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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.13488 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.13488/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [How Culture Shapes What People Want From AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05104/) (2024)
- [Understanding the LLM-ification of CHI: Unpacking the Impact of LLMs at CHI through a Systematic Literature Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12557/) (2025)
- [What Do We Mean by "Accessibility Research"? A Literature Survey of Accessibility Papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.04271/) (2021)
- [The State of Pilot Study Reporting in Crowdsourcing: A Reflection on Best Practices and Guidelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08090/) (2023)
- [Past, Present, and Future of Citation Practices in HCI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.16526/) (2024)
- [Keeping Score: A Quantitative Analysis of How the CHI Community Appreciates Its Milestones](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.02456/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.