Turkish Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale

Objective : As the number of mobile health applications increases, quality assessment becomes a capital feature of any mobile application design. Besides the professional evaluation conducted before marketing the app, the perceptions of the subjects to whom is intended will determine the successful widespread dissemination. Hence, the implementation of a given app may be impaired by the lack of a validated translation and cross-cultural adaptation. We aimed to validate in the Turkish language the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale, an English original scale designed to assess the quality of mobile health applications. Materials and methods: A well-established and predefined process of cross-cultural adaptation and translation to Turkish of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale according to the World Health Organization guidelines was performed using a common, readily available, free-of-charge application. Internal consistency and reliability were tested in a population sample by Cronbach’s α and rWG index, respectively. Results: The total User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale score had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87). Internal consistencies of its subscales were also acceptable: with Cronbach’s α of 0.71, 0.78, 0.71, and 0.73 for engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information, respectively. Cronbach’s α of the satisfaction subscale was 0.46. The User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale total and subscales scores had a strong within-group agreement, all of them with rwg indexes between 0.78 and 0.87 over baseline to 1 month. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale is consistent with the English original version and is a reliable and valid tool to assess the quality of mobile applications by Turkish users.

[1]  A. Ciapponi,et al.  Mobile apps for detecting falsified and substandard drugs: A systematic review , 2021, PloS one.

[2]  Sharareh R. Niakan Kalhori,et al.  Quality Evaluation of English Mobile Applications for Gestational Diabetes: App Review using Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). , 2020, Current diabetes reviews.

[3]  Stoyan R. Stoyanov,et al.  The Arabic Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale: Development and Validation Study , 2020, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[4]  Harald Baumeister,et al.  The German Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G): Development and Validation Study , 2020, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[5]  E. Coiera,et al.  Safety concerns with consumer-facing mobile health applications and their consequences: a scoping review , 2019, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[6]  Rubén Martín Payo,et al.  Spanish adaptation and validation of the Mobile Application Rating Scale questionnaire , 2019, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[7]  B. Arroll,et al.  Association Between User Engagement of a Mobile Health App for Gout and Improvements in Self-Care Behaviors: Randomized Controlled Trial , 2019, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[8]  Mark Hart,et al.  Assessing the Quality of Mobile Apps Used by Occupational Therapists: Evaluation Using the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale , 2019, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[9]  Marco Bardus,et al.  Assessing the Quality of Mobile Phone Apps for Weight Management: User-Centered Study With Employees From a Lebanese University , 2019, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[10]  Jeremy C. Wyatt,et al.  How can clinicians, specialty societies and others evaluate and improve the quality of apps for patient use? , 2018, BMC Medicine.

[11]  David Brindley,et al.  Digital health app development standards: a systematic review protocol , 2018, BMJ Open.

[12]  Mobin Yasini,et al.  Criteria for assessing the quality of mHealth apps: a systematic review , 2018, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[13]  Elizabeth D. Mynatt,et al.  A review of mobile apps for epilepsy self-management , 2018, Epilepsy & Behavior.

[14]  Damien Bolton,et al.  ‘Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator’ mobile applications (Apps): a systematic review and scoring using the validated user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) , 2018, World Journal of Urology.

[15]  Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam,et al.  mHealth in Cardiovascular Health Care. , 2016, Heart, lung & circulation.

[16]  Alexander Domnich,et al.  Development and validation of the Italian version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale and its generalisability to apps targeting primary prevention , 2016, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[17]  Sarah Iribarren,et al.  Review and Analysis of Existing Mobile Phone Apps to Support Heart Failure Symptom Monitoring and Self-Care Management Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) , 2016, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[18]  Stoyan R. Stoyanov,et al.  Development and Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) , 2016, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[19]  Oksana Zelenko,et al.  Mobile App Rating Scale: A New Tool for Assessing the Quality of Health Mobile Apps , 2015, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[20]  J. Bernhardt,et al.  Behavioral Functionality of Mobile Apps in Health Interventions: A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2015, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[21]  Yilmaz,et al.  Mobile Health Applications User Trends in Turkey , 2014 .

[22]  Michael S. Cole,et al.  Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG(J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. , 2012 .

[23]  Stephanie L. Castro,et al.  Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel questions: A comparison of intraclass correlation coefficients, rwg(j), hierarchical linear modeling, within- and between-analysis, and random group resampling , 2002 .

[24]  R. W. Jones The International Telecommunication Union , 1997 .

[25]  Christina Cheng,et al.  Evaluating mobile phone applications for health behaviour change: A systematic review , 2018, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[26]  John B. Horrigan,et al.  Pew Internet & American Life Project , 2002 .