Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2022 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 3

Turkish Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale

Pages
236–242
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: The Turkish version of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale is consistent with the English original version and is a reliable and valid tool to assess the quality of mobile applications by Turkish users.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: As the number of mobile health applications increases, quality assessment becomes a capital feature of any mobile application design.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: The total User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale score had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: The Turkish version of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale is consistent with the English original version and is a reliable and valid tool to assess the quality of mobile applications by Turkish users.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: As the number of mobile health applications increases, quality assessment becomes a capital feature of any mobile application design. Besides the professional evaluation conducted before marketing the app, the perceptions of the subjects to whom is intended will determine the successful widespread dis- semination. Hence, the implementation of a given app may be impaired by the lack of a validated transla- tion and cross-cultural adaptation. We aimed to validate in the Turkish language the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale, an English original scale designed to assess the quality of mobile health applications. Materials and methods: A well-established and predefined process of cross-cultural adaptation and transla- tion to Turkish of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale according to the World Health Organization guidelines was performed using a common, readily available, free-of-charge application. Internal consistency and reliability were tested in a population sample by Cronbach’s α and rWG index, respectively. Results: The total User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale score had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87). Internal consistencies of its subscales were also acceptable: with Cronbach’s α of 0.71, 0.78, 0.71, and 0.73 for engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information, respectively. Cronbach’s α of the satisfaction subscale was 0.46. The User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale total and sub- scales scores had a strong within-group agreement, all of them with rwg indexes between 0.78 and 0.87 over baseline to 1 month. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale is consistent with the English original version and is a reliable and valid tool to assess the quality of mobile applications by Turkish users.

🔖

Cite This Article

CALİK, G., KARTAL, B. B., STOYANOV, S., GRAVAS, S., OTHMAN, L., ROSETTE, J. D. L., ALBAYRAK, S., LAGUNA, P. (2022). Turkish Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 3, 236–242. https://ajindex.com/articles/413263

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. International Telecommunication Union, World Health Organiza- tion, Be He. @lthy, Be Mobile [annual report]. Geneva, Switzer- land: International Telecommunication Union; 2016. Available at: https://ww w.who.int/ncds/prevention/be-healthy-be-mobile/511 27-WH O-ITU-BHBM-Annu al-Re port-2016. pdf?u a=1
  2. Payne HE, Lister C, West JH, Bernhardt JM. Behavioral function- ality of mobile apps in health interventions: a systematic review of the literature. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2015;3(1):e20. [CrossRef] 3. Smith A. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2015. Available at: http://www.pewi ntern et.org/201 5/04/ 01/us -smar tphon e-use -in-2 015/. Accessed October 11th, 2021; 2015 4. Chow CK, Ariyarathna N, Islam SM, Thiagalingam A, Redfern J. MHealth in cardiovascular health care. Heart Lung Circ. 2016;25(8):802-807. [CrossRef] 5. Thranberend T, Knöppler K, Neisecke T. Gesundheits-Apps: Bedeutender Hebel Für Patient Empowerment - Potenziale Jedoch Bislang Kaum Genutzt. Spotlight Gesundh. 2016;2:1-8
  3. Research 2 Guidance. 2017. mHealth Economics; 2017 – Current status and future trends in mobile health URL. Available at: https://research2guidance.com/product/mhealth-economics-2017-curr ent-s tatus -and- futur e-tre nds-i n-mob ile-health/ [WebCite Cache ID 6wOhZ1qY6]. Accessed November 12, 2019
  4. LeBeau K, Huey LG, Hart M. Assessing the quality of mobile apps used by occupational therapists: evaluation using the user version of the mobile application rating scale. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2019;7(5):e13019. [CrossRef] 8. Van Velthoven MH, Smith J, Wells G, Brindley D. Digital health app development standards: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e022969. [CrossRef] 9. McKay FH, Cheng C, Wright A, Shill J, Stephens H, Uccellini M. Evaluating mobile phone applications for health behaviour change: A systematic review. J Telemed Telecare. 2018;24(1):22-30. [CrossRef] 10. Stoyanov SR, Hides L, Kavanagh DJ, Zelenko O, Tjondrone- goro D, Mani M. Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(1):e27. [CrossRef] 11. Domnich A, Arata L, Amicizia D, et al. Development and valida- tion of the Italian version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale and its generalisability to apps targeting primary prevention. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16:83. [CrossRef] 12. Bardus M, Awada N, Ghandour LA, et al. The Arabic version of the mobile app rating scale: developm