Cited by 156Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsHealth, Technology, Consumer BehaviorHealth Education and Validation

The German Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G): Development and Validation Study

Open access
Messner, Eva-Maria, Terhorst, Yannik, Barke, Antonia, Baumeister, Harald, Stoyanov, Stoyan, Hides, Leanne, Kavanagh, David, Pryss, Rüdiger +2 more·2020·JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: The number of mobile health apps (MHAs), which are developed to promote healthy behaviors, prevent disease onset, manage and cure diseases, or assist with rehabilitation measures, has exploded. App store star ratings and descriptions usually provide insufficient or even false information about app quality, although they are popular among end users. A rigorous systematic approach to establish and evaluate the quality of MHAs is urgently needed. The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) is an assessment tool that facilitates the objective and systematic evaluation of the quality of MHAs. However, a German MARS is currently not available. Objective: The aim of this study was to translate and validate a German version of the MARS (MARS-G). Methods: The original 19-item MARS was forward and backward translated twice, and the MARS-G was created. App description items were extended, and 104 MHAs were rated twice by eight independent bilingual researchers, using the MARS-G and MARS. The internal consistency, validity, and reliability of both scales were assessed. Mokken scale analysis was used to investigate the scalability of the overall scores. Results: The retranslated scale showed excellent alignment with the original MARS. Additionally, the properties of the MARS-G were comparable to those of the original MARS. The internal consistency was good for all subscales (ie, omega ranged from 0.72 to 0.91). The correlation coefficients (r) between the dimensions of the MARS-G and MARS ranged from 0.93 to 0.98. The scalability of the MARS (H=0.50) and MARS-G (H=0.48) were good. Conclusions: The MARS-G is a reliable and valid tool for experts and stakeholders to assess the quality of health apps in German-speaking populations. The overall score is a reliable quality indicator. However, further studies are needed to assess the factorial structure of the MARS and MARS-G.

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 · 10.2196/14479

Cites

40 of 40 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?

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

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Messner, E.-M., Terhorst, Y., Barke, A., Baumeister, H., Stoyanov, S., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D., Pryss, R., Sander, L., & Probst, T.
Affiliations
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (DE)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
Corresponding author
Messner, Eva-Maria
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Published
2020-03-27
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
e14479
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2975516305
Cited by
156
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2
FWCI
23.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Publication Server of the Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt) (submittedVersion)
  • Publication Server of the Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OPen Access Repositorium der Universität Ulm (OPARU) (Ulm University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Universität Ulm, Kommunikations- und Informationszentrum (kiz) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
Mobile App Rating Scale, mobile health apps, app quality assessment, cross-cultural adaptation, German translation, scale validation, Mokken scale analysis, scalability, app ratings, quality indicators
MeSH terms
Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Health Behavior, Mobile Applications

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