Validation of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS).
Validation of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS).
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0241480
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Messner EM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Terhorst Y;Philippi P;Sander LB;Schultchen D;Paganini S;Bardus M;Santo K;Knitza J;Machado GC;Schoeppe S;Bauereiß N;Portenhauser A;Domhardt M;Walter B;Krusche M;Baumeister H;Messner EM
移动的健康应用程序（MHA）具有改善医疗保健的潜力。商业MHA市场正在迅速增长，但可用MHA的含量和质量尚不清楚。非常需要用于评估MHA质量和内容的工具。移动的应用程序评级量表（MARS）是用于评估MHA质量的最广泛使用的工具之一。只有少数验证研究调查其度量质量。没有研究评价结构效度和同时效度。本研究评估了MARS的结构效度、同时效度、信度和客观性。数据来自15个国际应用程序质量审查，以评估MARS的指标属性。MARS从四个方面衡量应用质量：参与度、功能性、美学和信息质量。通过验证性因素分析（CFA）评估相关的竞争验证性模型来评估结构效度。采用非中心性（RMSEA）、增量（CFI、TLI）和残差（SRMR）拟合指数评价拟合优度。作为一种测量的同时效度，相关性的另一个质量评估工具（ENLIGHT）进行了调查。使用Omega确定可靠性。通过组内相关性评估客观性。总共包括了来自1,299个MHA的MARS评级，涵盖15个不同的健康领域。验证性因素分析证实了一个双因素模型，其中包括一个一般因素和一个每个维度的因素（RMSEA = 0.074，TLI = 0.922，CFI = 0.940，SRMR = 0.059）。可靠性为良好至极好（Omega 0.79至0.93）。客观性很高（ICC = 0.82）。MARS与ENLIGHT相关（ps<.05）。对MARS的度量评价表明其适用于质量评估。因此，MARS可用于使MHA的质量对医疗保健利益相关者和患者透明。未来的研究可以通过调查MARS的重测信度和预测效度来扩展目前的研究结果。
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. This study evaluates the construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability, and objectivity, of the MARS. 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. 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<.05). The metric evaluation of the MARS demonstrated its suitability for the quality assessment. As such, the MARS could be used to make the quality of MHA transparent to health care stakeholders and patients. Future studies could extend the present findings by investigating the re-test reliability and predictive validity of the MARS.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1080/10705519909540118
发表时间：
1999-01-01
影响因子：
6
作者：
Hu, Li-tze;Bentler, Peter M.
通讯作者：
Bentler, Peter M.
影响因子：
5
作者：
Grainger, Rebecca;Townsley, Hermaleigh;Taylor, William J.
通讯作者：
Taylor, William J.
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Baumel, Amit;Faber, Keren;Muench, Fred
通讯作者：
Muench, Fred
影响因子：
4
作者：
Dunn, Thomas J.;Baguley, Thom;Brunsden, Vivienne
通讯作者：
Brunsden, Vivienne
影响因子：
105.7
作者：
Grundy, Quinn;Chiu, Kellia;Holz, Ralph
通讯作者：
Holz, Ralph