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

Christopher C. French

dblp:60/3535 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1992
0000-0003-1254-4278ORCID · corroborated

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 first-author

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.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Medical and health informatics · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Usability and user experience research · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Medical and health informatics
clinical decision support
0.011987
A Clinical Field Study of Eight Automated Psychometric Procedures: The Leicester/DHSS Project · Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 1987
Usability and user experience research
psychometric evaluation
0.011987
A Clinical Field Study of Eight Automated Psychometric Procedures: The Leicester/DHSS Project · Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 1987

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

psychometric procedures · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1992 Microcomputer Version of a Digit Span Test in Clinical Use
abstract
At four clinical sites, 188 psychiatric patients were assessed with both the standard auditory verbal digit span test and a computerised visual digit span test requiring manual response. Correlations between the two test forms were comparable with other similar studies. Subjects obtained higher scores on the standard version than the computerized version, probably reflecting differences in the mode of presentation and the mode of response, but this difference was much less pronounced in those subjects receiving the standard version first rather than the computerized version first. It is clear that the computerized test cannot be considered to be psychometrically parallel to the standard WAIS subtest version, but it may still be of some clinical value.
Christopher C. French, J. Graham Beaumont
Interact. Comput.1
1987 A Clinical Field Study of Eight Automated Psychometric Procedures: The Leicester/DHSS Project
J. Graham Beaumont, Christopher C. French
Int. J. Man Mach. Stud.2