Cited by 75Technology Adoption and User BehaviourElectronic Health Records SystemsUsability and User Interface Design

Examining construct and predictive validity of the Health-IT Usability Evaluation Scale: confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling results

Open access
Yen, P.-Y., Sousa, K. H., Bakken, S.·2014·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In a previous study, we developed the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (Health-ITUES), which is designed to support customization at the item level. Such customization matches the specific tasks/expectations of a health IT system while retaining comparability at the construct level, and provides evidence of its factorial validity and internal consistency reliability through exploratory factor analysis. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we advanced the development of Health-ITUES to examine its construct validity and predictive validity. METHODS: The health IT system studied was a web-based communication system that supported nurse staffing and scheduling. Using Health-ITUES, we conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate users' perception toward the web-based communication system after system implementation. We examined Health-ITUES's construct validity through first and second order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and its predictive validity via structural equation modeling (SEM). RESULTS: The sample comprised 541 staff nurses in two healthcare organizations. The CFA (n=165) showed that a general usability factor accounted for 78.1%, 93.4%, 51.0%, and 39.9% of the explained variance in 'Quality of Work Life', 'Perceived Usefulness', 'Perceived Ease of Use', and 'User Control', respectively. The SEM (n=541) supported the predictive validity of Health-ITUES, explaining 64% of the variance in intention for system use. CONCLUSIONS: The results of CFA and SEM provide additional evidence for the construct and predictive validity of Health-ITUES. The customizability of Health-ITUES has the potential to support comparisons at the construct level, while allowing variation at the item level. We also illustrate application of Health-ITUES across stages of system development.

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 · 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001811

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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 original Health ITUES and the modified version for mHealth apps, several statements need to be customized by the questionnaire user.

    “In the original Health ITUES and the modified version for mHealth apps, several statements need to be customized by the questionnaire user [12,22].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yen, P.-Y., Sousa, K. H., & Bakken, S.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Yen, P.-Y.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2014-10-01
Volume
21
Issue
e2
Pages
e241-e248
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2207580776
Cited by
75
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Nursing Research (P30NR010677)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
construct validity, predictive validity, web-based communication system, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, user control, quality of work life, intention to use, staff nurses
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Medical Informatics, Models, Theoretical, Nursing Staff, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results

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