European Portuguese Validation of the System Usability Scale (SUS)
Open accessAbstract
The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a widely used self-administered instrument for the evaluation of usability of a wide range of products and user interfaces. The principal value of the SUS is that it provides a single reference score for participants’ view of the usability of a product or service. This paper presents the translation, cultural adaptation and a contribution to the validation of the European Portuguese version of SUS. The conducted work comprised two phases, the scale translation, and the scale validation. The first phase resulted in a European Portuguese version equivalent to the original in terms of semantic and content. The second phase involved the assessment of the validity and reliability of the scale. The instrument has construct validity as it presents a high and significant correlation with other two usability metrics, the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) (r = 0.70) and a general usability question (r = 0.48). The reliability results show less than satisfactory ICC values (ICC = 0.36), however the percentage of agreement is satisfactory (76.67%). Further studies are needed to investigate the reliability of the Portuguese version.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Portuguese version of the System Usability Scale was used, where a score <68 is considered below average.
“Acceptance was measured using the Portuguese version of the System Usability Scale [56], where a score <68 is considered below average.”
From Development and Evaluation of the Usefulness, Usability, and Feasibility of iNNOV Breast Cancer: Mixed Methods Study (2022) · cites this paper as [56]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 · Cited by 14,542 · see citing works
SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale
(1996) · Usability Evaluation In Industry · doi:10.1201/9781498710411-35 · Cited by 8,989 · see citing works
An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale
Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447310802205776 · Cited by 5,181 · see citing works
(2013) · Journal of Usability Studies archive · Cited by 1,357 · see citing works
The Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale
Lewis, J. R., & Sauro, J. (2009) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12 · Cited by 1,278 · see citing works
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-5403 · Cited by 943 · see citing works
The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces
Ivory, M. Y., & Hearst, M. A. (2001) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/503112.503114 · Cited by 884 · see citing works
Psychometric Evaluation of the PSSUQ Using Data from Five Years of Usability Studies
Lewis, J. R. (2002) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2002.9669130 · Cited by 626 · see citing works
Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires
Foddy, W. (1993) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511518201 · Cited by 489 · see citing works
When designing usability questionnaires, does it hurt to be positive?
Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979266 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Psychometric evaluation of an after-scenario questionnaire for computer usability studies
Lewis, J. R. (1991) · ACM SIGCHI Bulletin · doi:10.1145/122672.122692 · Cited by 361 · see citing works
Usability, accessibility and ambient-assisted living: a systematic literature review
Queirós, A., Silva, A. G., Alvarelhão, J., Rocha, N. P., & Teixeira, A. J. S. (2013) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-013-0328-x · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Self-citationLewis, J. R. (2006) · doi:10.1002/0470048204.ch49 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Ergonomics - A Systems Approach
Nunes, I. L. (2012) · InTech eBooks · doi:10.5772/2232 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Avaliação de Usabilidade: Uma Revisão Sistemática da Literatura
Martins, A. I., Queirós, A., Rocha, N. P., et al. (2013) · RISTI - Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação · doi:10.4304/risti.11.31-44 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Self-citationQueirós, A., Cerqueira, M., Martins, A. I., et al. (2014) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2014.02.045 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationNew Telerehabilitation Services for the Elderly
Teixeira, A. J. S., Pereira, C., Silva, M. O. E., Alvarelhão, J., Silva, A. G., Cerqueira, M., Martins, A. I., Pacheco, O. M. D. R., Almeida, N., Oliveira, C., et al. (2013) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-3990-4.ch006 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citationFerreira, P. L., & Marques, F. B. (1998) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) · Cited by 15 · see citing works
METHODOLOGIES EMPLOYED IN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF H.C.I.
Sweeney, M., & Dillon, A. P. (1987) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-70304-0.50065-0 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
A New Living Lab for Usability Evaluation of ICT and Next Generation Networks for Elderly@Home
Teixeira, A. J. S., Rocha, N. P., Dias, M. S., et al. (2011) · doi:10.5220/0003335000850097 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- A. Martins, A. Queirós and N. Rocha. Usability evaluation of products and services: a systematic review. IADIS International Conference e-Society 2013, 2013.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The System Usability Scale: Past, Present, and Future
Lewis, J. R. (2018) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307 · Cited by 1,958 · see citing works
Multi-language toolkit for the system usability scale
Gao, M., Kortum, P., & Oswald, F. L. (2020) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1801173 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Documentation burden in nursing and its role in clinician burnout syndrome
Gesner, E., Dykes, P. C., Zhang, L., & Gazarian, P. (2022) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0042-1757157 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Mendes-Santos, C., Nunes, F., Weiderpass, E., Santana, R., & Andersson, G. (2022) · JMIR Cancer · doi:10.2196/33550 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
“Acceptance was measured using the Portuguese version of the System Usability Scale [56], where a score <68 is considered below average.”
MethodInfluentialSantos, M. R., Malaguti, C., Cabral, L. A., Soares, A. L., Neves, L. H. G., Sena, L. D. A., Parmanto, B., Sauers, A. L., José, A., & Oliveira, C. C. (2023) · Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira · doi:10.1590/1806-9282.20230228 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Guiomar, R., Trindade, I. A., Carvalho, S. A., Menezes, P., Patrão, B., Nogueira, M. R., Lapa, T., Duarte, J., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Castilho, P. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.848590 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Martins, A. I., Rosa, A. F., Queirós, A., Silva, A., & Rocha, N. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Aveiro (PT)
- Corresponding author
- Martins, Ana Isabel
- Venue
- Procedia Computer Science
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 67
- Pages
- 293-300
- ISSN
- 1877-0509 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2229941360
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 6.56
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Procedia Computer Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Active and Assisted Living programme (UI 127/94 - IEETA)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- System Usability Scale, usability evaluation, European Portuguese translation, cultural adaptation, scale validation, construct validity, reliability statistics, Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire, user interface evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
