Validation of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS)
| Autor: | Terhorst, Yannik, Philippi, Paula, Sander, Lasse, Schultchen, Dana, Paganini, Sarah, Bardus, Marco, Santo, Karla, Knitza, Johannes, Machado, Gustavo C., Schoeppe, Stephanie, Bauereiß, Natalie, Portenhauser, Alexandra, Domhardt, Matthias, Walter, Benjamin, Krusche, Martin, Baumeister, Harald, Messner, Eva-Maria |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Efficacy
Science Research Quality Assessment Research and Analysis Methods Global Health App Mobile applications Mathematical and Statistical Techniques Medicine and Health Sciences Humans Public and Occupational Health Smartphone Apps ddc:610 Statistical Methods Interventions Measurement Approximation Methods Statistics Reproducibility of Results Metaanalysis Research Assessment Models Theoretical Telemedizin Mobile Applications Telemedicine Management Medical informatics applications Physical Sciences Medicine Engineering and Technology Mental health Preventive Medicine App Factor Analysis Statistical DDC 610 / Medicine & health Factor Analysis Mathematical Functions Mathematics Research Article |
| Zdroj: | PLoS ONE PLoS ONE, Vol 15, Iss 11, p e0241480 (2020) |
| ISSN: | 1932-6203 |
| Popis: | Background Mobile health apps (MHA) have the potential to improve health care. The commercial MHA market is rapidly growing, but the content and quality of available MHA are unknown. Instruments for the assessment of the quality and content of MHA are highly needed. The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) is one of the most widely used tools to evaluate the quality of MHA. Only few validation studies investigated its metric quality. No study has evaluated the construct validity and concurrent validity. Objective This study evaluates the construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability, and objectivity, of the MARS. Methods Data was pooled from 15 international app quality reviews to evaluate the metric properties of the MARS. The MARS measures app quality across four dimensions: engagement, functionality, aesthetics and information quality. Construct validity was evaluated by assessing related competing confirmatory models by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Non-centrality (RMSEA), incremental (CFI, TLI) and residual (SRMR) fit indices were used to evaluate the goodness of fit. As a measure of concurrent validity, the correlations to another quality assessment tool (ENLIGHT) were investigated. Reliability was determined using Omega. Objectivity was assessed by intra-class correlation. Results In total, MARS ratings from 1,299 MHA covering 15 different health domains were included. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a bifactor model with a general factor and a factor for each dimension (RMSEA = 0.074, TLI = 0.922, CFI = 0.940, SRMR = 0.059). Reliability was good to excellent (Omega 0.79 to 0.93). Objectivity was high (ICC = 0.82). MARS correlated with ENLIGHT (ps publishedVersion |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
| Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje | K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit. |