ABSTRACT
Objectives: To compare how clinical researchers generate data-driven hypotheses with a visual interactive analytic tool (VIADS, a visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large datasets coded with hierarchical terminologies) or other tools. Methods: We recruited clinical researchers and separated them into "experienced" and "inexperienced" groups. Participants were randomly assigned to a VIADS or control group within the groups. Each participant conducted a remote 2-hour study session for hypothesis generation with the same study facilitator on the same datasets by following a think-aloud protocol. Screen activities and audio were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Hypotheses were evaluated by seven experts on their validity, significance, and feasibility. We conducted multilevel random effect modeling for statistical tests. Results: Eighteen participants generated 227 hypotheses, of which 147 (65%) were valid. The VIADS and control groups generated a similar number of hypotheses. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate one hypothesis (e.g., among inexperienced clinical researchers, 258 s versus 379 s, p = 0.046, power = 0.437, ICC = 0.15). The VIADS group received significantly lower ratings than the control group on feasibility and the combination rating of validity, significance, and feasibility. Conclusion: The role of VIADS in hypothesis generation seems inconclusive. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate each hypothesis. However, the combined validity, significance, and feasibility ratings of their hypotheses were significantly lower. Further characterization of hypotheses, including specifics on how they might be improved, could guide future tool development.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To compare how clinical researchers generate data-driven hypotheses with a visual interactive analytic tool (VIADS, a visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large data sets coded with hierarchical terminologies) or other tools. Methods: We recruited clinical researchers and separated them into "experienced" and "inexperienced" groups. Participants were randomly assigned to a VIADS or control group within the groups. Each participant conducted a remote 2-hour study session for hypothesis generation with the same study facilitator on the same datasets by following a think-aloud protocol. Screen activities and audio were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Hypotheses were evaluated by seven experts on their validity, significance, and feasibility. We conducted multilevel random effect modeling for statistical tests. Results: Eighteen participants generated 227 hypotheses, of which 147 (65%) were valid. The VIADS and control groups generated a similar number of hypotheses. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate one hypothesis (e.g., among inexperienced clinical researchers, 258 seconds versus 379 seconds, p = 0.046, power = 0.437, ICC = 0.15). The VIADS group received significantly lower ratings than the control group on feasibility and the combination rating of validity, significance, and feasibility. Conclusion: The role of VIADS in hypothesis generation seems inconclusive. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate each hypothesis. However, the combined validity, significance, and feasibility ratings of their hypotheses were significantly lower. Further characterization of hypotheses, including specifics on how they might be improved, could guide future tool development.
