Table 8.
Quality assessment as indexed by participant responses to the uMARSa and DWAIb.
| Variable | Values, mean (SD) | Value, median (range) | |||
| uMARSc | |||||
|
|
Engagement | 3.6 (0.5) | 3.6 (2.0-5.0) | ||
|
|
Functionality | 4.1 (0.7) | 4.0 (2.5-5.0) | ||
|
|
Aesthetics | 4.2 (0.6) | 4.3 (3.0-5.0) | ||
|
|
Information | 4.3 (0.5) | 4.5 (2.5-5.0) | ||
|
|
Overall quality | 4.0 (0.5) | 4.1 (3.0-4.9) | ||
|
|
Subjective quality | 3.8 (0.8) | 4.0 (1.0-5.0) | ||
|
|
Perceived impact | 3.7 (0.9) | 3.7 (1.7-5.0) | ||
| DWAId | |||||
|
|
Goals | 3.5 (1.0) | 3.5 (1.0-5.0) | ||
|
|
Tasks | 3.7 (1.0) | 3.5 (2.0-5.0) | ||
|
|
Bond | 3.4 (1.1) | 3.5 (1.5-5.0) | ||
|
|
Overall | 3.5 (0.9) | 3.7 (1.7-5.0) | ||
auMARS: Mobile App Rating Scale–User Version.
bDWAI: Digital Working Alliance Inventory.
cAll items are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (inadequate) to 5 (excellent).
dAll items are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (seldom) to 5 (always).