Learnability of a Configurator Empowering End Users to Create Mobile Data Collection Instruments: Usability Study

Background Many research domains still heavily rely on paper-based data collection procedures, despite numerous associated drawbacks. The QuestionSys framework is intended to empower researchers as well as clinicians without programming skills to develop their own smart mobile apps in order to collect data for their specific scenarios. Objective In order to validate the feasibility of this model-driven, end-user programming approach, we conducted a study with 80 participants. Methods Across 2 sessions (7 days between Session 1 and Session 2), participants had to model 10 data collection instruments (5 at each session) with the developed configurator component of the framework. In this context, performance measures like the time and operations needed as well as the resulting errors were evaluated. Participants were separated into two groups (ie, novices vs experts) based on prior knowledge in process modeling, which is one fundamental pillar of the QuestionSys framework. Results Statistical analysis (t tests) revealed that novices showed significant learning effects for errors (P=.04), operations (P<.001), and time (P<.001) from the first to the last use of the configurator. Experts showed significant learning effects for operations (P=.001) and time (P<.001), but not for errors as the experts’ errors were already very low at the first modeling of the data collection instrument. Moreover, regarding the time and operations needed, novices got significantly better at the third modeling task than experts were at the first one (t tests; P<.001 for time and P=.002 for operations). Regarding errors, novices did not get significantly better at working with any of the 10 data collection instruments than experts were at the first modeling task, but novices’ error rates for all 5 data collection instruments at Session 2 were not significantly different anymore from those of experts at the first modeling task. After 7 days of not using the configurator (from Session 1 to Session 2), the experts’ learning effect at the end of Session 1 remained stable at the beginning of Session 2, but the novices’ learning effect at the end of Session 1 showed a significant decay at the beginning of Session 2 regarding time and operations (t tests; P<.001 for time and P=.03 for operations). Conclusions In conclusion, novices were able to use the configurator properly and showed fast (but unstable) learning effects, resulting in their performances becoming as good as those of experts (which were already good) after having little experience with the configurator. Following this, researchers and clinicians can use the QuestionSys configurator to develop data collection apps for smart mobile devices on their own.

[1]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Development of Mobile Data Collection Applications by Domain Experts: Experimental Results from a Usability Study , 2017, CAiSE.

[2]  C. Essau,et al.  Self‐Report Questionnaires , 2015 .

[3]  Jie Bao,et al.  Systematic Review Protocol to Assess the Effectiveness of Usability Questionnaires in mHealth App Studies , 2017, JMIR research protocols.

[4]  Sang-Won Lee,et al.  Multidimensionality: redefining the digital divide in the smartphone era , 2015 .

[5]  Rüdiger Pryss,et al.  Emotion dynamics and tinnitus: Daily life data from the “TrackYourTinnitus” application , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[6]  T Elbert,et al.  The role of FKBP5 genotype in moderating long-term effectiveness of exposure-based psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder , 2014, Translational Psychiatry.

[7]  Deborah J. Mayhew,et al.  The usability engineering lifecycle , 1998, CHI Conference Summary.

[8]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Process-Driven Data Collection with Smart Mobile Devices , 2014, WEBIST.

[9]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Detecting adverse childhood experiences with a little help from tablet computers , 2013 .

[10]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[11]  H Borgmann,et al.  [Comparison of self-administered survey questionnaire responses collected using mobile apps versus other methods]. , 2016, Der Urologe. Ausg. A.

[12]  Quazi Abidur Rahman,et al.  Patterns of User Engagement With the Mobile App, Manage My Pain: Results of a Data Mining Investigation , 2017, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[13]  Enquan Cheow,et al.  Enabling Psychiatrists to be Mobile Phone App Developers: Insights Into App Development Methodologies , 2014, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[14]  Jeffrey Wong,et al.  Making mashups with marmite: towards end-user programming for the web , 2007, CHI.

[15]  Virpi Roto,et al.  Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach , 2009, CHI.

[16]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 6th Edition , 2016 .

[17]  Per Carlbring,et al.  Internet vs. paper and pencil administration of questionnaires commonly used in panic/agoraphobia research , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[18]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  The Area Framework for Location-Based Smart Mobile Augmented Reality Applications , 2018, J. Ubiquitous Syst. Pervasive Networks.

[19]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[20]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  BPM to Go: Supporting Business Processes in a Mobile and Sensing World , 2015 .

[21]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Mobile Crowd Sensing Services for Tinnitus Assessment, Therapy, and Research , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Mobile Services.

[22]  Eser Kandogan,et al.  A1: end-user programming for web-based system administration , 2005, UIST '05.

[23]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Supporting medical ward rounds through mobile task and process management , 2015, Inf. Syst. E Bus. Manag..

[24]  Robert West,et al.  A comparison of the characteristics of iOS and Android users of a smoking cessation app , 2017, Translational behavioral medicine.

[25]  Rüdiger Pryss,et al.  End-User Programming of Mobile Services: Empowering Domain Experts to Implement Mobile Data Collection Applications , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Mobile Services (MS).

[26]  Melvyn Zhang,et al.  Application of Low-Cost Methodologies for Mobile Phone App Development , 2014, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[27]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Using Vital Sensors in Mobile Healthcare Business Applications - Challenges, Examples, Lessons Learned , 2013, WEBIST.

[28]  Rn Rm Hazel Keedle MNursing,et al.  The Design, Development, and Evaluation of a Qualitative Data Collection Application for Pregnant Women , 2017 .

[29]  S. Joy Mountford,et al.  The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design , 1990 .

[30]  Damijan Miklavcic,et al.  Comparison of paper-based and electronic data collection process in clinical trials: costs simulation study. , 2009, Contemporary clinical trials.

[31]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Using Smart Mobile Devices for Collecting Structured Data in Clinical Trials: Results from a Large-Scale Case Study , 2015, 2015 IEEE 28th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems.

[32]  Virginia Schmied,et al.  The Design, Development, and Evaluation of a Qualitative Data Collection Application for Pregnant Women , 2018, Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.

[33]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  A Configurator Component for End-User Defined Mobile Data Collection Processes , 2016, ICSOC Workshops.

[34]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Using Students as Subjects—A Comparative Study of Students and Professionals in Lead-Time Impact Assessment , 2000, Empirical Software Engineering.

[35]  Derek Flood,et al.  Usability of mobile applications: literature review and rationale for a new usability model , 2013, Journal of Interaction Science.

[36]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  User experience - a research agenda , 2006, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[37]  Paul P Stork,et al.  A randomized trial of electronic versus paper pain diaries in children: impact on compliance, accuracy, and acceptability , 2004, Pain.

[38]  Shannon J. Lane,et al.  Bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making a Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Effectiveness of Hand Held Computers with Paper Methods for Data Collection , 2006 .

[39]  Josip Car,et al.  Comparison of self-administered survey questionnaire responses collected using mobile apps versus other methods. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[40]  Susan A. Yoon,et al.  Teaching Complex Dynamic Systems to Young Students with StarLogo , 2005 .

[41]  Manfred Reichert,et al.  Preventing further trauma: KINDEX mum screen - assessing and reacting towards psychosocial risk factors in pregnant women with the help of smartphone technologies , 2013 .