Development and Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS)

Stoyan R Stoyanov, Leanne Hides, David J Kavanagh, Hollie Wilson, Stoyan R Stoyanov, Leanne Hides, David J Kavanagh, Hollie Wilson

Abstract

Background: The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) provides a reliable method to assess the quality of mobile health (mHealth) apps. However, training and expertise in mHealth and the relevant health field is required to administer it.

Objective: This study describes the development and reliability testing of an end-user version of the MARS (uMARS).

Methods: The MARS was simplified and piloted with 13 young people to create the uMARS. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the uMARS was then examined in a second sample of 164 young people participating in a randomized controlled trial of a mHealth app. App ratings were collected using the uMARS at 1-, 3,- and 6-month follow up.

Results: The uMARS had excellent internal consistency (alpha = .90), with high individual alphas for all subscales. The total score and subscales had good test-retest reliability over both 1-2 months and 3 months.

Conclusions: The uMARS is a simple tool that can be reliably used by end-users to assess the quality of mHealth apps.

Keywords: Australia; Internet; MARS; RCT; anxiety; anxiety disorders; app evaluation; app rating; app trial; cellphone; cognitive behavioral therapy; depression; depressive disorder; e-therapy; eHealth; ehealth; emental health; end user; evidence-informed; mHealth; mHealth evaluation; mHealth implementation; mental health; mhealth trial; mobile application; mobile health; online; randomized controlled trial; reliability; research translation; smartphone; telemedicine; user testing; well being.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. Aitken M, Lyle J. Patient Adoption of mHealth: Use, Evidence and Remaining Barriers to Mainstream Acceptance. Parsippany, NJ: IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics; 2015. [2016-05-30]. .
    1. Pagoto S, Bennett GG. How behavioral science can advance digital health. Transl Behav Med. 2013 Sep;3(3):271–6. doi: 10.1007/s13142-013-0234-z.
    1. Chan S, Torous J, Hinton L, Yellowlees P. Towards a Framework for Evaluating Mobile Mental Health Apps. Telemed J E Health. 2015 Dec;21(12):1038–41. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2015.0002.
    1. Su W. A preliminary survey of knowledge discovery on smartphone applications (apps): Principles, techniques and research directions for e-health. arXiv preprint arXiv; International Conference on Complex Medical Engineering; June 26-29, 2014; Taipei, Taiwan. 2014. Jun 26, p. 14077314.
    1. Andersson G, Cuijpers P, Carlbring P, Riper H, Hedman E. Guided Internet-based vs. face-to-face cognitive behavior therapy for psychiatric and somatic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Psychiatry. 2014 Oct;13(3):288–95. doi: 10.1002/wps.20151.
    1. Fanning Jason, Mullen Sean P, McAuley Edward. Increasing physical activity with mobile devices: a meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov;14(6):e161. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2171.
    1. Free C, Phillips G, Watson L, Galli L, Felix L, Edwards P, Patel Vikram, Haines Andy. The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10(1):e1001363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001363.
    1. Fiordelli M, Diviani N, Schulz PJ. Mapping mHealth research: a decade of evolution. J Med Internet Res. 2013 May;15(5):e95. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2430.
    1. Mani M, Kavanagh DJ, Hides L, Stoyanov SR. Review and Evaluation of Mindfulness-Based iPhone Apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(3):e82. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.4328.
    1. Heffner JL, Vilardaga R, Mercer LD, Kientz JA, Bricker JB. Feature-level analysis of a novel smartphone application for smoking cessation. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2015 Jan;41(1):68–73. doi: 10.3109/00952990.2014.977486.
    1. Stoyanov Stoyan R, Hides Leanne, Kavanagh David J, Zelenko Oksana, Tjondronegoro Dian, Mani Madhavan. Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Mar;3(1):e27. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3422.
    1. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1948 Jun;32(3):221–233. doi: 10.1037/h0057532.
    1. Kincaid J, Fishburne R, Rogers R, Chissom B. Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station Memphis. 1975. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count, and Flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel .
    1. Hides L, Stoyanov S, Zelenko O, Kavanagh D. Apple App Store. Brisbane, Australia: Young and Well CRC & Queensland University of Technology; [2016-04-28]. Ray's Night Out .
    1. Hides L, Kavanagh D, Stoyanov S, Genevieve D, Zelenko O, Cockshaw W, Tjondronegoro D. Apple App Store. Brisbane, Australia: Young and Well CRC & Queensland University of Technology; 2014. [2016-04-28]. Music eScape .
    1. Hallgren Ka. Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012;8(1):23–34.
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420–8. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
    1. Weir Jp. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Feb;19(1):231–40. doi: 10.1519/15184.1.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere