Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Joe A. Wasserman

dblp:145/3671 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
0000-0002-9705-1853ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Usability and user experience research · 50% Games and playful interaction · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Games and playful interaction
player experience
0.412019
The common player-avatar interaction scale (cPAX): Expansion and cross-language validation · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2019
Usability and user experience research › scale development
scale validation
0.412019
The common player-avatar interaction scale (cPAX): Expansion and cross-language validation · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2019

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

scale development · 0.4cross-language validation · 0.4confirmatory factor analysis · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 The common player-avatar interaction scale (cPAX): Expansion and cross-language validation
Jaime Banks, Nicholas David Bowman, Jih-Hsuan Lin, Daniel Pietschmann, Joe A. Wasserman
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud.5
2014 A qualitative study of the activities performed by people involved in clinical decision support: recommended practices for success
abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the activities performed by people involved in clinical decision support (CDS) at leading sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted ethnographic observations at seven diverse sites with a history of excellence in CDS using the Rapid Assessment Process and analyzed the data using a series of card sorts, informed by Linstone's Multiple Perspectives Model. RESULTS: We identified 18 activities and grouped them into four areas. Area 1: Fostering relationships across the organization, with activities (a) training and support, (b) visibility/presence on the floor, (c) liaising between people, (d) administration and leadership, (e) project management, (f) cheerleading/buy-in/sponsorship, (g) preparing for CDS implementation. Area 2: Assembling the system with activities (a) providing technical support, (b) CDS content development, (c) purchasing products from vendors (d) knowledge management, (e) system integration. Area 3: Using CDS to achieve the organization's goals with activities (a) reporting, (b) requirements-gathering/specifications, (c) monitoring CDS, (d) linking CDS to goals, (e) managing data. Area 4: Participation in external policy and standards activities (this area consists of only a single activity). We also identified a set of recommendations associated with these 18 activities. DISCUSSION: All 18 activities we identified were performed at all sites, although the way they were organized into roles differed substantially. We consider these activities critical to the success of a CDS program. CONCLUSIONS: A series of activities are performed by sites strong in CDS, and sites adopting CDS should ensure they incorporate these activities into their efforts.
Adam Wright, Joan S. Ash, Jessica L. Erickson, Joe A. Wasserman, Arwen Bunce, Ana Stanescu 0002, Daniel St Hilaire, Morgan Panzenhagen, Eric Gebhardt, Carmit K. McMullen, Blackford Middleton, Dean F. Sittig
J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc.4