Dimensionality of the system usability scale among professionals using internet-based interventions for depression: a confirmatory factor analysis.
Confirmatory factor analysis
Depression
Internet interventions
Psychometric evaluation
System usability scale
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 05 2020
12 05 2020
Historique:
received:
09
08
2019
accepted:
27
04
2020
entrez:
14
5
2020
pubmed:
14
5
2020
medline:
22
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The System Usability Scale (SUS) is used to measure usability of internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (iCBT). However, whether the SUS is a valid instrument to measure usability in this context is unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the factor structure of the SUS, measuring usability of iCBT for depression in a sample of professionals. In addition, the psychometric properties (reliability, convergent validity) of the SUS were tested. A sample of 242 professionals using iCBT for depression from 6 European countries completed the SUS. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to test whether a one-factor, two-factor, tone-model or bi-direct model would fit the data best. Reliability was assessed using complementary statistical indices (e.g. omega). To assess convergent validity, the SUS total score was correlated with an adapted Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-3). CFA supported the one-factor, two-factor and tone-model, but the bi-factor model fitted the data best (Comparative Fit Index = 0.992, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.985, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.055, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = 0.042 (respectively χ Although the SUS seems to have a multidimensional structure, the best model showed that the total sumscore of the SUS appears to be a valid and interpretable measure to assess the usability of internet-based interventions when used by professionals in mental healthcare.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The System Usability Scale (SUS) is used to measure usability of internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (iCBT). However, whether the SUS is a valid instrument to measure usability in this context is unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the factor structure of the SUS, measuring usability of iCBT for depression in a sample of professionals. In addition, the psychometric properties (reliability, convergent validity) of the SUS were tested.
METHODS
A sample of 242 professionals using iCBT for depression from 6 European countries completed the SUS. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to test whether a one-factor, two-factor, tone-model or bi-direct model would fit the data best. Reliability was assessed using complementary statistical indices (e.g. omega). To assess convergent validity, the SUS total score was correlated with an adapted Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-3).
RESULTS
CFA supported the one-factor, two-factor and tone-model, but the bi-factor model fitted the data best (Comparative Fit Index = 0.992, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.985, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.055, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = 0.042 (respectively χ
CONCLUSIONS
Although the SUS seems to have a multidimensional structure, the best model showed that the total sumscore of the SUS appears to be a valid and interpretable measure to assess the usability of internet-based interventions when used by professionals in mental healthcare.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32398111
doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02627-8
pii: 10.1186/s12888-020-02627-8
pmc: PMC7216472
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
218Subventions
Organisme : European Commission
ID : 621000
Pays : International
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Aug 31;18(8):e234
pubmed: 27582341
Internet Interv. 2016 Jan 27;4:61-71
pubmed: 30135791
Internet Interv. 2018 Feb 06;11:60-70
pubmed: 30135761
JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Mar 16;5(1):e20
pubmed: 29549072
World Psychiatry. 2019 Feb;18(1):20-28
pubmed: 30600624
Health Promot Perspect. 2014 Jul 12;4(1):82-9
pubmed: 25097841
BMC Pediatr. 2015 Dec 16;15:213
pubmed: 26675420
Cogn Process. 2009 Aug;10(3):193-7
pubmed: 19565283
Educ Psychol Meas. 2016 Jun;76(3):357-386
pubmed: 27182074
Cogn Behav Ther. 2018 Jan;47(1):1-18
pubmed: 29215315
Clin Psychol Rev. 2018 Jul;63:80-92
pubmed: 29940401
Trials. 2016 Aug 03;17(1):387
pubmed: 27488181
J Psychiatr Res. 2018 May;100:33-46
pubmed: 29482063
J Pers Assess. 2016;98(3):223-37
pubmed: 26514921
Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Mar 1;175(3):242-250
pubmed: 28969439