The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring Perceived Usability: The CSUQ, SUS, and UMUX
Abstract
The primary purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship between two widely used questionnaires designed to measure perceived usability: the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ) and the System Usability Scale (SUS). The correlation between concurrently collected CSUQ and SUS scores was 0.76 (over 50% shared variance). After converting CSUQ scores to a 0–100-point scale (to match the range of the SUS scores), there was a small but statistically significant difference between CSUQ and SUS means. Although this difference (just under 2 scale points out of a possible 100) was statistically significant, it did not appear to be practically significant. Although usability practitioners should be cautious pending additional independent replication, it appears that CSUQ scores, after conversion to a 0–100-point scale, can be interpreted with the Sauro–Lewis curved grading scale. As a secondary research goal, investigation of variations of the Usability Metric for User Experience (UMUX) replicated previous findings that the regression-adjusted version of the UMUX-LITE (UMUX-LITEr) had the closest correspondence with concurrently collected SUS scores. Thus, even though these three standardized questionnaires were independently developed and have different item content and formats, they largely appear to be measuring the same thing, presumably, perceived usability.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
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
SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale
(1996) · Usability Evaluation In Industry · doi:10.1201/9781498710411-35 · Cited by 8,989
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
Usability Evaluation In Industry
(1996) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781498710411 · Cited by 4,354
O’connor, B. P. (2000) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03200807 · Cited by 4,116
Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha
Schmitt, N. (1996) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350 · Cited by 2,588
IBM 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
Self-citationDevelopment of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface
Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, L. K. (1988) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '88 · doi:10.1145/57167.57203 · Cited by 1,609
(2013) · Journal of Usability Studies archive · Cited by 1,357
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
Self-citation
Cited by
An overview of clinical decision support systems: Benefits, risks, and strategies for success
Sutton, R. T., Pincock, D., Baumgart, D. C., Sadowski, D. C., Fedorak, R. N., & Kroeker, K. I. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0221-y · Cited by 3,019
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
Self-citationCacciante, L., Federico, S., Maistrello, L., Kiper, P., De Icco, R., Milanesi, T., Tassorelli, C., Gatti, R., Jonsdottir, J., Franceschini, M., et al. (2025) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076241308617 · Cited by 7
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
Gustafson, D. H., Mares, M.-L., Johnston, D. C., Landucci, G., Pe-Romashko, K., Vjorn, O. J., Hu, Y., Gustafson, D. H., Maus, A., Mahoney, J. E., et al. (2022) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/37522 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Lewis, J. R.
- Venue
- International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-01-09
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1148-1156
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W2784220379
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 18.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring Perceived Usability: The CSUQ, SUS, and UMUX. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10447318.2017.1418805
- The paper
- Lewis, J. R. (2018). Measuring Perceived Usability: The CSUQ, SUS, and UMUX. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1418805
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
