Skip to content

Interpretation Pitfalls in User Testing

Full Screen Edit in p5.js Editor

About This MicroSim

This interactive four-quadrant infographic helps students identify and avoid common interpretation pitfalls when analyzing user testing data. Each quadrant represents a different cognitive bias that can lead researchers and designers astray when interpreting test results.

The Four Pitfalls

Confirmation Bias (Red/Pink) - The tendency to notice, interpret, and remember information that confirms our preexisting beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence. In user testing, this manifests when researchers unconsciously focus on data that supports their hypotheses.

Small Sample Overgeneralization (Orange) - Drawing sweeping conclusions from a limited number of observations. While user testing typically involves small samples, the danger lies in treating these observations as universal truths rather than indicative patterns requiring validation.

Correlation/Causation Confusion (Yellow) - Mistaking correlation for causation. Just because two things occur together doesn't mean one causes the other. User behavior patterns often have multiple explanations that researchers may overlook.

Expert Blind Spot (Purple) - The difficulty experts have in understanding how novices perceive information. Designers often assume that what seems obvious to them will be equally clear to their users.

Key Insight

Awareness of these pitfalls is the first step toward more rigorous interpretation of user testing data. By consciously applying the antidotes, researchers can produce more reliable insights and better design decisions.

How to Use

  1. Hover over each quadrant to see expanded details including examples and antidotes
  2. Click on any quadrant to view a real-world case study demonstrating the pitfall
  3. Toggle the "Show Antidotes Only" button to focus on solutions
  4. Compare pitfalls to understand how they differ and sometimes overlap

Lesson Plan

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:

  1. Identify the four common interpretation pitfalls in user testing
  2. Recognize examples of each pitfall in real-world scenarios
  3. Apply appropriate antidotes to mitigate each bias
  4. Evaluate user testing findings for potential interpretation errors

Discussion Questions

  1. Have you ever experienced confirmation bias in your own work? How might you structure a testing process to counteract it?

  2. What is the minimum sample size needed for valid conclusions? How should we communicate uncertainty in small-sample studies?

  3. Think of a user behavior correlation you've observed. What alternative explanations might exist beyond the obvious interpretation?

  4. How can design teams involve actual target users earlier in the process to avoid expert blind spots?

Activity: Pitfall Detection

Review a user testing report (real or hypothetical) and identify:

  • Potential instances of each pitfall
  • Evidence that might have been overlooked
  • Alternative interpretations of the findings
  • Recommendations for more rigorous analysis

Source Code

1
// See interpretation-pitfalls.js for the full source code

View Source on GitHub

References

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
  • Nielsen, J. (2000). Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users. Nielsen Norman Group.
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 905-928.