n interviewer trained in both. The dependent variables: (1) the number of events elicited per each interview (efficiency), and (2) the degree of completeness of details recalled per event (effectiveness) were examined.Cognitive interview was found to be both more effective and more efficient than standard interviewing techniques in eliciting episodic knowledge from reference librarians. In order for the cognitive interview to be considered an effective interviewing technique, more than one rater must determine that the degree of completeness of details of the events collected under the CI are higher than those collected under the SI.All interviews were conducted in private rooms individually. The interviews were conducted at the institute of each patron. Ten students enrolled in a senior-level expert system class who received training on the SI and the CI during regularly scheduled class time. No one involved knew of the details of the experiment or the types of techniques being tested. Interviewers received course credit and monetary compensation for their participation.The interview has long been part of the systems professionals repertoire of elicitation tools, used extensively in both requirements analysis and knowledge acquisition. It is said that there are some drawbacks associated with the use of interviews. Open interviews are seen as ineffective. Some limitations were on this study. It was conducted in the field rather than a laboratory. The CI did produce higher levels of completeness of details recalled, further increases in these scores might be obtained if more experienced interviewers with additional training had been used.In the future elicitation techniques used in systems needs to be explored. It has not been determined whether efficiency or effectiveness is more important. I think that there could be numerous experiments done on this topic. Cognitive interviews are clearly more effective even if the results are minimal...
