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
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.
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
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
Journal of Universal Computer Science
Salomaa, A. K., Calude, C. S., & Maurer, H. A. (2020) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.3217/jucs-000-00-0109 · Cited by 3,393
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
(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
Bingimlas, K. A. (2009) · EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education · doi:10.12973/ejmste/75275 · Cited by 1,209
Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: results from a worldwide educational assessment
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/s0360-1315(01)00045-8 · Cited by 1,189
Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education
Livingstone, S. (2012) · Oxford Review of Education · doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.577938 · Cited by 771 · cited 1×
“The contribution of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in education is very significant (Livingstone, 2012; De Witte & Rogge, 2014; Piper et al., 2015; Petko et al., 2017; Dushayeva, 2019; Altanopoulou et al., 2015; Safar et al., 2016).”
BackgroundMeasuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated?
Frøkjær, E., Hertzum, M., & Hornbæk, K. (2000) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/332040.332455 · Cited by 650
Cited by
Xing, W., Song, Y., Li, C., Liu, Z., Zhu, W., & Oh, H. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13586 · Cited by 50
Kim, M., Kim, J., Knotts, T. L., & Albers, N. D. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13398-8 · Cited by 38
Chen, P.-J., & Liou, W.-K. (2025) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104383 · Cited by 23
Cross-Cultural Gamification: Understanding Design and User Experience in Different Cultural Contexts
Asrifan, A., Kaddas, B., Mulyadi, M., Pratiwi, W. R., Supriadi, S., & Jabu, B. (2024) · Advances in Media, Entertainment, and the Arts · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-8322-3.ch001 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Vlachogianni, P., & Tselios, N.
- Venue
- Journal of Research on Technology in Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.