The System Usability Scale: Past, Present, and Future
Abstract
The System Usability Scale (SUS) is the most widely used standardized questionnaire for the assessment of perceived usability. This review of the SUS covers its early history from inception in the 1980s through recent research and its future prospects. From relatively inauspicious beginnings, when its originator described it as a “quick and dirty usability scale,” it has proven to be quick but not “dirty.” It is likely that the SUS will continue to be a popular measurement of perceived usability for the foreseeable future. When researchers and practitioners need a measure of perceived usability, they should strongly consider using the SUS.
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?
The 10-item SUS is a validated questionnaire containing ten 5-point items with alternating positive and negative tone.
“The 10-item SUS is a validated questionnaire containing ten 5-point items with alternating positive and negative tone, rated from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) [64,65].”
From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [65]
The app-based therapeutic received a high usability rating on the SUS (mean 83.4 in Results; 83.5 in Abstract and Discussion), corresponding to an A rating.
“Results from the SUS indicate an average A rating (mean 83.4, median 88.7, IQR 75-96.9).”
From Development and feasibility of a digital acceptance and commitment therapy⇓based intervention for generalized anxiety disorder: Pilot acceptability study (2021) · cites this paper as [68]
The System Usability Scale (SUS) was included in the exit questionnaire to assess usability of the app.
“The System Usability Scale (SUS) was included as part of the exit questionnaire to assess usability of the app; it assesses the ability of the participant to effectively and efficiently complete tasks using the system, as well as the participant’s satisfaction in using the app.”
From Development and feasibility of a digital acceptance and commitment therapy⇓based intervention for generalized anxiety disorder: Pilot acceptability study (2021) · cites this paper as [68]
The SUS is reported to be a highly robust and versatile tool with excellent psychometric properties, with high internal reliability and concurrent validity with other measures of perceived and objective usability.
“The SUSis reported to be a highly robust and versatile tool with excellent psychometric properties. The literature shows that the internal reliability is high, with Cronbach's alphas at or > 0.9 (Bangor et al., 2008; Lewis et al., 2015) and concurrent validity with other measures of perceived and objective usability (Lewis, 2018).”
From Acceptability and Co-Development of an Online Cognitive Bias Modification Intervention for Emerging Adults With Hazardous Alcohol Use and Social Anxiety: A Mixed Methods Study (2020) · cites this paper as Lewis, 2018
The SUS is without costs, technology agnostic, brief, reliable and valid.
“In addition, it is without costs, technology agnostic, brief, reliable and valid [15].”
From Dimensionality of the system usability scale among professionals using internet-based interventions for depression: a confirmatory factor analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [15]
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
Armstrong, J. S., & Georgoff, D. M. (1988) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(88)90019-2 · Cited by 18,339 · 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
What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications
Cortina, J. M. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 · Cited by 8,810 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Reliability is an assessment of the consistency of a measurement, most commonly assessed with coefficient alpha (Cortina, 1993; Nunnally, 1978; Schmitt, 1996).”
BackgroundAn 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
Usability Evaluation In Industry
(1996) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781498710411 · Cited by 4,400 · see citing works
O’connor, B. P. (2000) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03200807 · Cited by 4,116 · see citing works
(2000) · Cited by 4,106 · see citing works
On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha
Sijtsma, K. (2009) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0 · Cited by 2,814 · see citing works
Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha
Schmitt, N. (1996) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350 · Cited by 2,588 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationThe One Number You Need to Grow
Rego, L. L., & Morgan, N. A. (2004) · Harvard business review · Cited by 2,046 · see citing works
Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface
Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, L. (1988) · ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) · doi:10.1145/57167.57203 · Cited by 1,631 · 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
Self-citation(2012) · Cited by 1,032 · see citing works
SUMI: the Software Usability Measurement Inventory
Kirakowski, J., & Corbett, M. (1993) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1993.tb00076.x · Cited by 630 · 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
Self-citationThe Usability Metric for User Experience
Finstad, K. (2010) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.004 · Cited by 604 · see citing works
Factors Defined by Negatively Keyed Items: The Result of Careless Respondents?
Schmitt, N., & Stuits, D. M. (1985) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/014662168500900405 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
Barnette, J. J. (2000) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/00131640021970592 · Cited by 529 · see citing works
Wong, N., Rindfleisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2003) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/374697 · Cited by 528 · see citing works
Determining what individual SUS scores mean
(2009) · Journal of Usability Studies archive · doi:10.5555/2835587.2835589 · Cited by 412 · see citing works
Maxwell, S. E., & Cliff, N. (1988) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290163 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Psychometric Evaluation of the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire: The PSSUQ
Lewis, J. R. (1992) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193129203601617 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
Self-citationWhen 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
Self-citationEuropean Portuguese Validation of the System Usability Scale (SUS)
Martins, A. I., Rosa, A. F., Queirós, A., Silva, A., & Rocha, N. P. (2015) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.273 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
Controlling Acquiescence Response Bias by Item Reversals: The Effect on Questionnaire Validity
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hill, K. D. (1981) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316448104100420 · Cited by 325 · 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 10× · see citing works
“There are different ways to interpret what these findings (Kortum & Bangor, 2013; Kortum & Sorber, 2015; Sauro, 2011) mean for industrial practice in user experience engineering.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMeasuring Perceived Usability: The CSUQ, SUS, and UMUX
Lewis, J. R. (2018) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2017.1418805 · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Self-citation(2008) · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-373558-4.x0001-5 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
On 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
Validation of the System Usability Scale (SUS)
Peres, S. C., Pham, T. M. T., & Phillips, R. G. (2013) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931213571043 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
UMUX-LITE: when there's no time for the SUS
Lewis, J. R., Utesch, B. S., & Maher, D. E. (2013) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2470654.2481287 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Self-citationDomino, G., & Domino, M. L. (2006) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813757 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
The Ultimate Question: Driving Good Profits and True Growth
Reichheld, F. (2006) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Measuring the Usability of Mobile Applications for Phones and Tablets
Kortum, P., & Sorber, M. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1064658 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Grier, R. A., Bangor, A. W., Kortum, P. T., & Peres, S. C. (2013) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931213571042 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Correlations among prototypical usability metrics
Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2009) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518947 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Ultimate Question: Driving Good Profits and True Growth
Mekonnen, A. (2006) · Journal of Targeting Measurement and Analysis for Marketing · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740195 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
The effect of experience on system usability scale ratings
McLellan, S. G., Muddimer, A., & Peres, S. C. (2012) · doi:10.5555/2835476.2835478 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Borsci, S., Federici, S., Bacci, S., Gnaldi, M., & Bartolucci, F. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1064648 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
The 'hedonic' in human-computer interaction
Diefenbach, S., Kolb, N., & Hassenzahl, M. (2014) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/2598510.2598549 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Behavioral Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction
Landauer, T. K. (1997) · Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1016/b978-044481862-1.50075-3 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
The system usability scale and non-native English speakers
Finstad, K. (2006) · Cited by 161 · see citing works
The Impact of Positive and Negative Item Stems on the Validity of a Computer Anxiety Scale
Pilotte, W. J., & Gable, R. K. (1990) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164490503016 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Measuring Perceived Usability: The SUS, UMUX-LITE, and AltUsability
Lewis, J. R., Utesch, B. S., & Maher, D. E. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1064654 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Self-citationSUPR-Q: a comprehensive measure of the quality of the website user experience
Sauro, J. (2015) · Journal of Usability Studies archive · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Revisiting the factor structure of the system usability scale
Lewis, J. R., & Sauro, J. (2017) · Journal of Usability Studies archive · doi:10.5555/3190867.3190870 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Self-citationPsychometric Properties of the Persian Language Version of the System Usability Scale
Dianat, I., Ghanbari, Z., & AsghariJafarabadi, M. (2014) · Tabriz University of Medical Sciences · doi:10.5681/hpp.2014.011 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Re-assessing the usability metric for user experience (UMUX) scale
Berkman, M. İ., & Karahoca, D. (2016) · Journal of Usability Studies archive · doi:10.5555/2993219.2993221 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
The Impact of Personality on the Subjective Assessment of Usability
Kortum, P. T., & Oswald, F. L. (2017) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2017.1336317 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
A Slovene Translation of the System Usability Scale: The SUS-SI
Blažica, B., & Lewis, J. R. (2014) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2014.986634 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Self-citationAlGhannam, B. A., Albustan, S. A., Al-Hassan, A. A., & Albustan, L. A. (2017) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2017.1388099 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Stewart, T. J., & FRYE, A. W. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200410001-00006 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Measurements of computer satisfaction, literacy, and aptitudes: A review
LaLomia, M. J., & Sidowski, J. B. (1990) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447319009525982 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Determining the Number of Common Factors in Factor Analysis: A Review and Program
Coovert, M. D., & McNelis, K. (1988) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164488483012 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
An empirical analysis of smartphone personalisation: measurement and user variability
Tossell, C. C., Kortum, P. T., Shepard, C. W., Rahmati, A., & Zhong, L. (2012) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2012.687773 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Lewis, J. R., Brown, J., & Mayes, D. K. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1064665 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Self-citationPre-testing of Polish Translation of System Usability Scale (SUS)
Borkowska, A., & Jach, K. (2016) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46583-8_12 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
The Relationship Between Levels of User Experience with a Product and Perceived System Usability
Kortum, P. T., & Johnson, M. (2013) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931213571044 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Emotional Metric Outcomes (EMO) Questionnaire
Lewis, J. R., & Mayes, D. K. (2014) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2014.930312 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationKortum, P. T., & Acemyan, C. Z. (2013) · doi:10.5555/2817705.2817707 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
How Expertise Affects a Digital-Rights-Management-Sharing Application's Usability
Lah, U., & Lewis, J. R. (2015) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/ms.2015.104 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citationUsing the SUS to Help Demonstrate Usability’s Value to Business Goals
Bangor, A. W., Joseph, K., Sweeney-Dillon, M. T., et al. (2013) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931213571045 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
The Impact of Geographic Location on the Subjective Assessment of System Usability
Kortum, P. T., & Acemyan, C. Z. (2018) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2018.1437865 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Introduction to the Special Issue: The Tricky Landscape of Developing Rating Scales in HCI
Lindgaard, G., & Kirakowski, J. (2013) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1093/iwc/iwt026 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
The Potential Utility of the System Usability Scale in U.S. Military Acquisition
Grier, R. A. (2013) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1541931213571046 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: opportunities and challenges
Bolaños, F., Salatino, A., Osborne, F., & Motta, E. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-024-10902-3 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
“In the same study, a set of SLR tools was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire [156].”
Nicol, G., Wang, R., Graham, S., Dodd, S., & Garbutt, J. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/40242 · Cited by 123 · 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
What Works Best to Engage Participants in Mobile App Interventions and e-Health: A Scoping Review
Oakley-Girvan, I., Yunis, R., Longmire, M., & Ouillon, J. S. (2022) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2021.0176 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
A therapist-guided smartphone app for major depression in young adults: A randomized clinical trial
Raevuori, A., Vahlberg, T., Korhonen, T., Hilgert, O., Aittakumpu-Hyden, R., & Forman-Hoffman, V. (2021) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.02.007 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Hennemann, S., Kuhn, S., Witthöft, M., & Jungmann, S. M. (2022) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/32832 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Held, P., Pridgen, S. A., Chen, Y., Akhtar, Z., Amin, D., & Pohorence, S. (2024) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/58195 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“Following their 2-week access to Socrates 2.0, clinicians will complete similar measures to the other users, including the System Usability Scale [31], Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, Feasibility of Intervention Measure [32], and Mobile Health App…”
MethodInfluentialHemmings, N. R., Kawadler, J. M., Whatmough, R., Ponzo, S., Rossi, A., Morelli, D., Bird, G., & Plans, D. (2021) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/21737 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
“5, which equates to an A rating, representing programs that people are likely to recommend to their friends [68].”
BackgroundIniesto, F., Coughlan, T., Lister, K., Devine, P., Freear, N., Greenwood, R., Holmes, W., Kenny, I., McLeod, K., & Tudor, R. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3568166 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Prior, K., Salemink, E., Wiers, R. W., Teachman, B. A., Piggott, M., Newton, N. C., Teesson, M., Baillie, A. J., Campbell, S., & Stapinski, L. A. (2020) · Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/acer.14452 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Nezami, F. N., Wächter, M. A., Maleki, N., Spaniol, P., Kühne, L. M., Haas, A., Pingel, J. M., Tiemann, L., Nienhaus, F., Keller, L., et al. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21051879 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Moulaei, K., Moulaei, R., & Bahaadinbeigy, K. (2024) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076241237384 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Patterson, V. C., Rossi, M. A., Pencer, A., & Wozney, L. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/33374 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“The SUS is the most widely used measure that is validated for testing usability across various iCBT programs [26,27], and it is designed to be tailored to the program being tested.”
Internet-delivered self-help for adults with ADHD (MyADHD): usability study
Kenter, R. M. F., Schønning, A., & Inal, Y. (2022) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/37137 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Web-based payroll management system: design, implementation, and evaluation
Ahmed, A. M., Mohammed, C. N., & Ahmad, A. M. (2023) · Journal of Electrical Systems and Information Technology · doi:10.1186/s43067-023-00082-5 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Ditton, E., Knott, B., Hodyl, N., Horton, G., Walker, F. R., & Nilsson, M. (2023) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/43263 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
AI-Facilitated Cognitive Reappraisal via Socrates 2.0: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.
Held, P., Pridgen, S. A., Szoke, D. R., Chen, Y., Akhtar, Z., & Amin, D. (2025) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/80461 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“…after the 4-week study period and also completed a set of validated usability and acceptability measures, such as the System Usability Scale [23], the Acceptability of Intervention Measure, the Intervention Appropriateness Measure, the Feasibility of Intervention Measure [24], and the…”
Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach
Nuseibeh, B. Z., Johns, S. A., Shih, P. C., Lewis, G. F., Gowan, T. M., & Jordan, E. J. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/59426 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Zhu, Y., Sui, D., Wang, Z., Hu, X., Gu, L., Qi, Y., Wu, T., Wang, L., Wei, Y., Tang, W., et al. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791458 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“After completing all 10 cases, participants filled out the System Usability Scale (SUS) [36] and the Trust in Automation scale for the AICare system.”
Giovanazzi, A., Gios, L., Gentilini, M. A., Mastellaro, M., Bartolotta, P., Nicolussi Giacomaz, L., Eccher, C., & Inchiostro, S. (2025) · Frontiers in Clinical Diabetes and Healthcare · doi:10.3389/fcdhc.2025.1589548 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Durepos, P., Ricketts, N., Olthuis, J. V., Gould, O. N., Boamah, S. A., McCloskey, R., Lanteigne, M., Giberson, E. R., Caverhill, K., Pickford, K., et al. (2026) · Journal of Applied Gerontology · doi:10.1177/07334648251338303 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“The SUS has evidence for internal consistency (typically α > .85) and concurrent validity when compared with other usability measures (Lewis, 2018).”
Dominguez-Rodriguez, A., Sanz-Gomez, S., González Ramírez, L. P., Herdoiza-Arroyo, P. E., Trevino Garcia, L. E., de la Rosa-Gómez, A., González-Cantero, J. O., Macias-Aguinaga, V., Arenas Landgrave, P., & Chávez-Valdez, S. M. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/53767 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“The System Usability Scale is a widely used standardized questionnaire, translated into many languages, such as Arabic, and Polish, among others [77].”
MethodChojecki, P., Strazdas, D., Przewozny, D., Gard, N., Runde, D., Hoerner, N., Al-Hamadi, A., Eisert, P., & Bosse, S. (2023) · doi:10.20944/preprints202304.0415.v2 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Song, J. W., Kim, M., Hong, C., Kim, Y. S., Cho, J., Kim, J. H., Myung, J., Choi, A., Yoon, H., Lee, S. G. W., et al. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.02.21.26346803
- Authors
- Lewis, J. R.
- Affiliations
- IBM (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lewis, James R.
- ORCID
- Lewis, James R.
- Venue
- International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-03-30
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 577-590
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W2795274753
- Cited by
- 1,958
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 377 · 2025: 456 · 2024: 344 · 2023: 302 · 2022: 222 · 2021: 174 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 6
- FWCI
- 63.97
- 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 › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Keywords
- System Usability Scale, perceived usability, usability measurement, usability evaluation, standardized questionnaires
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
