...
首页> 外文期刊>JMIR Human Factors >Procedures of User-Centered Usability Assessment for Digital Solutions: Scoping Review of Reviews Reporting on Digital Solutions Relevant for Older Adults
【24h】

Procedures of User-Centered Usability Assessment for Digital Solutions: Scoping Review of Reviews Reporting on Digital Solutions Relevant for Older Adults

机译:数字解决方案的用户中心可用性评估程序:审查评论审查报告关于老年人相关的数字解决方案

获取原文
           

摘要

BACKGROUND:The assessment of usability is a complex process that involves several steps and procedures. It is important to standardize the evaluation and reporting of usability procedures across studies to guide researchers, facilitate comparisons across studies, and promote high-quality usability studies. The first step to standardizing is to have an overview of how usability study procedures are reported across the literature.OBJECTIVE:This scoping review of reviews aims to synthesize the procedures reported for the different steps of the process of conducting a user-centered usability assessment of digital solutions relevant for older adults and to identify potential gaps in the present reporting of procedures. The secondary aim is to identify any principles or frameworks guiding this assessment in view of a standardized approach.METHODS:This is a scoping review of reviews. A 5-stage scoping review methodology was used to identify and describe relevant literature published between 2009 and 2020 as follows: identify the research question, identify relevant studies, select studies for review, chart data from selected literature, and summarize and report results. The research was conducted on 5 electronic databases: PubMed, ACM Digital Library, IEEE, Scopus, and Web of Science. Reviews that met the inclusion criteria (reporting on user-centered usability evaluation procedures for any digital solution that could be relevant for older adults and were published in English) were identified, and data were extracted for further analysis regarding study evaluators, study participants, methods and techniques, tasks, and test environment.RESULTS:A total of 3958 articles were identified. After a detailed screening, 20 reviews matched the eligibility criteria. The characteristics of the study evaluators and participants and task procedures were only briefly and differently reported. The methods and techniques used for the assessment of usability are the topics that were most commonly and comprehensively reported in the reviews, whereas the test environment was seldom and poorly characterized.CONCLUSIONS:A lack of a detailed description of several steps of the process of assessing usability and no evidence on good practices of performing it suggests that there is a need for a consensus framework on the assessment of user-centered usability evaluation. Such a consensus would inform researchers and allow standardization of procedures, which are likely to result in improved study quality and reporting, increased sensitivity of the usability assessment, and improved comparability across studies and digital solutions. Our findings also highlight the need to investigate whether different ways of assessing usability are more sensitive than others. These findings need to be considered in light of review limitations.?Anabela G Silva, Hilma Caravau, Ana Martins, Ana Margarida Pisco Almeida, Telmo Silva, óscar Ribeiro, Gon?alo Santinha, Nelson P Rocha. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (http://humanfactors.jmir.org), 13.01.2021.
机译:背景:可用性评估是一个复杂的过程,涉及几个步骤和程序。重要的是要规范跨研究的可用性程序的评估和报告,以指导研究人员,促进研究的比较,促进高质量的可用性研究。标准化的第一步是概述了在整个文献中如何报告的可用性研究程序。这些评论的审查综述旨在综合报告的程序报告的程序,以进行用户中心的可用性评估的过程的不同步骤。数字解决方案与年龄较大的成年人相关,并在本报告中识别潜在差距。次要目的是识别鉴于标准化方法指导此评估的任何原则或框架。方法:这是对评论的范围审查。使用5阶段的范围审查方法,用于识别和描述2009年至2020年间发布的相关文献,如下所示:确定研究问题,确定相关研究,选择审查的研究,从选定文献中的图表数据,以及总结和报告结果。该研究是在5个电子数据库上进行:PubMed,ACM数字图书馆,IEEE,Scopus和科学网络。鉴定了符合纳入标准的审查(报告对更老年人相关的任何数字解决方案的用户中心可用性评估程序,并以英文发布),并提取数据以进一步分析研究评估符,研究参与者,方法和技巧,任务和测试环境。结果:确定了3958篇文章。经过详细的筛选后,20条评论匹配了资格标准。报告的研究评估符和参与者和参与者和任务程序的特征仅报告。用于评估可用性的方法和技术是审查中最常见和全面地报告的主题,而测试环境很少,其特征很差。链接:缺乏对评估过程的几个步骤的详细描述可用性,无证据表明良好做法表明,需要对评估用户中心可用性评估的共识框架。这样的共识将以研究人员提供信息,并允许程序的标准化,这可能导致研究质量和报告增加,增加了可用性评估的敏感性,以及跨研究和数字解决方案的可比性。我们的调查结果还强调了调查评估可用性的不同方式是否比其他方式更敏感。这些调查结果需要根据审查限制来考虑。最初发表在JMIR人类因素(http://humanfactors.jmir.org),13.01.2021。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号