Presentation
Two Sides of the Same Coin: Reconciling the Moderator–Observer Relationship in Healthcare Human Factors
DescriptionHuman factors have long played a central role in improving safety, efficiency, and usability in healthcare. From the design of medical devices to the implementation of new workflows in clinical environments, human factors methods ensure that innovations align with the needs, limitations, and realities of end-users. Within this body of work, two roles are particularly central in usability testing: the moderator and the observer, also called the notetaker within some organizations.
Traditionally, the moderator is described as the individual who guides participants through a study, asking questions, presenting tasks, and ensuring adherence to protocols while maintaining neutrality. The observer, on the other hand, is often positioned as the silent note-taker, recording behaviors, usability challenges, and contextual insights without influencing participants. On the surface, these roles appear distinct, and in many training contexts, they are taught as such. For junior and early career human factors professionals and students, this dichotomy can feel natural: one person “talks,” while the other “watches.” However, this conventional framing is misleading. It risks creating an artificial boundary between two positions that, in practice, rely on a shared and interdependent set of competencies. Junior professionals frequently enter projects with rigid expectations about their responsibilities as moderators or observers. In practice, however, studies often require individuals to adapt dynamically.
To address this misconception, a remediation-style presentation is proposed. The session centers on Devin and Katrina, two colleagues at ClariMed who have not previously worked together and who have very different perspectives on the roles of the moderator and the observer. Their disagreement has led to the current impasse. In preparation for an upcoming study, Katrina suggested a meeting to align on responsibilities and ensure effective collaboration. However, the discussion quickly became contentious: when Devin asked if he might engage participants directly with questions, Katrina firmly declined, insisting that the observer’s sole responsibility is to capture behaviors and feedback. Devin attempted to contest this rigid perspective, but Katrina remained steadfast. With the study scheduled to begin in just one week, both colleagues face increasing pressure to resolve their differences for the success of the study.
During this presentation, the speakers and the audience take on the role of project leads, with the goal to resolve the conflict between Devin and Katrina. The audience, along with the presenters, will analyze the reasoning presented by both colleagues and critically evaluate whether a more fluid approach to moderation and observation is feasible. The overall aim is for the audience to assess if there is common ground between the Moderator and Observer roles and use this lens to direct the conversation between the two going forward. During key moments throughout the counselling session, the audience will be asked to respond to the justifications provided by Devin and Katrina respectively, and the speakers will be tasked with probing the audience about their assertions.
Ultimately, the remediation-style format guides the audience toward a reframing: rather than viewing moderators and observers as rigidly distinct roles in opposition, they should be viewed as complementary functions underpinned by shared skills. This interactive approach advances learning by transforming a conceptual discussion into a tangible, memorable experience. Attendees do not passively observe but instead critically engage with the “remediation session,” reinforcing the central insight that moderators and observers require overlapping competencies and that excellence arises from their integration. By explicitly highlighting these overlaps, the presentation aims at bridging the gap between formal role definitions and the realities of professional human factors practice.
Traditionally, the moderator is described as the individual who guides participants through a study, asking questions, presenting tasks, and ensuring adherence to protocols while maintaining neutrality. The observer, on the other hand, is often positioned as the silent note-taker, recording behaviors, usability challenges, and contextual insights without influencing participants. On the surface, these roles appear distinct, and in many training contexts, they are taught as such. For junior and early career human factors professionals and students, this dichotomy can feel natural: one person “talks,” while the other “watches.” However, this conventional framing is misleading. It risks creating an artificial boundary between two positions that, in practice, rely on a shared and interdependent set of competencies. Junior professionals frequently enter projects with rigid expectations about their responsibilities as moderators or observers. In practice, however, studies often require individuals to adapt dynamically.
To address this misconception, a remediation-style presentation is proposed. The session centers on Devin and Katrina, two colleagues at ClariMed who have not previously worked together and who have very different perspectives on the roles of the moderator and the observer. Their disagreement has led to the current impasse. In preparation for an upcoming study, Katrina suggested a meeting to align on responsibilities and ensure effective collaboration. However, the discussion quickly became contentious: when Devin asked if he might engage participants directly with questions, Katrina firmly declined, insisting that the observer’s sole responsibility is to capture behaviors and feedback. Devin attempted to contest this rigid perspective, but Katrina remained steadfast. With the study scheduled to begin in just one week, both colleagues face increasing pressure to resolve their differences for the success of the study.
During this presentation, the speakers and the audience take on the role of project leads, with the goal to resolve the conflict between Devin and Katrina. The audience, along with the presenters, will analyze the reasoning presented by both colleagues and critically evaluate whether a more fluid approach to moderation and observation is feasible. The overall aim is for the audience to assess if there is common ground between the Moderator and Observer roles and use this lens to direct the conversation between the two going forward. During key moments throughout the counselling session, the audience will be asked to respond to the justifications provided by Devin and Katrina respectively, and the speakers will be tasked with probing the audience about their assertions.
Ultimately, the remediation-style format guides the audience toward a reframing: rather than viewing moderators and observers as rigidly distinct roles in opposition, they should be viewed as complementary functions underpinned by shared skills. This interactive approach advances learning by transforming a conceptual discussion into a tangible, memorable experience. Attendees do not passively observe but instead critically engage with the “remediation session,” reinforcing the central insight that moderators and observers require overlapping competencies and that excellence arises from their integration. By explicitly highlighting these overlaps, the presentation aims at bridging the gap between formal role definitions and the realities of professional human factors practice.
Event Type
Oral Presentations
TimeTuesday, March 241:52pm - 2:15pm EDT
LocationMorgan
Simulation and Education