What Do We Mean by 'Pilot Study': Early Findings from a Meta-Review of Pilot Study Reporting at CHI

TL;DR

This paper examines the inconsistent use and reporting of pilot studies in HCI research at CHI, highlighting the need for clearer definitions and standards to improve methodological rigor.

Contribution

It provides an early meta-review of pilot study reporting at CHI, revealing variability and proposing the need for standardized guidelines in HCI.

Findings

Widespread variability in pilot study reporting at CHI

Lack of shared definitions and standards for pilot studies

Need for clearer reporting guidelines in HCI

Abstract

Pilot studies (PS) are ubiquitous in HCI research. CHI papers routinely reference 'pilot studies', 'pilot tests', or 'preliminary studies' to justify design decisions, verify procedures, or motivate methodological choices. Yet despite their frequency, the role of pilot studies in HCI remains conceptually vague and empirically underexamined. Unlike fields such as medicine, nursing, and education, where pilot and feasibility studies have well-established definitions, guidelines, reporting standards and even a dedicated research journal, the CHI community lacks a shared understanding of what constitutes a pilot study, why they are conducted, and how they should be reported. Many papers reference pilots 'in passing', without details about design, outcomes, or how the pilot informed the main study. This variability suggests a methodological blind spot in our community.