Healthc Inform Res.  2017 Oct;23(4):328-332. 10.4258/hir.2017.23.4.328.

Development and Cross-cultural Validation of the Korean Version of SMArtphone’s uSability Heuristics (SMASH)

• Jeong YW
• Kim JA

• KMID: 2396425
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2017.23.4.328

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to develop and cross-culturally validate the Korean version of SMArtphone's uSability Heuristics (K-SMASH).
METHODS
In the study, it was used the adaptation process consisted of five stages, namely, translation, synthesis, back translation, expert committee review, and pretesting. In the pretesting stage, a mobile application, using the prefinal K-SMASH, was evaluated for the severity of usability problems by three experts in computer science and informatics. Each participant completed the evaluation and was interviewed about their understanding, interpretation, and opinion of the cultural relevance of the prefinal K-SMASH. Next, we reviewed the differences in the experts' opinions and the questionnaire results.
RESULTS
Twelve SMASH items, words and sentences, were translated, back translated, and revised, considering the conceptual meaning in the context of the Korean culture, by experts in various fields, including a Korean linguist and a bilingual translator, through the first stage to the fourth stage. In the pretesting stage, the results showed no major differences among the severity ratings of participants. Furthermore, all participants answered that there were no critical discrepancies or inconsistencies with the cultural relevance of the prefinal K-SMASH.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the study provide preliminary evidence that the modified K-SMASH can be used for heuristic evaluation, one of the usability tests, when developing applications in Korea.

Keyword

Heuristics; Smartphone; Mobile Applications; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Informatics

MeSH Terms

Buprenorphine
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Heuristics*
Informatics
Korea
Mobile Applications
Smartphone
Buprenorphine

Reference

1. Pew Research Center. Smartphone Ownership and internet usage continues to climb in emerging economies [Internet]. Washington (DC): Pew Research Center;2016. cited at 2017 Oct 1. Available from: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2016/02/pew_research_center_global_technology_report_final_february_22__2016.pdf.

2. Smith A. US smartphone use in 2015 [Internet]. Washington (DC): Pew Research Center;2015. cited at 2017 Oct 1. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/.

3. Price M, Yuen EK, Goetter EM, Herbert JD, Forman EM, Acierno R, et al. mHealth: a mechanism to deliver more accessible, more effective mental health care. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2014; 21(5):427–436.

4. Research2guidance. Global mobile health market report 2013–2017 [Internet]. Berlin: Research2guidance;2013. cited at 2017 Oct 1. Available from: http://research2guidance.com/product/mobile-health-marketreport-2013-2017/.

5. Zhang D, Adipat B. Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability testing of mobile applications. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2005; 18(3):293–308.

6. Nguyen HH, Silva JN. Use of smartphone technology in cardiology. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2016; 26(4):376–386.

7. Martinez-Perez B, de la Torre-Diez I, Lopez-Coronado M, Herreros-Gonzalez J. Mobile apps in cardiology: review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2013; 1(2):e15.

8. Reid SC, Kauer SD, Hearps SJ, Crooke AH, Khor AS, Sanci LA, Patton GC. A mobile phone application for the assessment and management of youth mental health problems in primary care: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2011; 12:131.

9. Harrison V, Proudfoot J, Wee PP, Parker G, Pavlovic DH, Manicavasagar V. Mobile mental health: review of the emerging field and proof of concept study. J Ment Health. 2011; 20(6):509–524.

10. International Organization for Standardization. Ergonomic of human-system interaction. Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization;2015. (ISO/DIS 9241-11).

11. Scandurra I, Hagglund M, Persson A, Ahlfeldt RM. Disturbing or facilitating? On the Usability of Swedish eHealth Systems 2013. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014; 205:221–225.

12. Nielsen J. Heuristic evaluation. In : Nielsen J, Mack RL, editors. Usability inspection methods. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons;1994. p. 25–62.

13. Yanez Gomez R, Cascado Caballero D, Sevillano JL. Heuristic evaluation on mobile interfaces: a new checklist. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014; 2014:434326.

14. Bertini E, Gabrielli S, Kimani S. Appropriating and assessing heuristics for mobile computing. In : Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces; 2006 May 23-26; Venezia, Italy. p. 119–126.

15. Jeon E, Park HA. Development of a smartphone application for clinical-guideline-based obesity management. Healthc Inform Res. 2015; 21(1):10–20.

16. Joyce G, Lilley M, Barker T, Jefferies A. Mobile application usability: heuristic evaluation and evaluation of heuristics. In : Amaba B, editor. Advances in human factors, software, and systems engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing;2016. p. 77–86.

17. Inostroza R, Rusu C, Roncagliolo S, Rusu V, Collazos CA. Developing SMASH: a set of SMArtphone's uSability heuristics. Comput Stand Interface. 2016; 43:40–52.

18. Kim MS, Park JH, Park KY. Development and effectiveness of a drug dosage calculation training program using cognitive loading theory based on smartphone application. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2012; 42(5):689–698.

19. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(24):3186–3191.

20. Tang Z, Johnson TR, Tindall RD, Zhang J. Applying heuristic evaluation to improve the usability of a telemedicine system. Telemed J E Health. 2006; 12(1):24–34.

21. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011; 17(2):268–274.