The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multi-Language Toolkit for the System Usability Scale
Abstract
The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a widely used instrument that measures the subjective usability of products and systems. Although past research has demonstrated the psychometric reliability and criterion-related validity of the SUS in specific languages, the approach and methodology of validating the translations has been somewhat inconsistent. This paper addresses this issue by systematically translating and validating the SUS across multiple languages. Native speakers of Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hindi, and Spanish evaluated five common everyday products using the translated SUS. Evidence of consistent scale reliability and validity was found in the Chinese, French, German and Spanish SUS, with Cronbach’s alpha often greater than .80, as well as large statistically significant correlations between the SUS and a one-item adjective rating self-report of overall usability (r =.54-.74). Validity of the SUS across languages was also demonstrated by finding reliable differences in mean SUS scores between products. Overall, these translated SUS measures can be used with confidence in practice to measure the usability of everyday products and systems.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Moreover, a study conducted in 2020 examined the Arabic, Chinese, French, German, and Spanish versions of the SUS [14]. The study found that these SUS versions were adequately adapted; however, cultural differences had to be highlighted [14].”
From System Usability Scale Benchmarking for Digital Health Apps: Meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“Using the SUS (Gao et al., 2020) the practicability and usability of an early TONI prototype achieved excellent results (85,2 of a total score of 100 points).”
From TONI - One for all? Participatory development of a transtheoretic and transdiagnostic online intervention for blended care (2024) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2020
In the citing paper
“Using the SUS (Gao et al., 2020), participants also evaluated an early TONI prototype according to its practicability and usability. The prototype achieved excellent results (83,3 of a total score of 100 points).”
From TONI - One for all? Participatory development of a transtheoretic and transdiagnostic online intervention for blended care (2024) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2020
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Statistical power analyses using G∗Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.41.4.1149 · Cited by 37,615
(1991) · Cited by 15,554
A Rationale and Test for the Number of Factors in Factor Analysis
Horn, J. L. (1965) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02289447 · Cited by 9,527
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
Self-citationUsability Evaluation In Industry
(1996) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781498710411 · Cited by 4,445
The Performance of RMSEA in Models With Small Degrees of Freedom
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124114543236 · Cited by 2,841
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
The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods
(2020) · The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods · doi:10.34190/jbrm · Cited by 2,344
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284919 · Cited by 2,053
The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250 · Cited by 2,021
(2013) · Journal of Usability Studies archive · Cited by 1,357
Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling
Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1003_1 · Cited by 1,231
(2012) · Cited by 1,032
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
Determining what individual SUS scores mean
(2009) · Journal of Usability Studies archive · doi:10.5555/2835587.2835589 · Cited by 412
Self-citationResearch Methods in Human-Computer Interaction
Landauer, T. (1988) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-70536-5.50047-6 · Cited by 384
European 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
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
Self-citationCross-Cultural Technology DesignCreating Culture-Sensitive Technology for Local Users
Sun, H. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744763.001.0001 · Cited by 283
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
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
Cultural cognition in usability evaluation
Clemmensen, T., Hertzum, M., Hornbæk, K., Shi, Q., & Yammiyavar, P. G. (2009) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2009.05.003 · Cited by 155
Designing User Interfaces for International Use
Nielsen, J. (1990) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 145
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
Introducing ATMs in India: a contextual inquiry
Angeli, A. D., Athavankar, U., Joshi, A. N., Coventry, L., & Johnson, G. I. (2003) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2003.11.003 · Cited by 102
Psychometric 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
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 67
Frandsen-Thorlacius, O., Hornbæk, K., Hertzum, M., & Clemmensen, T. (2009) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518708 · Cited by 67
An Overview of a Decade of Journal Publications about Culture and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)
Clemmensen, T., & Roese, K. (2010) · IFIP International Federation for Information Processing/IFIP · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11762-6_9 · Cited by 61
Is It Time to Go Positive? Assessing the Positively Worded System Usability Scale (SUS)
Kortum, P. T., Acemyan, C. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2020) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720819881556 · Cited by 58
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
Cultural differences in smartphone user experience evaluation
Walsh, T., Nurkka, P., & Walsh, R. (2010) · International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM) · doi:10.1145/1899475.1899499 · Cited by 44
Cultural effects in usability assessment
Yeo, A. W. (1998) · doi:10.1145/286498.286536 · Cited by 41
Pre-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
Towards a Theory of Cultural Usability: A Comparison of ADA and CM-U Theory
Clemmensen, T. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_48 · Cited by 29
Seddig, D., & Lomazzi, V. (2019) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102328 · Cited by 26
Exploring the Impact of Cultures on Web Usability Test
Hsieh, H. C. L. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21753-1_6 · Cited by 9
Jönsson, O., Haak, M., Tomsone, S., Iwarsson, S., Schmidt, S., Mårtensson, K., Svensson, T., & Slaug, B. (2016) · Lund University Publications (Lund University) · Cited by 7
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Bangor A., 2009, Journal of Usability Studies, 4, 114
- Brooke J., 2013, Journal of Usability Studies, 8, 29
- Dianat I., 2014, Health Promotion Perspectives, 4, 82
- Fernandes T., 1995, Global interface design: A guide to designing international user interfaces
- Jonsson O., 2016, Journal of Usability Studies, 12, 26
- Lewis J. R., 2017, Journal of Usability Studies, 12, 183
- Li, Z. (2014). Critical evaluation of cross-cultural impact on usability studies: Analysis and case study data collection [Doctoral dissertation]. California State University.
- Sheu F. R., 2017, Workshop Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computers in Education, 28
Cited by
Sorted by citations
System Usability Scale Benchmarking for Digital Health Apps: Meta-analysis
Hyzy, M., Bond, R., Mulvenna, M., Bai, L., Dix, A., Leigh, S., & Hunt, S. (2022) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/37290 · Cited by 510
“The study found that these SUS versions were adequately adapted; however, cultural differences had to be highlighted [14].”
BackgroundTranslation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the System Usability Scale to Brazilian Portuguese
Lourenço, D. F., Carmona, E. V., & Lopes, M. H. B. D. M. (2022) · Aquichan · doi:10.5294/aqui.2022.22.2.8 · Cited by 71
Daling, L. M., Tenbrock, M., Isenhardt, I., & Schlittmeier, S. J. (2023) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104021 · Cited by 49
Altorfer, P., Adcock, M., de Bruin, E. D., Gräf, F., & Giannouli, E. (2021) · Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2021.739948 · Cited by 34
Dittli, J., Meyer, J. T., Gantenbein, J., Bützer, T., Ranzani, R., Linke, A. D., Curt, A. E. P., Gassert, R., & Lambercy, O. (2023) · Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/s12984-023-01284-8 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Gao, M., Kortum, P., & Oswald, F. L.
- Affiliations
- Rice University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kortum, Philip
- Venue
- International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-08-19
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 1883-1901
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W3062812444
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 8
- FWCI
- 9.09
- 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
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- System Usability Scale, usability measurement, cross-lingual translation, psychometric validation, scale reliability, criterion validity, everyday products, Arabic language, Chinese, French language, German, Hindi, Spanish language
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
