Mobile App Rating Scale

A New Tool for Assessing the Quality of Health Mobile Apps

Dados Bibliográficos

ID23359694
AutoresSTOYAN STOYANOV (0009-0001-3582-7214, Queensland University of Technology), Stoyan R Stoyanov, Leanne Hides (0000-0002-4550-8460, Queensland University of Technology, autor correspondente), Denis J Kavanagh (0000-0001-9072-8828, Queensland University of Technology), David J Kavanagh, Oksana Zelenko (0000-0003-1096-1190, Queensland University of Technology), Dian Tjondronegoro (0000-0001-7446-2839, Queensland University of Technology), Madhavan Mani (0000-0002-3384-8070, Queensland University of Technology)
Ano2015
Volume3
Fascículo1
Páginase27
Data de publicação2015-03-11
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoJMIR mHealth and uHealth (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 2291-5222 • E-ISSN: 2291-5222
EditoraJMIR Publications Inc. (PUBLISHER • CA)
DOI10.2196/mhealth.3422
PMID25760773
OpenAlexW2109031474
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas59
Referências citadas14

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.

App store · Checklist · Inter-rater reliability · Intraclass correlation · Mobile apps · Psychometrics · Quality (philosophy) · Rating scale · Reliability (semiconductor) · Scale (ratio) · Statistics · World Wide Web · Clinical Psychology · Computer Science · Digital Mental Health Interventions · Electronic Health Records Systems · Mathematics · Mobile Health and mHealth Applications · Psychology