Subscribe to RSS
Mobile Technology in Medicine: Development and Validation of an Adapted System Usability Scale (SUS) Questionnaire and Modified Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to Evaluate User Experience and Acceptability of a Mobile Application in MRI Safety ScreeningFunding This study was funded by Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin for Graduate On Time (GOT) grant scheme with project code: UniSZA/2019/GOT/02.
Background Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) safety screening is a crucial procedure for patient preparation before entering into MRI room. Many hospitals in Malaysia are still using the MRI safety checklist printed form. Besides, clinicians will not get a definite conclusion about whether the patient is contraindicated for MRI or not. Hence, we have created one mobile application named MagnetoSafe to overcome this issue. The application will provide an instant decision on whether the patient has no contraindication, relative contraindication, or absolute contraindicated for MRI. We need to check for acceptability and user experience for any newly created mobile application.
Objective This study was designed to check the validity of the adapted Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and System Usability Scale (SUS) Questionnaire.
Method The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were investigated. Subsequently, 52 fully completed responses were collected.
Results Face and content validity of the questionnaires are considered acceptable with only minor changes to Item 10 of SUS. The Cronbach's alpha for the SUS questionnaire (10 questions) is −0.49, which is not acceptable. The Cronbach's alpha for TAM questionnaire (3 domains; 14 questions) is acceptable, which is 0.910 for perceived usefulness, 0.843 for perceived ease of use, and 0.915 for intention to use.
Conclusion Face validity of the adapted SUS and modified TAM questionnaires is acceptable with only minor changes to Item 10 in SUS. Content validity with experts is good. However, the reliability of the SUS questionnaire is not acceptable and therefore adapted SUS will not be used for assessing user experience. The reliability of the modified TAM questionnaire with the original three-factor structure is considered acceptable and can be used to evaluate the user's acceptability of MagnetoSafe.
Keywordsmagnetic resonance imaging - system usability scale - technology acceptance model - mobile application - MRI safety
Article published online:
07 December 2022
© 2022. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
- 1 Dill T. Contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging: non-invasive imaging. Heart 2008; 94 (07) 943-948
- 2 Sauro J. A Practical Guide to Measuring Usability. Denver: Measuring Usability LLC; 2010
- 3 Brooke J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry. 1996; 189 (194) 4-7
- 4 Holden H, Rada R. Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers' technology acceptance. J Res Technol Educ 2011; 43 (04) 343-367
- 5 Surendran P. Technology acceptance model: a survey of literature. Int J Business Soc Res 2012; 2 (04) 175-178
- 6 Lee Y, Kozar KA, Larsen KR. The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Comm Assoc Inform Syst 2003; 12 (01) 50
- 7 Davis FD. Technology Acceptance Model: TAM. Al-Suqri, MN, Al-Aufi, AS: Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption, S 1989: 205-219
- 8 Rahmi B, Birgoren B, Aktepe A. A meta-analysis of factors affecting perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in the adoption of e-learning systems. Turk Online J Distance Educ 2018; 19 (04) 4-42
- 9 Gagnon M-P, Ngangue P, Payne-Gagnon J, Desmartis M. m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (01) 212-220
- 10 Kim N, Park Y, Lee D. Differences in consumer intention to use on-demand automobile-related services in accordance with the degree of face-to-face interactions. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2019; 139: 277-286
- 11 Davis FD, Venkatesh V. A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. Int J Hum Comput Stud 1996; 45 (01) 19-45
- 12 Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decis Sci 1996; 27 (03) 451-481
- 13 Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manage Inf Syst Q 1989; 13: 319-340
- 14 Pande T, Saravu K, Temesgen Z. et al. Evaluating clinicians' user experience and acceptability of LearnTB, a smartphone application for tuberculosis in India. mHealth 2017; 3 (07) 30
- 15 Brooke J. SUS: a retrospective. J Usability Stud 2013; 8 (02) 29-40
- 16 Sauro J. . ways to interpret a SUS score,” 2018. Available at: https://measuringu com/interpret-sus-score
- 17 Lewis JR, Sauro J. Item benchmarks for the system usability scale. J Usability Stud 2018; 13 (03) 158-167
- 18 Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011; 2: 53-55