152
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    4
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mobile App Rating Scale: A New Tool for Assessing the Quality of Health Mobile Apps

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The use of mobile apps for health and well being promotion has grown exponentially in recent years. Yet, there is currently no app-quality assessment tool beyond “star”-ratings.

          Objective

          The objective of this study was to develop a reliable, multidimensional measure for trialling, classifying, and rating the quality of mobile health apps.

          Methods

          A literature search was conducted to identify articles containing explicit Web or app quality rating criteria published between January 2000 and January 2013. Existing criteria for the assessment of app quality were categorized by an expert panel to develop the new Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) subscales, items, descriptors, and anchors. There were sixty well being apps that were randomly selected using an iTunes search for MARS rating. There were ten that were used to pilot the rating procedure, and the remaining 50 provided data on interrater reliability.

          Results

          There were 372 explicit criteria for assessing Web or app quality that were extracted from 25 published papers, conference proceedings, and Internet resources. There were five broad categories of criteria that were identified including four objective quality scales: engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality; and one subjective quality scale; which were refined into the 23-item MARS. The MARS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (alpha = .90) and interrater reliability intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = .79).

          Conclusions

          The MARS is a simple, objective, and reliable tool for classifying and assessing the quality of mobile health apps. It can also be used to provide a checklist for the design and development of new high quality health apps.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Developing and validating an instrument for measuring user-perceived web quality

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review.

            To review published criteria for specifically evaluating health related information on the world wide web, and to identify areas of consensus. Search of world wide web sites and peer reviewed medical journals for explicit criteria for evaluating health related information on the web, using Medline and Lexis-Nexis databases, and the following internet search engines: Yahoo!, Excite, Altavista, Webcrawler, HotBot, Infoseek, Magellan Internet Guide, and Lycos. Criteria were extracted and grouped into categories. 29 published rating tools and journal articles were identified that had explicit criteria for assessing health related web sites. Of the 165 criteria extracted from these tools and articles, 132 (80%) were grouped under one of 12 specific categories and 33 (20%) were grouped as miscellaneous because they lacked specificity or were unique. The most frequently cited criteria were those dealing with content, design and aesthetics of site, disclosure of authors, sponsors, or developers, currency of information (includes frequency of update, freshness, maintenance of site), authority of source, ease of use, and accessibility and availability. Results suggest that many authors agree on key criteria for evaluating health related web sites, and that efforts to develop consensus criteria may be helpful. The next step is to identify and assess a clear, simple set of consensus criteria that the general public can understand and use.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMU
                JMIR mHealth and uHealth
                JMIR Publications Inc. (Toronto, Canada )
                2291-5222
                Jan-Mar 2015
                11 March 2015
                : 3
                : 1
                : e27
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Institute of Health & Biomedical Innovation School of Psychology and Counselling Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Brisbane, QLDAustralia
                [2] 2The Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre (Young and Well CRC) Abbotsford, VICAustralia
                [3] 3School of Design Creative Industries Faculty Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Brisbane, QLDAustralia
                [4] 4Information Systems Science and Engineering Faculty Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Brisbane, QLDAustralia
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Leanne Hides leanne.hides@ 123456qut.edu.au
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3399-3347
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4550-8460
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9072-8828
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1096-1190
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7446-2839
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3384-8070
                Article
                v3i1e27
                10.2196/mhealth.3422
                4376132
                25760773
                e29794db-bfef-4b48-8042-656a6df0034e
                ©Stoyan R Stoyanov, Leanne Hides, David J Kavanagh, Oksana Zelenko, Dian Tjondronegoro, Madhavan Mani. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 11.03.2015.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 25 March 2014
                : 17 July 2014
                : 03 September 2014
                : 19 January 2015
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                well being,mental health,e-health,mobile health (mhealth),mobile application,assessment,rating,scale development

                Comments

                Comment on this article