Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. 2017 May 25;5(5):e65. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.6233

Table 8.

Categorizing design features by high self-efficacy participants (n=35).

Design features	Frequency of design feature							Category strength (%)		Total strength (%)		Classification results
	A	M	O	I	R	Q
A2	6	10	7	11	0	1	3		66		X(I, M)^a
A10	6	10	8	10	0	1	0		69		X(M, I)^a
A12	6	5	11	12	0	1	3		63		X(I, O)^a
A13	7	7	10	9	0	2	3		69		X(O, I)^a
A14	6	6	11	10	0	2	3		66		X(O, I)^a
A15	5	8	10	10	0	2	0		66		X(O, I)^a
A21	7	5	10	11	0	2	3		63		X(I, O)^a
A22	4	3	14	12	1	1	6		60		X(O, I)^a
A23	6	3	14	10	0	2	11		66		O
A25	6	4	12	11	0	2	3		63		X(O, I)^a
A26	5	6	13	9	0	2	11		69		O
A29	7	3	15	8	0	2	20		71		O
A30	9	3	13	7	1	2	11		71		O
A52	6	6	10	12	0	1	6		63		X(I, O)^a

^aX(C₁, C₂) indicates that a design feature had close proportions in two categories of C₁ and C₂.