Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 386

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perceived usability evaluation of educational technology using the System Usability Scale (SUS): A systematic review

Vlachogianni, Prokopia, Tselios, Nikolaos·2022·Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Abstract

This article presents the findings of a systematic review of perceived usability of educational technology systems. The research was conducted after studying, organizing, and analyzing the results of 104 research papers evaluating perceived usability of educational technologies using the System Usability Scale (SUS). The results were organized on the basis of (a) the usability score obtained when using the SUS, (b) the type of educational technology used, (c) the subject being learned, (d) the level of education, (e) the type of participant, (f) the age, and (g) the number of participants in each survey. Statistical analysis in all surveys (N = 170) demonstrated a good level of usability but with some issues (M = 70.09, SD = 12.98). The categories of Internet platforms (M = 66.25, SD = 12.42), university websites (M = 63.82, SD = 16.52) and affective tutoring systems (ATS) (M = 68.87, SD = 7.30) seem to have a good usability level according to SUS, preceded by mobile applications (M = 73.62, SD = 13.49) and multimedia (M = 76.43, SD = 9.45). Moreover, SUS scores were not found to be significantly related with participants’ age (r = 0.017, p = 0.931, ns), stage of education (p = 0.539, ns), or the type of participants (p = 0.639, ns). Furthermore, the subject being learned (p = 0.038, s) and the number of participants in each survey (r = −0.259, p = 0.001, s) seem to relate to the obtained SUS scores. Α slight, statistically insignificant improvement is noted in the perceived usability over the years (p = 0.182, ns). The findings of this review will serve as a useful reference guide for educational technology designers, practitioners, and teachers.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15391523.2020.1867938

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 92 references

Cited by

See all 386

Metadata

Authors
Vlachogianni, P., & Tselios, N.
Venue
Journal of Research on Technology in Education
Published
2021-02-23
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
392-409
ISSN
  • 1539-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-0818
OpenAlex
W3132534209
Cited by
386
References
92
FWCI
5.41
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: Perceived usability evaluation of educational technology using the System Usability Scale (SUS): A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/15391523.2020.1867938
The paper
Vlachogianni, P., & Tselios, N. (2022). Perceived usability evaluation of educational technology using the System Usability Scale (SUS): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1867938

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.