Translation and validation of the Italian version of the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS).
Italian
Translation
User version mobile application rating scale
Validation
uMARS
Journal
Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene
ISSN: 2421-4248
Titre abrégé: J Prev Med Hyg
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 9214440
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
29
11
2020
accepted:
23
02
2021
entrez:
29
7
2021
pubmed:
30
7
2021
medline:
11
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health sciences are steadily developing apps to help people to adopt correct lifestyles and to help physicians to monitor patients with chronic diseases. However, a properly validated tool that can evaluate patients' perception of apps is still lacking in many languages. In English, a validated questionnaire, called User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS), is currently available. We translated the uMARS into Italian and validated our version. The uMARS questionnaire was translated from English to Italian by an official translator, and then administered to 100 smartphone users in order to evaluate the same app at times 1 and 2 (after 2 weeks). Paired t-test, Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICCs) and Cronbach's Alpha were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Italian uMARS. We recruited 100 subjects, 52 males (52%) and 48 females (48%), with a mean age of 22.8 (SD: 3.4). All subjects answered all questions both at time 1 and at time 2. Paired t-test showed no statistically significant difference in each answer or group of answers between times 1 and 2 (P > 0.05). Cronbach's alpha was 0.945, as all subjects answered all questions. Each question was further assessed through the Pearson correlation coefficient, which demonstrated high reliability, with significant P (< 0.05) and Pearson Coefficients higher than 0.7. Similarly, ICCs were always higher than 0.750. Our results validated the Italian version of uMARS, which may become a reliable and useful tool for evaluating health apps.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Health sciences are steadily developing apps to help people to adopt correct lifestyles and to help physicians to monitor patients with chronic diseases. However, a properly validated tool that can evaluate patients' perception of apps is still lacking in many languages. In English, a validated questionnaire, called User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS), is currently available. We translated the uMARS into Italian and validated our version.
METHODS
METHODS
The uMARS questionnaire was translated from English to Italian by an official translator, and then administered to 100 smartphone users in order to evaluate the same app at times 1 and 2 (after 2 weeks). Paired t-test, Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICCs) and Cronbach's Alpha were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Italian uMARS.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We recruited 100 subjects, 52 males (52%) and 48 females (48%), with a mean age of 22.8 (SD: 3.4). All subjects answered all questions both at time 1 and at time 2. Paired t-test showed no statistically significant difference in each answer or group of answers between times 1 and 2 (P > 0.05). Cronbach's alpha was 0.945, as all subjects answered all questions. Each question was further assessed through the Pearson correlation coefficient, which demonstrated high reliability, with significant P (< 0.05) and Pearson Coefficients higher than 0.7. Similarly, ICCs were always higher than 0.750.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results validated the Italian version of uMARS, which may become a reliable and useful tool for evaluating health apps.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34322643
doi: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2021.62.1.1894
pmc: PMC8283658
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E243-E248Informations de copyright
©2021 Pacini Editore SRL, Pisa, Italy.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of interest statement The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Jul 07;16:83
pubmed: 27387434
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Dec 02;18(12):e316
pubmed: 27913372
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Mar 3;8(3):e16956
pubmed: 32130183
Malays J Med Sci. 2018 Nov;25(6):85-99
pubmed: 30914882
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jun 3;7(6):e13199
pubmed: 31199343
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Jul 24;3(3):e77
pubmed: 26209109
Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012;8(1):23-34
pubmed: 22833776
BJU Int. 2012 Aug;110(4):475-7
pubmed: 22578054
Health Promot Pract. 2019 Nov;20(6):805-817
pubmed: 31179777
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Sep;129:95-99
pubmed: 31445295
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Jun 10;4(2):e72
pubmed: 27287964
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Mar 11;3(1):e27
pubmed: 25760773
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Mar 27;8(3):e14479
pubmed: 32217504
Health Educ Res. 2001 Dec;16(6):671-92
pubmed: 11780707