How to interpret your card sort results Part 1: open and hybrid card sorts
Cards have been created, sorted and sorted again. The participants are all finished and you’re left with a big pile of awesome data that will help you improve the user experience of your information architecture. Now what?Whether you’ve run an open, hybrid or closed card sort online using an information architecture tool or you’ve run an in person (moderated) card sort, it can be a bit daunting trying to figure out where to start the card sort analysis process.
About this guide
This two-part guide will help you on your way! For Part 1, we’re going to look at how to interpret and analyze the results from open and hybrid card sorts.
In open card sorts, participants sort cards into categories that make sense to them and they give each category a name of their own making.
In hybrid card sorts, some of the categories have already been defined for participants to sort the cards into but they also have the ability to create their own.
Open and hybrid card sorts are great for generating ideas for category names and labels and understanding not only how your users expect your content to be grouped but also what they expect those groups to be called.In both parts of this series, I’m going to be talking a lot about interpreting your results using Optimal Workshop’s online card sorting tool, OptimalSort, but most of what I’m going to share is also applicable if you’re analyzing your data using a spreadsheet or using another tool.
Understanding the two types of analysis: exploratory and statistical
Similar to qualitative and quantitative methods, exploratory and statistical analysis in card sorting are two complementary approaches that work together to provide a detailed picture of your results.
Exploratory analysis is intuitive and creative. It’s all about going through the data and shaking it to see what ideas, patterns and insights fall out. This approach works best when you don’t have the numbers (smaller sample sizes) and when you need to dig into the details and understand the ‘why’ behind the statistics.
Statistical analysis is all about the numbers. Hard data that tells you exactly how many people expected X to be grouped with Y and more and is very useful when you’re dealing with large sample sizes and when identifying similarities and differences across different groups of people.
Depending on your objectives - whether you are starting from scratch or redesigning an existing IA - you’ll generally need to use some combination of both of these approaches when analyzing card sort results. Learn more about exploratory and statistical analysis in Donna Spencer’s book.
Start with the big picture
When analyzing card sort results, start by taking an overall look at the results as a whole. Quickly cast your eye over each individual card sort and just take it all in. Look for common patterns in how the cards have been sorted and the category names given by participants. Does anything jump out as surprising? Are there similarities or differences between participant sorts? If you’re redesigning an existing IA, how do your results compare to the current state?If you ran your card sort using OptimalSort, your first port of call will be the Overview and Participants Table presented in the results section of the tool.If you ran a moderated card sort using OptimalSort’s printed cards, now is a good time to double check you got them all. And if you didn’t know about this handy feature of OptimalSort, it’s something to keep in mind for next time!The Participants Table shows a breakdown of your card sorting data by individual participant. Start by reviewing each individual card sort one by one by clicking on the arrow in the far left column next to the Participants numbers.
Viewing individual participant card sorts in detail.
From here you can easily flick back and forth between participants without needing to close that modal window. Don’t spend too much time on this — you’re just trying to get a general impression of what happened.Keep an eye out for any card sorts that you might like to exclude from the results. For example participants who have lumped everything into one group and haven’t actually sorted the cards. Don’t worry - excluding or including participants isn’t permanent and can be toggled on or off at anytime.If you have a good number of responses, then the Participant Centric Analysis (PCA) tab (below) can be a good place to head next. It’s great for doing a quick comparison of the different high-level approaches participants took when grouping the cards.The PCA tab provides the most insight when you have lots of results data (30+ completed card sorts) and at least one of the suggested IAs has a high level of agreement among your participants (50% or more agree with at least one IA).
Participant Centric Analysis (PCA) tab for an open or hybrid card sort in OptimalSort.
The PCA tab compares data from individual participants and surfaces the top three ways the cards were sorted. It also gives you some suggestions based on participant responses around what these categories could be called but try not to get too bogged down in those - you’re still just trying to gain an overall feel for the results at this stage.Now is also a good time to take a super quick peek at the Categories tab as it will also help you spot patterns and identify data that you’d like to dive deeper into a bit later on!Another really useful visualization tool offered by OptimalSort that will help you build that early, high-level picture of your results is the Similarity Matrix. This diagram helps you spot data clusters, or groups of cards that have been more frequently paired together by your participants, by surfacing them along the edge and shading them in dark blue. It also shows the proportion of times specific card pairings occurred during your study and displays the exact number on hover (below).
OptimalSort’s Similarity Matrix showing that ‘Flat sandals’ and ‘Court shoes’ were paired by 91% of participants (31 times) in this example study.
In the above screenshot example we can see three very clear clusters along the edge: ‘Ankle Boots’ to ‘Slippers’ is one cluster, ‘Socks’ to ‘Stockings & Hold Ups’ is the next and then we have ‘Scarves’ to ‘Sunglasses’. These clusters make it easy to spot the that cards that participants felt belonged together and also provides hard data around how many times that happened.Next up are the dendrograms. Dendrograms are also great for gaining an overall sense of how similar (or different) your participants’ card sorts were to each other. Found under the Dendrogram tab in the results section of the tool, the two dendrograms are generated by different algorithms and which one you use depends largely on how many participants you have.
If your study resulted in 30 or more completed card sorts, use the Actual Agreement Method (AAM) dendrogram and if your study had fewer than 30 completed card sorts, use the Best Merge Method (BMM) dendrogram.The AAM dendrogram (see below) shows only factual relationships between the cards and displays scores that precisely tell you that ‘X% of participants in this study agree with this exact grouping’.In the below example, the study shown had 34 completed card sorts and the AAM dendrogram shows that 77% of participants agreed that the cards highlighted in green belong together and a suggested name for that group is ‘Bling’. The tooltip surfaces one of the possible category names for this group and as demonstrated here it isn’t always the best or ‘recommended’ one. Take it with a grain of salt and be sure to thoroughly check the rest of your results before committing!
AAM Dendrogram in OptimalSort.
The BMM dendrogram (see below) is different to the AAM because it shows the percentage of participants that agree with parts of the grouping - it squeezes the data from smaller sample sizes and makes assumptions about larger clusters based on patterns in relationships between individual pairs.The AAM works best with larger sample sizes because it has more data to work with and doesn’t make assumptions while the BMM is more forgiving and seeks to fill in the gaps.The below screenshot was taken from an example study that had 7 completed card sorts and its BMM dendrogram shows that 50% of participants agreed that the cards highlighted in green down the left hand side belong to ‘Accessories, Bottoms, Tops’.
BMM Dendrogram in OptimalSort.
Drill down and cross-reference
Once you’ve gained a high level impression of the results, it’s time to dig deeper and unearth some solid insights that you can share with your stakeholders and back up your design decisions.Explore your open and hybrid card sort data in more detail by taking a closer look at the Categories tab. Open up each category and cross-reference to see if people were thinking along the same lines.Multiple participants may have created the same category label, but what lies beneath could be a very different story. It’s important to be thorough here because the next step is to start standardizing or chunking individual participant categories together to help you make sense of your results.In open and hybrid sorts, participants will be able to label their categories themselves. This means that you may identify a few categories with very similar labels or perhaps spelling errors or different formats. You can standardize your categories by merging similar categories together to turn them into one.OptimalSort makes this really easy to do - you pretty much just tick the boxes alongside each category name and then hit the ‘Standardize’ button up the top (see below). Don’t worry if you make a mistake or want to include or exclude groupings; you can unstandardize any of your categories anytime.
Standardizing categories in OptimalSort.
Once you’ve standardized a few categories, you’ll notice that the Agreement number may change. It tells you how many participants agreed with that grouping. An agreement number of 1.0 is equal to 100% meaning everyone agrees with everything in your newly standardized category while 0.6 means that 60% of your participants agree.Another number to watch for here is the number of participants who sorted a particular card into a category which will appear in the frequency column in dark blue in the right-hand column of the middle section of the below image.
Categories table after groupings called ‘Accessories’ and ‘Bags’ have been standardized.
A closer look at the standardized category for ‘Accessories’.
From the above screenshot we can see that in this study, 18 of the 26 participant categories selected agree that ‘Cat Eye Sunglasses’ belongs under ‘Accessories’.Once you’ve standardized a few more categories you can head over to the Standardization Grid tab to review your data in more detail. In the below image we can see that 18 participants in this study felt that ‘Backpacks’ belong in a category named ‘Bags’ while 5 grouped them under ‘Accessories’. Probably safe to say the backpacks should join the other bags in this case.
Standardization Grid in OptimalSort.
So that’s a quick overview of how to interpret the results from your open or hybrid card sorts.Here's a link to Part 2 of this series where we talk about interpreting results from closed card sorts as well as next steps for applying these juicy insights to your IA design process.
Further reading
Card Sorting 101 – Learn about the differences between open, closed and hybrid card sorts, and how to run your own using OptimalSort.
I have two huge content structures I would like to A/B test. Do you think Treejack would be appropriate?"
— Mike
Hi Mike (and excellent question)!
Firstly, yes, Treejack is great for testing more than one content structure. It’s easy to run two separate Treejack studies — even more than two. It’ll help you decide which structure you and your team should run with, and it won’t take you long to set them up.
When you’re creating the two tree tests with your two different content structures, include the same tasks in both tests. Using the same tasks will give an accurate measure of which structure performs best. I’ve done it before and I found that the visual presentation of the results — especially the detailed path analysis pietrees — made it really easy to compare Test A with Test B.
Plus (and this is a big plus), if you need to convince stakeholders or teammates of which structure is the most effective, you can’t go past quantitative data, especially when its presented clearly — it’s hard to argue with hard evidence!
Here’s two example of the kinds of results visualizations you could compare in your A/B test: the pietree, which shows correct and incorrect paths, and where people ended up:
And the overall Task result, which breaks down success and directness scores, and has plenty of information worth comparing between two tests:
Keep in mind that running an A/B tree test will affect how you recruit participants — it may not be the best idea to have the same participants complete both tests in one go. But it’s an easy fix — you could either recruit two different groups from the same demographic, or test one group and have a gap (of at least a day) between the two tests.
I’ve one more quick question: why are your two content structures ‘huge’?
I understand that sometimes these things are unavoidable — you potentially work for a government organization, or a university, and you have to include all of the things. But if not, and if you haven’t already, you could run an open card sort to come up with another structure to test (think of it as an A/B/C test!), and to confirm that the categories you’re proposing work for people.
You could even run a closed card sort to establish which content is more important to people than others (your categories could go from ‘Very important’ to ‘Unimportant’, or ‘Use everyday’ to ‘Never use’, for example). You might be able to make your content structure a bit smaller, and still keep its usefulness. Just a thought... and of course, you could try to get this information from your analytics (if available) but just be cautious of this because of course analytics can only tell you what people did and not what they wanted to do.
In Part 1 of this series we looked at how to interpret results from open and hybrid card sorts and now in Part 2, we’re going to talk about closed card sorts. In closed card sorts, participants are asked to sort the cards into predetermined categories and are not allowed to create any of their own. You might use this approach when you are constrained by specific category names or as a quick checkup before launching a new or newly redesigned website.In Part 1, we also discussed the two different - but complementary - types of analysis that are generally used together for interpreting card sort results: exploratory and statistical. Exploratory analysis is intuitive and creative while statistical analysis is all about the numbers. Check out Part 1 for a refresher or learn more about exploratory and statistical analysis in Donna Spencer’s book.
Getting started
Closed card sort analysis is generally much quicker and easier than open and hybrid card sorts because there are no participant created category names to analyze - it’s really just about where the cards were placed. There are some similarities about how you might start to approach your analysis process but overall there’s a lot less information to take in and there isn’t much in the way of drilling down into the details like we did in Part 1.Just like with an open card sort, kick off your analysis process by taking an overall look at the results as a whole. Quickly cast your eye over each individual card sort and just take it all in. Look for common patterns in how the cards have been sorted. Does anything jump out as surprising? Are there similarities or differences between participant sorts?
If you’re redesigning an existing information architecture (IA), how do your results compare to the current state? If this is a final check up before launching a live website, how do these results compare to what you learned during your previous research studies?If you ran your card sort using information architecture tool OptimalSort, head straight to the Overview and Participants Table presented in the results section of the tool. If you ran a moderated card sort using OptimalSort’s printed cards, you’ve probably been scanning them in after each completed session, but now is a good time to double check you got them all. And if you didn’t know about this handy feature of OptimalSort, it’s something to keep in mind for next time!
The Participants Table shows a breakdown of your card sorting data by individual participant. Start by reviewing each individual card sort one by one by clicking on the arrow in the far left column next to the Participants numbers. From here you can easily flick back and forth between participants without needing to close that modal window. Don’t spend too much time on this — you’re just trying to get a general impression of how the cards were sorted into your predetermined categories. Keep an eye out for any card sorts that you might like to exclude from the results. For example participants who have lumped everything into one group and haven’t actually sorted the cards.
Don’t worry- excluding or including participants isn’t permanent and can be toggled on or off at anytime.Once you’re happy with the individual card sorts that will and won’t be included in your results visualizations, it’s time to take a look at the Results Matrix in OptimalSort. The Results Matrix shows the number of times each card was sorted into each of your predetermined categories- the higher the number, the darker the shade of blue (see below).
Results Matrix in OptimalSort.
This table enables you to quickly and easily get across how the cards were sorted and gauge the highest and lowest levels of agreement among your participants. This will tell you if you’re on the right track or highlight opportunities for further refinement of your categories.If we take a closer look (see below) we can see that in this example closed card sort conducted on the Dewey Decimal Classification system commonly used in libraries, The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud was sorted into ‘Philosophy and psychology’ 38 times in study a completed by 51 participants.
Results Matrix in OptimalSort zoomed in with hover.
In the real world, that is exactly where that content lives and this is useful to know because it shows that the current state is supporting user expectations around findability reasonably well. Note: this particular example study used image based cards instead of word label based cards so the description that appears in both the grey box and down the left hand side of the matrix is for reference purposes only and was hidden from the participants.Sometimes you may come across cards that are popular in multiple categories. In our example study, How to win friends and influence people by Dale Carnegie, is popular in two categories: ‘Philosophy & psychology’ and ‘Social sciences’ with 22 and 21 placements respectively. The remaining card placements are scattered across a further 5 categories although in much smaller numbers.
Results Matrix showing cards popular in multiple categories.
When this happens, it’s up to you to determine what your number thresholds are. If it’s a tie or really close like it is in this case, you might review the results against any previous research studies to see if anything has changed or if this is something that comes up often. It might be a new category that you’ve just introduced, it might be an issue that hasn’t been resolved yet or it might just be limited to this one study. If you’re really not sure, it’s a good idea to run some in-person card sorts as well so you can ask questions and gain clarification around why your participants felt a card belonged in a particular category. If you’ve already done that great! Time to review those notes and recordings!You may also find yourself in a situation where no category is any more popular than the others for a particular card. This means there’s not much agreement among your participants about where that card actually belongs. In our example closed card sort study, the World Book Encyclopedia was placed into 9 of 10 categories. While it was placed in ‘History & geography’ 18 times, that’s still only 35% of the total placements for that card- it’s hardly conclusive.
Results Matrix showing a card with a lack of agreement.
Sometimes this happens when the card label or image is quite general and could logically belong in many of the categories. In this case, an encyclopedia could easily fit into any of those categories and I suspect this happened because people may not be aware that encyclopedias make up a very large part of the category on the far left of the above matrix: ‘Computer science, information & general works’. You may also see this happening when a card is ambiguous and people have to guess where it might belong. Again - if you haven’t already - if in doubt, run some in-person card sorts so you can ask questions and get to the bottom of it!After reviewing the Results Matrix in OptimalSort, visit the Popular Placements Matrix to see which cards were most popular for each of your categories based on how your participants sorted them (see below 2 images).
Popular Placements Matrix in OptimalSort- top half of the diagram.
Popular Placements Matrix in OptimalSort- scrolled to show the bottom half of the diagram.
The diagram shades the most popular placements for each category in blue making it very easy to spot what belongs where in the eyes of your participants. It’s useful for quickly identifying clusters and also highlights the categories that didn’t get a lot of card sorting love. In our example study (2 images above) we can see that ‘Technology’ wasn’t a popular card category choice potentially indicating ambiguity around that particular category name. As someone familiar with the Dewey Decimal Classification system I know that ‘Technology’ is a bit of a tricky one because it contains a wide variety of content that includes topics on medicine and food science - sometimes it will appear as ‘Technology & applied sciences’. These results appear to support the case for exploring that alternative further!
Where to from here?
Now that we’ve looked at how to interpret your open, hybrid and closed card sorts, here are some next steps to help you turn those insights into action!Once you’ve analyzed your card sort results, it’s time to feed those insights into your design process and create your taxonomy which goes hand in hand with your information architecture. You can build your taxonomy out in Post-it notes before popping it into a spreadsheet for review. This is also a great time to identify any alternate labelling and placement options that came out of your card sorting process for further testing.From here, you might move into tree testing your new IA or you might run another card sort focussing on a specific area of your website. You can learn more about card sorting in general via our 101 guide.
When interpreting card sort results, don’t forget to have fun! It’s easy to get overwhelmed and bogged down in the results but don’t lose sight of the magic that is uncovering user insights.I’m going to leave you with this quote from Donna Spencer that summarizes the essence of card sort analysis quite nicely:Remember that you are the one who is doing the thinking, not the technique... you are the one who puts it all together into a great solution. Follow your instincts, take some risks, and try new approaches. - Donna Spencer
Further reading
Card Sorting 101 – Learn about the differences between open, closed and hybrid card sorts, and how to run your own using OptimalSort.
Hello, my name is Rick and I’m a sociologist. All together, “Hi, Rick!” Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let me tell you about how I use card sorting in my research. I'll soon be running a series of in-person, moderated card sorting sessions. This article covers why card sorting is an integral part of my research, and how I've designed the study toanswer specific questions about two distinct parts of society.
Card sorting to establish how different people comprehend their worlds
Card sorting,or pile sorting as it’s sometimes called, has a long history in anthropology, psychology and sociology. Anthropologists, in particular, have used it to study how different cultures think about various categories. Researchers in the 1970s conducted card sorts to understand how different cultures categorize things like plants and animals. Sociologists of that era also used card sorts to examine how people think about different professions and careers. And since then, scholars have continued to use card sorts to learn about similar categorization questions.
In my own research, I study how different groups of people in the United States imagine the category of 'religion'. Asthose crazy 1970s anthropologists showed, card sorting is a great way to understand how people cognitively understand particular social categories. So, in particular,I’m using card sorting in my research to better understand how groups of people with dramatically different views understand 'religion' — namely, evangelical Christians and self-identified atheists. Thinkof it like this. Some people say that religion is the bedrock of American society.
Others say that too much religion in public life is exactly what’s wrong with this country. What's not often considered is these two groups oftenunderstand the concept of 'religion' in very different ways. It’s like the group of blind men and the elephant: one touches the trunk, one touches the ears, and one touches the tail. All three come away with very different ideas of what an elephant is. So you could say that I study how different people experience the 'elephant' of religion in their daily lives. I’m doing so using primarily in-person moderated sorts on an iPad, which I’ll describe below.
How I generated the words on the cards
The first step in the process was to generate lists of relevant terms for my subjects to sort. Unlike in UX testing, where cards for sorting might come from an existing website, in my world these concepts first have to be mined from the group of people being studied. So the first thing I did was have members of both atheist and evangelical groups complete a free listing task. In a free listing task, participants simply list as many words as they can that meet the criteria given. Sets of both atheist and evangelical respondents were given the instructions: "What words best describe 'religion?' Please list as many as you can.” They were then also asked to list words that describe 'atheism', 'spirituality', and 'Christianity'.
I took the lists generated and standardizedthem by combining synonyms. For example, some of my atheists used words like 'ancient', 'antiquated', and 'archaic' to describe religion. SoI combined all of these words into the one that was mentioned most: 'antiquated'. By doing this, I created a list of the most common words each group used to describe each category. Doing this also gave my research another useful dimension, ideal for exploring alongside my card sorting results. Free lists can beanalyzed themselves using statistical techniques likemulti-dimensional scaling, so I used this technique for apreliminary analysis of the words evangelicals used to describe 'atheism':
Now that I’m armed with these lists of words that atheist and evangelicals used to describe religion, atheism etc., I’m about to embark on phase two of the project: the card sort.
Why using card sorting software is a no-brainer for my research
I’ll be conducting my card sorts in person, for various reasons. I have relatively easy access to the specific population that I’m interested in, and for the kind of academic research I’m conducting, in-person activities are preferred. In theory, I could just print the words on some index cards and conduct a manual card sort, but I quickly realized that a software solution would be far preferable, for a bunch of reasons.
First of all, it's important for me to conductinterviews in coffee shops and restaurants, and an iPad on the table is, to put it mildly, more practical than a table covered in cards — no space for the teapot after all.
Second, usingsoftwareeliminates the need for manual data entry on my part. Not only is manual data entry a time consuming process, but it also introduces the possibly of data entry errors which may compromise my research results.
Third, while the bulk of the card sorts are going to be done in person, having an online version will enable meto scale the project up after the initial in-person sorts are complete. The atheist community, in particular, has a significant online presence, making a web solution ideal for additional data collection.
Fourth, OptimalSort gives the option to re-direct respondents after they complete a sort to any webpage, which allows multiple card sorts to be daisy-chained together. It also enables card sorts to be easily combined with complex survey instruments from other providers (e.g. Qualtrics or Survey Monkey), so card sorting data can be gathered in conjunction with other methodologies.
Finally, and just as important, doing card sorts on a tablet is more fun for participants. After all, who doesn’t like to play with an iPad? If respondents enjoy the unique process of the experiment, this is likely to actually improve the quality of the data, andrespondents are more likely to reflect positively on the experience, making recruitment easier. And a fun experience also makes it more likely that respondents will complete the exercise.
What my in-person, on-tablet card sorting research will look like
Respondents will be handed an iPad Air with 4G data capability. While the venues where the card sorts will take place usually have public Wi-Fi networks available, these networks are not always reliable, so the cellular data capabilities are needed as a back-up (and my pre-testing has shown that OptimalSort works on cellular networks too).
The iPad’s screen orientation will be locked to landscape and multi-touch functions will be disabled to prevent respondents from accidentally leaving the testing environment. In addition, respondents will have the option of using a rubber tipped stylus for ease of sorting the cards. While I personally prefer to use a microfiber tipped stylus in other applications, pre-testing revealed that an old fashioned rubber tipped stylus was easier for sorting activities.
When the respondent receives the iPad, the card sort first page with general instructions will already be open on the tablet in the third party browser Perfect Web. A third party browser is necessary because it is best to run OptimalSort locked in a full screen mode, both for aesthetic reasons and to keep the screen simple and uncluttered for respondents. Perfect Web is currently the best choice in the ever shifting app landscape.
I'll give respondents their instructions and then go to another table to give them privacy (because who wants the creepy feeling of some guy hanging over you as you do stuff?). Altogether, respondents will complete two open card sorts and a fewsurvey-style questions, all chained together by redirect URLs. First, they'll sort 30 cards into groups based on how they perceive 'religion', and name the categories they create. Then, they'll complete a similar card sort, this time based on how they perceive 'atheism'.
Both atheist and evangelicals will receive a mixture of some of the top words that both groups generated in the earlier free listing tasks. To finish, they'll answer a few questions that will provide further data on how they think about 'religion'. After I’ve conducted these card sorts with both of my target populations, I’ll analyze the resulting data on its own and also in conjunction with qualitative data I’ve already collected via ethnographic research and in-depth interviews. I can't wait, actually. In a few months I’ll report back and let you know what I’ve found.
