FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3097968902> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3097968902 endingPage "e22774" @default.
• W3097968902 startingPage "e22774" @default.
• W3097968902 abstract "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." @default.
• W3097968902 created "2020-11-09" @default.
• W3097968902 creator A5009555707 @default.
• W3097968902 creator A5015642551 @default.
• W3097968902 creator A5024166388 @default.
• W3097968902 creator A5026977019 @default.
• W3097968902 creator A5028682400 @default.
• W3097968902 creator A5040349942 @default.
• W3097968902 creator A5050466534 @default.
• W3097968902 creator A5080609495 @default.
• W3097968902 date "2021-01-13" @default.
• W3097968902 modified "2023-09-29" @default.
• W3097968902 title "Procedures of User-Centered Usability Assessment for Digital Solutions: Scoping Review of Reviews Reporting on Digital Solutions Relevant for Older Adults" @default.
• W3097968902 cites W1596953637 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W1917194599 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W1973605820 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2006559463 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2008606434 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2009105768 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2024304196 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2034777197 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2041903851 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2044235592 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2046457489 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2049671505 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2051477782 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2055000704 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2075950485 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2084154288 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2097766859 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2099473180 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2121431887 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2133526648 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2184044341 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2335342262 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2341823303 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2418259863 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2466442651 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2528549054 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2550182626 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2603606420 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2612954794 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2713286207 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2760473724 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2763047464 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2810514943 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2885055093 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2898921341 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2901669506 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2913792185 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2922171067 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2955457436 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2971896127 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2973141751 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2978597397 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2981593253 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2981907270 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2999555376 @default.
• W3097968902 cites W2999870541 @default.
• W3097968902 doi "https://doi.org/10.2196/22774" @default.
• W3097968902 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7840284" @default.
• W3097968902 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33439128" @default.
• W3097968902 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3097968902 type Work @default.
• W3097968902 sameAs 3097968902 @default.
• W3097968902 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W3097968902 countsByYear W30979689022021 @default.
• W3097968902 countsByYear W30979689022022 @default.
• W3097968902 countsByYear W30979689022023 @default.
• W3097968902 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3097968902 hasAuthorship W3097968902A5009555707 @default.
• W3097968902 hasAuthorship W3097968902A5015642551 @default.
• W3097968902 hasAuthorship W3097968902A5024166388 @default.
• W3097968902 hasAuthorship W3097968902A5026977019 @default.
• W3097968902 hasAuthorship W3097968902A5028682400 @default.
• W3097968902 hasAuthorship W3097968902A5040349942 @default.
• W3097968902 hasAuthorship W3097968902A5050466534 @default.
• W3097968902 hasAuthorship W3097968902A5080609495 @default.
• W3097968902 hasBestOaLocation W30979689021 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C100302975 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C107457646 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C164913051 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C170130773 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C513874922 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConceptScore W3097968902C100302975 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConceptScore W3097968902C107457646 @default.
• W3097968902 hasConceptScore W3097968902C111919701 @default.

• next