Cited by 29Digital Mental Health InterventionsUsability and User Interface DesignMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Exploring user learnability and learning performance in an app for depression: usability study

Open access
Stiles-Shields, Colleen, Montague, Enid, Lattie, Emily G, Schueller, Stephen M, Kwasny, Mary J, Mohr, David C·2017·JMIR Human Factors

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mental health apps tend to be narrow in their functioning, with their focus mostly being on tracking, management, or psychoeducation. It is unclear what capability such apps have to facilitate a change in users, particularly in terms of learning key constructs relating to behavioral interventions. Thought Challenger (CBITs, Chicago) is a skill-building app that engages users in cognitive restructuring, a core component of cognitive therapy (CT) for depression. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the learnability and learning performance of users following initial use of Thought Challenger. METHODS: Twenty adults completed in-lab usability testing of Thought Challenger, which comprised two interactions with the app. Learnability was measured via completion times, error rates, and psychologist ratings of user entries in the app; learning performance was measured via a test of CT knowledge and skills. Nonparametric tests were conducted to evaluate the difference between individuals with no or mild depression to those with moderate to severe depression, as well as differences in completion times and pre- and posttests. RESULTS: Across the two interactions, the majority of completion times were found to be acceptable (5 min or less), with minimal errors (1.2%, 10/840) and successful completion of CT thought records. Furthermore, CT knowledge and skills significantly improved after the initial use of Thought Challenger (P=.009). CONCLUSIONS: The learning objectives for Thought Challenger during initial uses were successfully met in an evaluation with likely end users. The findings therefore suggest that apps are capable of providing users with opportunities for learning of intervention skills.

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/humanfactors.7951

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • The intervention promptly proceeds to the subsequent stage once the user reports the initial NAT they identify, which may unintentionally lead to the omission of other important NAT.

    “The intervention promptly proceeds to the subsequent stage once the user reports the initial NAT they identify, which may unintentionally lead to the omission of other important NAT (13), potentially compromising effectiveness (14).”

    From A virtual reality-based self-guided training on identification of negative automatic thoughts in healthy adults: a mixed-methods feasibility study (2024) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Methods section (“Thought Challenger”; page unavailable) describes a sequence in which the user enters a maladaptive thought before moving to reflective questions. It does not say that the app advances promptly or automatically after the first thought, or that this sequence may cause users to omit other important negative automatic thoughts. The separate effectiveness clause is attributed to citation (14), not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • After training, participants demonstrated a higher level of proficiency in identifying NAT in their homework and a better understanding of cognitive theory, surpassing previous research on APP intervention conducted in non-clinical populations.

    “After training, participants demonstrated a higher level of proficiency in identifying NAT in their homework and a better understanding of cognitive theory, surpassing previous research on APP intervention conducted in non-clinical populations (13).”

    From A virtual reality-based self-guided training on identification of negative automatic thoughts in healthy adults: a mixed-methods feasibility study (2024) · cites this paper as [13]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

2 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [19]Tullis T Albert B Measuring the user experience: Collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics, second edition 2008 Burlington, MA Morgan Kaufmann

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stiles-Shields, C., Montague, E., Lattie, E. G., Schueller, S. M., Kwasny, M. J., & Mohr, D. C.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Venue
JMIR Human Factors
Published
2017-08-11
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
e18
ISSN
2292-9495 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2743667149
Cited by
29
References
39
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5
FWCI
4.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Human Factors (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (RR025780)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH100482, F31MH106321, R01MH095753, K08MH102336)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR-025780, UL1RR025780)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
mental health apps, depression, cognitive restructuring, cognitive behavioral therapy, learnability, learning performance, usability, thought records, digital mental health interventions

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