual speed in
completing the assess-
ments. Before beginning each assessment, the assessor explains
the purpose of the
test and the requirements of the client. A description of the
assessments that are
used in the KSS department follows (see also Rikli & Jones,
1999).
Arm Curl Test. The purpose of the Arm Curl Test is to assess
upper body
strength and endurance. The client is seated on a chair, back
straight and feet flat on
the floor, with the dominant side of the body close to the edge.
A 5- to 8-lb weight is
held at the side in the dominant hand. The test begins with the
arm in the down posi-
tion beside the chair, perpendicular to the floor. The assessor
says “Go!,” starts the
stopwatch, and the client curls the arm through a full range of
motion and then re-
turns to the fully extended position in a controlled manner. The
assessor counts the
total number of correctly completed arm curls, says “Stop!”
after 30 sec, then re-
cords the score on the assessment form.
Balance Measures Test. The purpose of the Balance Measures
Test is to as-
sess standing balance. The assessor times the client while the
client (a) stands with
feet together, (b) stands with feet in the semitandem position,
(c) stands with feet in
the full tandem position, and (d) stands on one foot. Each
position is achieved with

(a) the eyes open and head forward, (b) eyes closed and head
forward, and (c) eyes
open with the neck extended (looking at ceiling). The assessor
says “Go!” and starts
the stopwatch, and the client begins the test. After 10 sec, the
assessor marks
whether the client was able to hold the position for that
duration. This process is re-
peated for all balance measures.
Chair Sit and Reach Test. The purpose of the Chair Sit and
Reach Test is to
assess lower body (primarily hamstring) flexibility. Starting in
a sitting position on a
chair, the client moves forward until the client is sitting on the
front edge. Keeping
one leg bent with foot on the floor, the other leg is extended
straight in front of the
hip, with heel on the floor and foot flexed. With the extended
leg as straight as possi-
ble, the client slowly bends forward at the hip joint sliding the
hands (one on top of
the other with the tips of the middle fingers even) down the
extended leg in an at-
tempt to touch the toes. The reach must be held for 2 sec. The
assessor uses a ruler to
measure the number of inches (nearest ½ in.) a person is short
of reaching the toes
(minus score) or reaches beyond the toes (plus score). The
assessor takes measure-
ments on each leg, records the data in the margins of the form
to determine which
leg is the “superior” leg (the leg with the best score), then
records two trials on the
superior leg.

234 Spain et al.
Chair Stand Test. The purpose of the Chair Stand Test is to
assess lower body
strength and endurance. The test begins with the client seated in
the middle of the
chair, back straight, and feet approximately shoulder width
apart and flat on the
floor. Arms are crossed held against the chest. The assessor
says “Go!,” starts the
stopwatch, and begins counting as the client rises to a full stand
(body erect and
straight) and returns back to the initial seated position. The
client is encouraged to
complete as many full stands as possible within a 30-sec time
limit. After 30 sec, the
assessor says “Stop!,” totals the number of stands executed
correctly, and records
that number to the assessment form.
Eight-Foot Walk Test. The purpose of this test is to assess
walking speed. The
client is timed while walking on an 8-ft path. Infrared sensors
interfaced with a stop-
watch detect when the client starts and finishes the task. The
client performs the task
at normal walking speed. The client also performs the task using
a tandem walk
(placing the heel to the toe on each step). When the client
finishes the walk, the asses-
sor records the time from the stopwatch and resets the
stopwatch. This process may
be repeated two or three times.

Scratch Test. The purpose of the Scratch Test is to assess upper
body (shoul-
der) flexibility. In a standing position, the client places the
preferred hand over the
same shoulder and reaches as far as possible down the middle of
the back, palm
down and fingers extended. The hand of the other arm is placed
behind the back,
palm up, reaching up as far as possible in an attempt to touch
(or overlap) the ex-
tended middle fingers of both hands. The assessor measures the
distance of overlap,
or distance between the tips of the middle fingers to the nearest
½ in. Minus scores
(–) are given to represent the distance short of touching middle
fingers; plus scores
(+) represent the degree of overlap of middle fingers. The
assessor measures the cli-
ent on both sides and records those preliminary scores in the
margin. The assessor
then takes two measurements on the superior limb and records
those scores on the
assessment form.
Six-Minute Walk and Two-Minute Step-in-Place Test. The
purpose of the
Six-Minute Walk Test is to assess aerobic endurance. The test
involves assessing the
maximum distance the client can walk in 6 min along a 50-yard
course, marked into
5-yard segments. Clients continuously walk around a measured
lap throughout the
6-min period, trying to cover as much distance as possible. The
assessor says “Go!,”
starts the stopwatch, and begins counting the number of
completed laps as the cli-

ent walks (not runs) as fast as possible the marked distance
along the course as
many times as they can within the time limit. If necessary,
clients may stop and rest,
sitting on chairs provided, then resume walking. The assessor
counts the number of
laps completed for each client. After 6 min have elapsed, the
assessor says “Stop!”
and records the total number of completed laps on the
assessment form.
The purpose of the Two-Minute Step-in-Place Test is to assess
cardiovascular
and physical endurance in older adults who are unable to
complete the 6-min walk.
The proper (minimum) knee-stepping height for each client is at
a level even with
the midway point between the patella and the iliac crest. To
monitor correct knee
height when stepping, a ruler is attached to a chair with
masking tape marking the
proper knee height. The assessor says “Go!,” starts the
stopwatch and begins
counting completed steps as the client begins stepping (not
running) in place, com-
pleting as many steps as possible within the time period. As
soon as proper knee
height cannot be maintained, the assessor asks the client to
stop—or to stop and
rest—until proper form can be regained. Stepping may be
resumed if the 2-min
time period has not elapsed. If necessary, one hand can be

placed on the table or
chair to assist in maintaining balance. After 2 min have elapsed,
the assessor says
“Stop!” and records the total number of steps completed.
During either of these assessments, the body mass index (BMI)
is calculated.
BMI (Revicki & Israel, 1986; Smalley, Knerr, Kendrick,
Colliver, & Owen, 1990) is an
index of height and weight that is indicative of various disease
risks including car-
diovascular disease and Type II diabetes. Clients are provided
their score, indicat-
ing whether they are high or low risk. A score of 25 or higher is
considered high
risk. The calculation for BMI is
The assessor uses a calculator to determine each client’s BMI.
Up and Go Test. The purpose of the Up and Go Test is to assess
physical mo-
bility—involving speed, agility, and dynamic balance. The test
begins with the cli-
ent fully seated in the chair, hands on thighs, and feet flat on
the floor. The client is
told that this is a “timed” test and that the object is to walk as
quickly as possible
(without running) around a cone and back to the chair. The
assessor says “Go!” and
the client gets up from the chair, walks as quickly as possible
around the cone, and
returns to the chair. When the client has returned to the chair,
the assessor stops the
stopwatch and records the time elapsed. This assessment is
conducted twice.

When all assessments are complete, the forms are collected to
be later entered in
a computer database. Two people are involved in this part of the
process; one per-
son reads the data from the assessment form while the other
person enters the data
in the database. This process was used to help reduce data entry
errors. One client’s
data is entered into the database in approximately 5 min.
3.2. Interface Design and Functionality
The task analysis revealed several important issues. As noted
before, for this project
to be successful it was imperative that the Palm application be
as flexible and func-
236 Spain et al.
2
Weight in kilograms
(Height in meters)
tional as the paper method. Based on the existing paper forms,
field observations,
and the task analysis, a prototype was developed using Satellite
Forms 3.0
(Pumatech, San Jose, CA). Each assessment is displayed on one
form. Users navi-
gate the forms via back and next buttons, in a wizard-like
fashion. This design was
chosen based on the assumption that users would go through the
assessments (and

therefore, the assessment forms) in a specified order.
Scratchpad. It was observed that during the Chair Sit and Reach
Test and
Scratch Test the assessor would take measurements for both
right and left limbs,
then write those values in the margin of the paper form. This
data would not be
recorded to the database, but was helpful to the assessor for
determining, and re-
membering, which was the superior limb. Subsequent
measurements were taken
on the superior limb only. This led to designing a scratchpad
area that allows the
assessor to record the initial measurements (see Figure 1). As
with the paper
method, these data are not transferred to the database, but aid
the assessor dur-
ing the assessments.
Timer. Several assessments require a number of actions to be
counted during a
given time period (e.g., the Chair Stand Test consists of the
number of stands in 30
sec), whereas others require actions to be timed (e.g., the Up
and Go Test consists of
the time to stand from a chair, walk around a cone, and return to
the chair). Built-in
timers were designed in those forms with assessments requiring
timing (see Figure
2 for an example). This eliminates the need for a separate timer
or stopwatch. For the
timed assessments, the time data are input directly from the
timer field into the data
fields. For the assessments requiring set time periods, the Palm
application emits a

“beep” at the end of the duration.
FIGURE 1 Scratch test assessment form with scratchpad area.
BMI calculator. To address the issue of calculating the BMI by
hand, a BMI cal-
culator function was designed in the demographic form where
height and weight
data are entered. When the client’s height and weight data are
available, the BMI is
calculated by tapping a graphical button on the screen.
4. USABILITY TESTING
Three usability tests were conducted to evaluate the new
application interface. All
three tests were conducted in the assessment environment with
different users.
4.1. Users
For each of the three usability tests, the users were recruited
from the KSS depart-
ment. All users had experience with the assessment process and
had administered
them using the paper method. For the different usability tests,
the users had differ-
ing degrees of experience with the Palm application, described
in detail for each us-
ability test. A total of eight users participated in the usability
tests. We wanted the
users to be familiar with the assessment process before the

usability testing and
therefore used all available and qualified graduate students in
the KSS department.
4.2. Procedures
Before the test, each user was given a 15-min instruction period
on interacting with
the Palm device. This consisted of demonstrating the soft
keyboards for alphanu-
meric data entry and the graffiti tool for numerical data entry.
The graffiti tool (Mac-
238 Spain et al.
FIGURE 2 Up and Go assessment form with timer.
Kenzie & Zhang, 1997) is an alphabetic language written one
character at a time, us-
ing the stylus. The alphanumeric characters resemble that of the
regular printed
alphabet. The majority of the data collected are numerical data.
We felt the graffiti
tool lent itself well to this type of entry, as the numbers for the
numerical graffiti tool
closely resemble printed numbers.
Users were told of the purpose of the test. Because the test was
conducted in the
field, the use of video cameras was impractical. Therefore, an
observer followed the
user, recording any comments or problems, and prompting the
user for comments
if necessary.

Tasks. The task in all usability tests was for the user to perform
the assess-
ments in the normal manner, except to enter data in the Palm
application. On com-
pletion of all assessments, we asked the users to rate the Palm
application on how
easy or difficult it was to use and to state their willingness to
switch from the paper
method to the Palm application.
4.3. Test 1: Functionality
The purpose of this test was to determine if the users were able
to interact with the
Palm application with 15 min of training and to test the
additional functionality of
the BMI calculator, timer, and scratchpad.
Users. Three users completed Test 1. All three users were
familiar with the as-
sessments but unfamiliar with the Palm device. Users
familiarized themselves with
the Palm as described earlier.
Results. All three users were able to complete the task. One user
exhibited dif-
ficulty entering data in the Palm. Data is entered either with the
soft keyboard or
graffiti tool, but this user attempted to enter numerical data
directly in the data
fields. For the first three forms the user tried this without
success. Once the user was
alerted that data could only be entered via the soft keyboard or
graffiti tool, the user
used the graffiti tool. All three users were able to use the

scratchpad fields without
errors. No user tried to enter the preliminary data in the data
fields.
All users made general positive comments about the use of the
Palm for data.
One user commented, “This is a great idea to step into
technology with the assess-
ments.” Specific comments include one user stating, “The
calculation for the BMI
saves time and I don’t have to do it myself.” Another user
stated, “This [BMI calcu-
lator] button is great. Just one touch and the number appears!”
One user specifically had problems navigating the screens
stating, “I just saw
the Arm Curl page, how do I get back?” All three users showed
some difficulty
navigating the different forms as evidenced by clicking the back
and next buttons
repeatedly. The assessment forms did not appear in the same
order the assessments
were being conducted. This rendered the back and next buttons
insufficient for
navigation. One user continued clicking forward to the end then
back to the begin-
ning before finding the desired form. When asked to rate the
ease of use of the Palm
application on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being difficult to use and
5 being easy to use, two
ranked it as a 3, and one ranked it as a 4. All three users stated

they would be will-
ing to switch to the Palm application.
Conclusions. The major finding of Test 1 for improving the
design related to
navigation. As stated earlier a wizard-like approach was taken
because the assess-
ments are conducted in a particular order. However, during this
test we realized this
might not always be the case and designing it thus made the
program inflexible. A
drop-down menu listing all but the current form was designed in
all forms so users
could jump to other forms. This was tested in Test 2.
4.4. Test 2: Navigation and Multiple Client Measurements
The goal of Usability Test 2 was to evaluate the addition of the
drop-down naviga-
tion menu and to determine the effectiveness of recording more
than one client’s
data at the same time. The Palm provides a hard-wired scrolling
mechanism to
scroll through different records as well as a menu system to
select the next or previ-
ous record. Therefore, shifting between different clients was not
a feature we de-
signed in the application, as there were other alternatives. We
demonstrated how to
use both the scroll buttons and the menu to switch between
client forms.
Users. Three users completed Test 2. All users were familiar
with the assess-
ment process. One user was familiar with the Palm device. The
other two users were

given time to familiarize themselves with the Palm device as
described earlier.
Results. Users navigated using both back and next buttons and
the drop-down
menu without stating or exhibiting any difficulties. Users had
difficulty with the
main task of this test: to record two clients’ data at the same
time. Two users entered
client’s data on the wrong form, and when asked about it, they
replied they were not
aware of the error. When asked to rate the ease of use of the
Palm application on a
scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being difficult to use and 5 being easy to
use, one user gave the pro-
gram a 3, whereas two users gave it a 4. All three users stated
they were willing to
switch to the Palm application.
Conclusions. No problems arose regarding navigation. The Palm
application
was rated as easy to use by two of the participants, and again all
three users stated
they would be willing to use it in place of the paper forms. The
difficulty in differen-
240 Spain et al.
tiating between clients’ forms led to adding a name field to all
forms. This design
change was tested in Test 3.
4.5. Test 3: Validation

The goal of this test was to evaluate recording two client’s data
simultaneously and
to identify any other issues the users may have.
Users. Two users participated in this test. Both users were
familiar with the as-
sessment process, but unfamiliar with the Palm device. Users
familiarized them-
selves with the Palm as described earlier.
Results. Users were successful at recording data for two clients
without trying
to enter data for the wrong person. No other problems were
noted. Comments
about the Palm application were all very positive. One user
stated that she thought
this was a “great alternative.” Other comments included the
added functionality
provided by the BMI calculator and timer. When asked to rate
the ease of use of the
Palm application on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being difficult to
use and 5 being easy to
use, both users rated the application as a 5. When asked, users
stated they would feel
comfortable using the Palm application in place of the paper
method.
Conclusions. Placing the name field on each form made it easier
for the users
to know on which client’s form the data was being recorded.
The Palm application
was rated as easy to use, and the two users stated they were
willing to switch to this
method. The lack of problems the users encountered in this
usability test reinforced
the design of the Palm application.

5. DISCUSSION
The Palm application was developed to replace the paper
method, not to determine
if one was superior in data entry. Therefore, the two methods
were not systemati-
cally compared. A typical assessment takes approximately 30 to
40 min with the pa-
per method. Assessments with the Palm application took this
same length of time.
This was not surprising considering that the length of the
assessment process often
depends on the client’s physical health: The types of measures
taken rely on the
speed at which the client completes the assessments. We saw
the greatest timesav-
ing during data transfer. Whereas it takes 5 min to manually
transfer one record to a
database, it takes a few seconds to electronically transfer one
record to a database
via the HotSync function. This relates to the Palm application
being 100 times faster
than the paper method for data transfer.
Usability tests of the Palm application were conducted
throughout the design
process. During these tests, the users were generally unfamiliar
with the device but
were familiar with the fitness assessment process. The
unfamiliarity with the de-
vice did not seem to cause major problems with the users.

Although the paper
method was familiar to all the users, they stated that they were
comfortable and
willing to switch to the Palm application exclusively. This
finding emphasizes the
success of the application. With the users feeling comfortable
with the Palm appli-
cation it is unlikely that the device would become an issue and
interfere with the
data collection process.
The Palm application met our goals: It did not interfere with the
assessment pro-
cess; it did not add time to the assessment process; users were
able to record data
for multiple clients; functions were added to automate and aid
in several tasks; and
users rated it as easy to use. We found the Palm device to
provide an excellent plat-
form for field data collection by providing a portable and
relatively cheap data col-
lection tool. This application is now being used in the KSS
assessment process and
has replaced the paper-and-pencil forms.
Several issues arose while completing this project. The first and
most drastic was
the limitations of the device itself. Specifically, it was
challenging to design for such
a small screen space (160 × 160 pixels). Navigation was also
important in this de-
sign. Initially, the only type of navigation was a wizard-like
approach involving
back and next buttons. The first usability test revealed that the
order of the assess-
ments is dependent on the assessment location. The Palm

application needed to be
more flexible. The addition of the drop-down menu allowing the
user to jump to
other assessment forms alleviated navigation problems.
Our users were generally unfamiliar with the device but were
open to using the
Palm application even when they encountered difficulties with
it. This may be due
to their knowledge of the goal of the project (replacing the
paper forms). It is possi-
ble that less willing users may have reacted to the new
technology differently.
REFERENCES
Bohan, M., Phipps, C. A., Chaparro, A., & Halcomb, C. G.
(1999). A psychophysical compari-
son of two stylus-driven soft keyboards. Proceedings of
Graphics Interface ’99 (pp. 92–97).
Kingston, Ontario: Canadian Human Computer Communication
Society.
Drury, C. G. (1987). Hand-held computers for ergonomics data
collection. Ergonomics, 18,
90–94.
Johnston, N. A., Rushby, N., & Maclean, I. (2000). An assistant
for crew performance assess-
ment. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 99–
108.
MacKenzie, I. S., & Chang, L. (1999). A performance
comparison of two handwriting
recognizers. Interacting with Computers, 11, 283–297.

MacKenzie, I. S., Nonnecke, B., Riddersma, S., McQueen, C., &
Meltz, M. (1994). Alphanu-
meric entry on pen-based computers. International Journal of
Human–Computer Studies, 41,
775–792.
MacKenzie, I. S., & Zhang, S. (1997). The immediate usability
of Graffiti. Proceedings of Graph-
ics Interface ’97 (pp. 129–137). Toronto, Canada: Canadian
Information Processing Society.
242 Spain et al.
MacKenzie, I. S., Zhang, S. X., & Soukoreff, R. W. (1999).
Text entry using soft keyboards. Be-
havior and Information Technology, 18, 235–244.
Revicki, D. A., & Israel, R. G. (1986). Relationship between
body mass indices and measures
of body adiposity. American Journal of Public Health, 76, 992–
994.
Rikli, R. E., & Jones, C. J. (1999). Development and validation
of a functional fitness test for
community-residing older adults. Journal of Aging and Physical
Activity, 7, 129–161.
Schwartz, J. E., Neale, J., Marco, C., Shiffman, S. S., & Stone,
A. A. (1999). Does trait coping ex-
ist? A momentary assessment approach to the evaluation of
traits. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 360–369.
Smalley, K. J., Knerr, A. N., Kendrick, Z. V., Colliver, J. A., &

Owen, O. E. (1990). Reassessment
of body mass indices. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
52, 405–408.
Copyright of International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

Data Collection in the Palm of Your HandA Case StudyKel.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Data Collection in the Palm of Your HandA Case StudyKel.docx

Similar to Data Collection in the Palm of Your HandA Case StudyKel.docx (20)

More from whittemorelucilla

More from whittemorelucilla (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Data Collection in the Palm of Your HandA Case StudyKel.docx