Measuring the Usability of Mobile Applications for Phones and Tablets
Abstract
The use of applications on mobile devices has reached historic levels. Using the System Usability Scale (SUS), data were collected on the usability of applications used on two kinds of mobile platforms—phones and tablets—across two general classes of operating systems, iOS and Android. Over 4 experiments, 3,575 users rated the usability of 10 applications that had been selected based on their popularity, as well as 5 additional applications that users had identified as using frequently. The average SUS rating for the top 10 apps across all platforms was 77.7, with a nearly 20-point spread (67.7–87.4) between the highest and lowest rated apps. Overall, applications on phone platforms were judged to be more usable than applications on the tablet platforms. Practitioners can use the information in this article to make better design decisions and benchmark their progress against a known universe of apps for their specific mobile platform.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Studies have also replicated the one-factor model of the SUS.
“and the one-factor model as well [24, 25].”
From Dimensionality of the system usability scale among professionals using internet-based interventions for depression: a confirmatory factor analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [24]
Several studies encountered an unintentional SUS factor structure caused by the mixed tone.
“However, several studies encountered an unintentional SUS factor structure caused by the mixed tone (e.g. ) [24].”
From Dimensionality of the system usability scale among professionals using internet-based interventions for depression: a confirmatory factor analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [24]
A large variety of product experience was also reported in studies that found a one-factor model.
“However, a large variety of product experience was also reported in studies that found a one-factor model (e.g. ) [24, 25].”
From Dimensionality of the system usability scale among professionals using internet-based interventions for depression: a confirmatory factor analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [24]
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · 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
Self-citationIBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use
Lewis, J. R. (1995) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447319509526110 · Cited by 2,429 · 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
Usability of mobile applications: literature review and rationale for a new usability model
Harrison, R., Flood, D., & Duce, D. (2013) · Journal of Interaction Science · doi:10.1186/2194-0827-1-1 · Cited by 736 · 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
Usability ratings for everyday products measured with the System Usability Scale
Kortum, P. T., & Bangor, A. (2013) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2012.681221 · Cited by 323 · cited 4× · see citing works
“This method has been successfully used to assess the subjective usability of common consumer products (Kortum & Bangor, 2013), complex programming software (Kortum & Johnson, 2013), and voting systems (Acemyan, Kortum, & Shafer, 2012).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationOn the dimensionality of the System Usability Scale: a test of alternative measurement models
Borsci, S., Federici, S., & Lauriola, M. (2009) · Cognitive Processing · doi:10.1007/s10339-009-0268-9 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
Diabetic e-Management System (DEMS)
Lutes, K. D., & Baggili, I. M. (2006) · Third International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG'06) · doi:10.1109/itng.2006.53 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
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
Mol, M., van Schaik, A., Dozeman, E., Ruwaard, J., Vis, C., Ebert, D. D., Etzelmueller, A., Mathiasen, K., Moles, B., Mora, T., et al. (2020) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-020-02627-8 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
García-Torres, F., García-Carmona, M., Rubio, S., Luque, B., Gómez-Solís, Á., & Aranda, E. (2023) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105131 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
O'Grady, M., Kapoor, S., Gilmer, E., Neighbors, C., Conigliaro, J., Kwon, N., & Morgenstern, J. (2019) · ACI Open · doi:10.1055/s-0039-1684002 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kortum, P., & Sorber, M.
- Affiliations
- Rice University (US)
- Cisco Systems (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kortum, Philip
- ORCID
- Kortum, Philip
- Venue
- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-07-31
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 518-529
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W1628516742
- Cited by
- 222
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 22.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile and Web Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Keywords
- software usability, System Usability Scale, smartphones, tablets, iOS, Android
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
