# How To Specify the Participant Group Size for Usability Studies: A Practitioner’s Guide

Journal of Usability Studies, Volume 5, Issue 1, Nov 2009, pp. 34 - 45

## Article Contents

#### Comparative Studies

Usability practitioners often run studies to compare the usability of two or more interfaces. A typical example of this in commercial contexts is where we have an existing interface (A) and are proposing some changes to improve its performance. Therefore we produce a new interface design (B) and run a study to compare the usability of A and B.

In contrast to studies relating to problem discovery, these studies are primarily summative because they utilize metrics, such as task completion rates and time on task, that are ostensibly numeric, highly objective, easy to define, and easy to measure. In turn, this makes the results of such studies well suited to analysis with established statistical methods. Similarly, these studies are often definitive exercises with their finding representing “moments of truth” that form a basis of important commercial decisions e.g., deciding whether or not to implement a new interface design for an e-commerce system.

Of course, this means that we want to be reasonably confident that any such study is reliable. In turn, this often means that we want the study to produce (at least some) findings that are statistically significant. Further, leading organizations are increasing their reliance on statistically significant data within their business decision making processes (e.g., McKean, 1999; Pyzdek, 2003).

To explain how we might design studies to meet this challenge it is necessary to first consider this type of study in statistical terms.

Although comparative usability studies rarely satisfy the criteria for a true scientific experiment they are essentially a hypothesis test*. *So, using the above example, we hypothesize that interface B will perform better than interface A, and run a study to find evidence of thiseffect*.* Suppose then that the results of our study indicate this effect to be present because the mean time on task and completion rates are better for the participants using interface B.

However, before we can draw any conclusions from this study we must be reasonably sure that it is safe to reject the *null hypothesis*. This term means that there is actually no effect to be found and that any difference between the study groups occurred purely by chance and because the study participants are only a sample of the wider population who will use the system. So, with this example, before we conclude that interface B is better than interface A, we must be reasonably sure that the participants using interface B did not just happen to be better at operating our system than those using interface A (e.g., because they just happened to be more intelligent).

In keeping with early discussions of statistical concepts in this article, we can never be 100% sure that it is safe to reject the null hypothesis for any study that uses sampling (which is virtually all studies). Rather, statistical analysis of study data provides a probability that the null hypothesis can safely be rejected, where the level of this probability is expressed in terms of a significance level or p-value that the observed results are due to chance. (This is a similar concept to that of confidence level.) Further, for findings to be considered statistically significant, this significance level needs to be <=10% (p=*<*0.1) and preferably <=5% (p=*<*0.05).

The significance level of the findings is determined by the following two factors:

- The observed
*effect size*, which has two elements: the difference between the mean of the results for each group and the degree of variation across the results (often expressed in term of the standard deviation). As the observed effect size increases so does the significance level. - The
*sample size*, which is the number of participants in each study group. Again, as the sample size increases so does the significance level.

Of course, we cannot know the effect size until the study has actually been run. This means that the only factor we can change in a study design is the sample size—hence we return to the challenge of how to specify the group size for these studies.

One approach is to run an open-ended study whereby we increment the number of participants in a group until one of the following three conditions arises:

- The resulting data move into the range of statistical significance.
- It can reasonably be concluded that increasing the number of participants will never produce a statistically significant effect i.e., there is no effect to be found. So, with our example here, we would conclude that there is no significant performance difference across the two interfaces.
- Continuing with the study is no longer a viable option, typically due to budget or time constraints.

In academic contexts this approach is widespread; however, it is unviable in many commercial scenarios because the study needs to be time-boxed and budgeted within a wider project plan.

This leads us to the problem of how we specify a fixed group size for a study when we are seeking statistically significant findings. One approach is to specify a very large group size that is highly likely to produce some statistically significant findings if there is any effect to be found. With this approach, it may be possible to reclaim some of the study time and costs by terminating it early if and when the findings move into the range of significance. However, in many commercial environments time and budget constraints mean that such grandiose studies are not a viable proposition.

Therefore, the typical challenge here is to specify a group size that has a reasonable likelihood of producing statistically significant findings whilst minimizing the amount of time and cost that is “wasted” generating redundant data. To help us meet this challenge it is first necessary to consider some additional statistical concepts.

Hypothesis tests can fail due to the following two types of errors:

- A
*type I*error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is in fact true i.e., the test produces a false positive. - A
*type II*error occurs when the null hypothesis is retained when in fact it should be rejected i.e., the effect is present but has not been detected by the test.

Of course, a type 2 error is a terrible outcome for the study team because an important effect may have been missed. This is why we should calculate the power of the statistical test proposed within the study design. This power is the probability that it will avoid a type 2 error and it is influenced by the following factors:

- the effect size
- the sample size
- the significance level

*Power analysis* can be performed after a test has been performed using the actual study data, when this is known as *post hoc* power testing. Perhaps more usefully, it can also be performed before the test using results data from pilot studies or previous studies that are similar in nature, when this known as *priori* power testing. In this case, it can be used to predict both the minimum sample size required to produce statistical significant findings and the minimum effect size that is likely to be detected by a test using a given sample size.

Fortunately for usability practitioners, researchers in our discipline have already performed power analyses on many (sets of) studies in order to advise us as to what sample sizes for comparative studies are likely to produce (at least some) statistically significant findings. The following are prime examples of such research:

- Based on extensive primary research conducted by Landauer (1988), Nielsen and Landauer (1993) found that statistically significant findings are unlikely to be produced by a study group of less than eight participants, and it is this research that underpins the advice in the common industry format for usability test reports (CIF v2.02, 2002) to use a minimum group size (segment) of eight participants. This research also showed that a study utilizing 25 participants per group was quite likely to produce statistically significant findings.
- Within this range, Spyridakis and Fisher (1992) found that a study group size of 10-12 participants will often produce statistically significant findings.
- This figure of 10-12 participants is in broad accordance with the advice of Rubin (1994) and Faulkner (2003).

To summaries here, specification of the study group size when statistically significant findings are being sought is also an arbitrary process. The decision here will be influenced primarily by how likely we want it to be that the study’s findings will be statistically significant. In turn, this will again be influenced by the wider context for the study. However, we do have some useful advice from the research community that a study utilizing 8-25 participants per group is a sensible range to consider and that 10-12 participants is probably a good baseline range.

In addition to this, it is important that usability practitioners understand the difference between findings that are statistically significant and those that are meaningful. Findings that are not meaningful sometime occur with studies utilizing larger sample sizes, whereby the effect size is relatively small although it may still be statistically significant. To use our example here, suppose our two interface designs were compared using a study with two groups of 100 participants, and it was found that the task completion rate for interfaces A and B was identical whilst the time on task was 2% less for the new interface (B), and that this finding was statistically significant. Despite its statistical significance this finding would not typically be meaningful because the performance increase is too small to be of any interest or importance.

(A useful summary of the statistical concept discussion in this section can be found in Trochim, 2006.)