A Systematic Review About User Experience Evaluation

Maia, Camila Loiola Brito; Furtado, Elizabeth

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40409-7_42

Cited by 50 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, there are no systematic literature reviews dealing with how standardized questionnaires have been used in primary studies. The closest we found to the topic were two literature reviews on User Experience evaluation in general, presented by Maia and Furtado [9] and Ten and Paz [10]. However, in neither of the two cases were objectives established as those formulated in our study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Standardized Questionnaires for User Experience Evaluation: A Systematic Literature Review

Oreiro

Herrera

Quirós

et al. 2019

13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient ‪Intelligence UCAmI 2019‬

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standardized questionnaires are one of the methods used to evaluate User Experience (UX). Standardized questionnaires are composed of an invariable group of questions that users answer themselves after using a product or system. They are considered reliable and economical to apply. The standardized questionnaires most recognized for UX evaluation are AttrakDiff, UEQ, and meCUE. Although the structure, format, and content of each of the questionnaires are known in detail, there is no systematic literature review (SLR) that categorizes the uses of these questionnaires in primary studies. This SLR presents the eligibility protocol and the results obtained by reviewing 946 papers from four digital databases, of which 553 primary studies were analyzed in detail. Different characteristics of use were obtained, such as which questionnaire is used more extensively, in which geographical context, and the size of the sample used in each study, among others.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…However, in neither of the two cases were objectives established as those formulated in our study. The review presented in [9] raises four research questions, of which number 2 (How is the evaluation performed?) could have been related to the review presented in our article.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardized Questionnaires for User Experience Evaluation: A Systematic Literature Review

Oreiro

Herrera

Quirós

et al. 2019

13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient ‪Intelligence UCAmI 2019‬

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The research described here suggests combining the two approaches. From the top-down side, good sources to refer to can be systematic reviews on UX design and evaluation [1,6,7], existing guidelines like the Nielsen's heuristics [8] and the Shneiderman's golden rules [9,10], and design principles like those offered by the TRIZ theory [11,12], like the set of sociotechnical principles to guide system design [13] and like the twelve principles for green engineering [14]. From the bottom-up side, this research suggests to consider real case studies of product UX redesign belonging to the academic and industrial fields.…”

Section: Definition Of the Ux Redesign Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Define and exploit guidelines for interactive redesign of products’ User eXperience

Filippi

Motyl

2020

Int J Interact Des Manuf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, User eXperience (UX) is one of the main concerns in developing innovative products. This research develops the way to define and exploit guidelines for interactive redesign of the UX of products. Because of their origin, these guidelines will encompass all UX characteristics reputed as meaningful like usefulness, subjective feelings, motivational aspects, emotions, etc.; moreover, the redesign suggestions offered by these guidelines, as well as the procedures to collect and analyse the data to define other guidelines and suggest the best ways to implement them, push different competencies (engineers, UX experts, psychologists, etc.) to work in synergy, just like an interactive design context requires.

show abstract

“…Perski et al [ 9 ] have conceptualized engagement with digital health interventions to include both amount, duration and depth of usage , and user subjective experience , characterized by attention, interest, and affect [ 9 ]. Systematic reviews of the human–computer interaction literature suggest that good usability (ie, functionality and efficiency of the digital application) and subjective experience engagement (ie, users attention, interest, and affect) are important drivers of reducing attrition and increasing usage of digital applications [ 9 , 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Digital Program Support for the Physical Activity 4 Everyone (PA4E1) School Program: Mixed Methods Study

Mclaughlin¹,

Duff²,

McKenzie³

et al. 2021

JMIR Pediatr Parent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Effectively scaled-up physical activity interventions are urgently needed to address the high prevalence of physical inactivity. To facilitate scale-up of an efficacious school-based physical activity program (Physical Activity 4 Everyone [PA4E1]), provision of implementation support to physical education (PE) teachers was adapted from face-to-face and paper-based delivery modes to partial delivery via a website. A lack of engagement (usage and subjective experience) with digital delivery modes, including websites, may in part explain the typical reduction in effectiveness of scaled-up interventions that use digital delivery modes. A process evaluation focused on the PA4E1 website was undertaken. Objective The 2 objectives were to (1) describe the usage of the PA4E1 program website by in-school champions (PE teachers leading the program within their schools) and PE teachers using quantitative methods; (2) examine the usage, subjective experience, and usability of the PA4E1 program website from the perspective of in-school champions using mixed methods. Methods The first objective used website usage data collected across all users (n=273) throughout the 9 school terms of the PA4E1 implementation support. The 4 usage measures were sessions, page views, average session duration, and downloads. Descriptive statistics were calculated and explored across the duration of the 26-month program. The second objective used mixed methods, triangulating data from the first objective with data from a think-aloud survey and usability test completed by in-school champions (n=13) at 12 months. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically alongside descriptive statistics from the quantitative data in a triangulation matrix, generating cross-cutting themes using the “following a thread” approach. Results For the first objective, in-school champions averaged 48.0 sessions per user, PE teachers 5.8 sessions. PE teacher sessions were of longer duration (10.5 vs 7.6 minutes) and included more page views (5.4 vs 3.4). The results from the mixed methods analysis for the second objective found 9 themes and 2 meta-themes. The first meta-theme indicated that the website was an acceptable and appropriate delivery mode, and usability of the website was high. The second meta-theme found that the website content was acceptable and appropriate, and identified specific suggestions for improvement. Conclusions Digital health interventions targeting physical activity often experience issues of lack of user engagement. By contrast, the findings from both the quantitative and mixed methods analyses indicate high usage and overall acceptability and appropriateness of the PA4E1 website to school teachers. The findings support the value of the website within a multidelivery mode implementation intervention to support schools to implement physical activity promoting practices. The analysis identified suggested intervention refinements, which may be adopted for future iterations and further scale-up of the PA4E1 program. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000681358; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372870

show abstract

A Systematic Review About User Experience Evaluation

Cited by 50 publications

References 32 publications

Standardized Questionnaires for User Experience Evaluation: A Systematic Literature Review

Standardized Questionnaires for User Experience Evaluation: A Systematic Literature Review

Define and exploit guidelines for interactive redesign of products’ User eXperience

Evaluating Digital Program Support for the Physical Activity 4 Everyone (PA4E1) School Program: Mixed Methods Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About