- Published
- Updated
Delayed assistance may distress a participant, while premature help can misrepresent how understandable a device is. Predetermined intervention limits for critical tasks support participant protection and interpretable findings.
Define the assessment
Describe potential harm, the safe boundaries of the simulation and who can stop an attempt. One intervention rule will not suit every investigation. Record the exact verbal cue or physical assistance and its timing instead of hiding help within a successful task outcome.
Worked example
In a hypothetical injection simulation, a user holds the needle in the wrong direction. Although a safe model is being used, the observer follows the planned stopping rule. Success after demonstrating the correct action is not combined with the initial unassisted attempt. A later interview explores why the orientation marking was misunderstood.
Practical checks
- Define intervention triggers and a safe stopping method for each critical task.
- Rehearse example situations with observers to expose different habits of providing assistance.
- Record stopped tasks, type of help and the status of subsequent attempts separately.
Decision and limitations
The report should explain why completion failed and how intervention changed the result. Stopping a task does not necessarily mean withdrawal from the whole investigation. Relevant safety, consent and investigation-plan decisions remain subject to their own processes, with the reason for stopping documented clearly.
Frequently asked questions
- Can assisted success be added to the initial attempt?
- Separate reporting is clearer. Unassisted usability and completion after instruction answer different questions.
- Are stopping rules needed only with real devices?
- Simulation may also cause discomfort or interpretation problems. Define safe boundaries for the particular test conditions.