The System Usability Scale: Past, Present, and Future

Lewis, James R.

doi:10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307

Cited by 1,054 publications

(720 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

650

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The students evaluated the usability of the VR application, as documented by the System Usability Scale (SUS), to be better than practicing with traditional equipment. The VR application got a SUS rating equal to a A-, which is in the 85-89 percentile [26]. This is encouraging as there are earlier studies showing that VR can give users motion sickness, that technical problems like software failure can happened and that the effort of learning to use VR can be distracting to learning new skills [20,38].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is individual practice in an immersive and interactive virtual reality application non-inferior to practicing with traditional equipment in learning systematic clinical observation? A randomized controlled trial

Berg

Steinsbekk

2020

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The aim was to investigate if individual self-practice of the ABCDE approach (Airways, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure) in an immersive and interactive virtual reality (VR) application gave non-inferior learning outcome compared to using traditional equipment (TP) in first year medical and nursing students. Methods: A non-inferior parallel group randomized controlled trial. The study was linked to a regular teaching program conducted in August and September 2019. All students participated in a 15-min ABCDE introduction session, before they self-practiced the ABCDE approach for 20 min in either a fully immersive and interactive VR application using hand controllers with some haptic feedback (Individual VR) or with blood pressure gauge, earthermometer and oximeter (Individual TP). The primary outcome was the number of students who documented all the eight predefined observations in the ABCDE approach in the correct order in a practical test on an advanced simulator manikin with a time limit of 5 min, done immediately after the self-practice. The predefined one-sided non-inferiority limit was 13% points. Results: Of all eligible students, 84% participated in the study and randomly allocated to VR (n = 149) or TP (n = 140). The primary outcome showed non-inferiority of the VR application with 24.8% in individual VR doing all observations in correct order compared to 27.1% TP (absolute difference 2.3% points, one sided 95% CI 2.3 to 10.8). The secondary outcomes were similar between the groups, but more students in VR reported liking the way they practiced (absolute difference 46% points, 95% CI 36.5 to 56.6) and that it was a good way to learn (36.9% points, 95% CI 26.8 to 47). VR also scored high on the System Usability Scale (mean difference 6.4% points, 95% CI 2.8-10.1). Conclusions: Individual self-practicing the ABCDE approach in VR was non-inferior to individual self-practicing with traditional equipment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

“…They also completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) as a measure of the usability of the system they used during the self-practice. The answers to the ten questions were transformed into one single score according Brooke [25] and given a grade from the curved grading scale (CGS) [26].…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is individual practice in an immersive and interactive virtual reality application non-inferior to practicing with traditional equipment in learning systematic clinical observation? A randomized controlled trial

Berg

Steinsbekk

2020

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All participants completed the questionnaire that included the System Usability Scale (SUS), 15,16 additional satisfaction questions and the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS). 17 The questionnaire incorporated the five-point Likert scale where one is "always" and five is "never".…”

Section: Questionnairementioning

confidence: 99%

<p>User Acceptability and Technical Robustness Evaluation of a Novel Smart Pill Bottle Prototype Designed to Support Medication Adherence</p>

Zijp¹,

Touw²,

Boven³

2020

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Smart medication adherence monitoring devices can provide objective and granular drug utilization data and help patients engaging with their treatment. In this proof-of-concept study, the acceptability and technical robustness of a novel smart pill bottle prototype (SPBP) were assessed in order to allow further optimization. Methods: The SPBP is an app-controlled automatic dispense system, capturing real-time data on a web-based platform, which sends text reminders and measures storage conditions. A heterogeneous group of ten volunteers was asked to dispense placebo capsules with the SPBP and to follow a predefined dosing schedule for a trial period of 2 weeks. Afterwards, a questionnaire was filled out during a short interview. Primary outcome was dispense adherence as measured by the bottle. Other study outcomes included system acceptability (System Usability Scale [SUS]), self-reported adherence (MARS) and technical robustness of the bottle's mechanics (electronic pill dispenser) and sensors (bottle temperature). Results: The overall dispense adherence rate as measured by the SPBP was 88%. All participants completed the study and four participants had an adherence rate of 100% during the study. The dispense adherence rates corresponded well with participants' self-reported adherence with an average MARS total score of 23.6 (out of 25). Participants judged the system easy to use, with a mean SUS score of 79.3 (range: 57.5-97.5). The overall mean temperature difference between the bottle sensor and calibrated external sensor was −0.82°C (range: −1.37°C to −0.21°C). Conclusion: The SPBP was well accepted and this study provides data for further optimization and follow-up studies. Smart adherence technologies such as these may change the way healthcare professionals, trialists and patients manage medication adherence.

show abstract

“…Example items are "I found this system very cumbersome to use" or "I felt very confident using the system"; each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = "Strongly disagree" to 5 = "Strongly agree"). Converted into percentiles, a score of 68 (equivalent to the 50th percentile) has been defined as "average" usability [21][22][23], with a lower percentage suggesting need for UI re-design.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating users’ experiences of electronic prescribing systems in relation to patient safety: a mixed methods study

Aufegger

Serou

Chen

et al. 2020

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: User interface (UI) design features such as screen layout, density of information, and use of colour may affect the usability of electronic prescribing (EP) systems, with usability problems previously associated with medication errors. To identify how to improve existing systems, our aim was to explore prescribers' perspectives of UI features of a commercially available EP system, and how these may affect patient safety. Methods: Two studies were conducted, each including ten participants prescribing a penicillin for a test patient with a penicillin allergy. In study 1, eye-gaze tracking was used as a means to explore visual attention and behaviour during prescribing, followed by a self-reported EP system usability scale. In study 2, a think-aloud method and semi-structured interview were applied to explore participants' thoughts and views on prescribing, with a focus on UI design and patient safety. Results: Study 1 showed high visual attention toward information on allergies and patient information, allergy popup alerts, and medication order review and confirmation, with less visual attention on adding medication. The system's usability was rated 'below average'. In study 2, participants highlighted EP design features and workflow, including screen layout and information overload as being important for patient safety, benefits of EP systems such as keeping a record of relevant information, and suggestions for improvement in relation to system design (colour, fonts, customization) and patient interaction. Conclusions: Specific UI design factors were identified that may improve the usability and/or safety of EP systems. It is suggested that eye-gaze tracking and think-aloud methods are used in future experimental research in this area. Limitations include the small sample size; further work should include similar studies on other EP systems.

show abstract

The System Usability Scale: Past, Present, and Future

Cited by 1,054 publications

References 44 publications

Is individual practice in an immersive and interactive virtual reality application non-inferior to practicing with traditional equipment in learning systematic clinical observation? A randomized controlled trial

Is individual practice in an immersive and interactive virtual reality application non-inferior to practicing with traditional equipment in learning systematic clinical observation? A randomized controlled trial

<p>User Acceptability and Technical Robustness Evaluation of a Novel Smart Pill Bottle Prototype Designed to Support Medication Adherence</p>

Evaluating users’ experiences of electronic prescribing systems in relation to patient safety: a mixed methods study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About