The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS)
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) provides a reliable method to assess the quality of mobile health (mHealth) apps. However, training and expertise in mHealth and the relevant health field is required to administer it. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development and reliability testing of an end-user version of the MARS (uMARS). METHODS: The MARS was simplified and piloted with 13 young people to create the uMARS. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the uMARS was then examined in a second sample of 164 young people participating in a randomized controlled trial of a mHealth app. App ratings were collected using the uMARS at 1-, 3,- and 6-month follow up. RESULTS: The uMARS had excellent internal consistency (alpha = .90), with high individual alphas for all subscales. The total score and subscales had good test-retest reliability over both 1-2 months and 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The uMARS is a simple tool that can be reliably used by end-users to assess the quality of mHealth apps.
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the uMARS total score and subscales were shown as excellent in the RCT (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90) (46).”
From Improving mental well-being in psychocardiology—a feasibility trial for a non-blended web application as a brief metacognitive-based intervention in cardiovascular disease patients (2023) · cites this paper as [46]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Overall, the uMARS demonstrates good internal reliability (α = 0.90), and the subscales demonstrate moderate reliability (α = 0.71 and 0.80) (Stoyanov et al., 2016).”
From Pilot study of a well-being app to support New Zealand young people during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as Stoyanov et al., 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The usability and acceptability of the technology were assessed using qualitative methods and standard measures, such as the survey based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology [27], the Mobile Application Rating Scale [28], and the System Usability and After-Scenario Questionnaire [29].”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“Both MARS and uMARS included some usability components such as engagement, functionality, and information quality; however, they were not specifically designed to study usability with end users.”
From The mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ): Development and Validation Study (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“Shortly thereafter, a simpler user version of MARS (uMARS) was created for the general population for the same purpose [37].”
From The mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ): Development and Validation Study (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
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
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532 · cited 1×
“Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) [16-18] were used, as they provide weighted values of rater agreement and assess proximity rather than equality of ratings.”
Flesch, R. (1948) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0057532 · Cited by 5,391 · cited 1×
“Readability of the MARS and the draft uMARS was then determined using the Flesch Reading Ease test [12,13], which has a score range of 0-100, with higher scores indicating easier readability.”
QUANTIFYING TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY USING THE INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AND THE SEM
Weir, J. P. (2005) · The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/15184.1 · Cited by 4,864 · cited 1×
“Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) [16-18] were used, as they provide weighted values of rater agreement and assess proximity rather than equality of ratings.”
Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial
Hallgren, K. A. (2012) · Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology · doi:10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023 · Cited by 3,884 · cited 3×
“The uMARS total score demonstrated good [16] levels of ICC of .”
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, Jr., Robert P., R., Richard L., C., & Brad, S. (1975) · doi:10.21236/ada006655 · Cited by 3,497
Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps
Stoyanov, S. R., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D. J., Zelenko, O., Tjondronegoro, D., & Mani, M. (2015) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.3422 · Cited by 2,233 · cited 2×
“In response to these issues, we developed the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) to provide researchers, professionals, and clinicians with a brief tool for classifying and assessing the quality of mHealth apps [11].”
Self-citationFree, C., Phillips, G., Watson, L., Galli, L., Felix, L., Edwards, P., Patel, V., & Haines, A. (2013) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001363 · Cited by 1,187
Andersson, G., Cuijpers, P., Carlbring, P., Riper, H., & Hedman, E. (2014) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20151 · Cited by 1,077 · cited 1×
“There are currently more than 165,000 mHealth apps (free and paid) publicly available [1], yet the accuracy of the health information contained in these apps is not scrutinized by regulatory bodies [2], which could compromise user health and safety [3-5].”
Mapping mHealth research: a decade of evolution
Fiordelli, M., Diviani, N., & Schulz, P. J. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2430 · Cited by 570 · cited 1×
“While meta-analytic studies have demonstrated the efficacy of mHealth apps targeting physical activity and weight loss [6,7], the evidence base for other types of mHealth apps is poor at best [8-10].”
Review and evaluation of mindfulness-based iPhone apps
Mani, M., Kavanagh, D. J., Hides, L., & Stoyanov, S. R. (2015) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.4328 · Cited by 495
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- SuWA preliminary survey of knowledge discovery on smartphone applications (apps): Principles, techniques and research directions for e-healtharXiv preprint arXiv20140626International Conference on Complex Medical EngineeringJune 26-29, 2014Taipei, Taiwan14077314
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–600 of 870
Rendell, R., Pinheiro, M. B., Wang, B., McKay, F. H., Ewen, A., Carnegie, C., Tikomaidelana, E., Fattah, Z., & Hassett, L. M. (2024) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare12090929 · Cited by 3
The Role of Health Marketing in the Dissemination of AI and ML Application in Preventive Health
de Moura, L. E. L., Sousa, B. B., & Veloso, C. M. (2024) · Advances in marketing, customer relationship management, and e-services book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-2153-9.ch004 · Cited by 3
Nutrition Management Miniprograms in WeChat: Evaluation of Functionality and Quality
Sun, H., Wu, Y.-P., Sun, J., Zhou, W., Xu, Q., & Hu, D. (2024) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/56486 · Cited by 4
Grube, L., Petit, P., Vuillerme, N., Nitschke, M., Nwosu, O. B., Knitza, J., Krusche, M., Seifer, A.-K., Eskofier, B. M., Schett, G. A., et al. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/57185 · Cited by 3
Ponce-Ramírez, C. M., Mateo‐Orcajada, A., Abenza‐Cano, L., & Vaquero‐Cristóbal, R. (2024) · International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications · doi:10.1155/2024/8038334 · Cited by 4
Grieve, N. J., Braaten, K., MacPherson, M., Liu, S., & Jung, M. E. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/59386 · Cited by 3
Advance Care Planning in Dialysis Patients With a Conversation Game
Teso, A. D., Rodrigues, M. G. D. R., Pauly, C. B., Lefuel, P., Escher, M., & Clavien, C. (2025) · Kidney International Reports · doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2025.11.001 · Cited by 3
“…aspects and perceived impact), and of Anticip’action (relevance, understandability, emotional impact, over-all endorsement, and perceived impact – evaluated using 5-point Likert scales items partly taken from the user MARS questionnaire , validated for reliability and objectivity 26 ).”
Intervention Platform for Action Observation and Motor Imagery Training After Stroke: Usability Test
Fuchshofer, K., Merz, C., Denecke, K., & Schuster‐Amft, C. (2022) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/shti220324 · Cited by 3
Sogono, P. G., Bacorro, W., Sideno, J. E., Escuadra, C. J. T., Que, J. C., & Ortin, T. T. S. (2018) · Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy · doi:10.21037/jhmhp.2018.04.08 · Cited by 3
Mobile applications for emerging adults transitioning to independent diabetes monitoring
Schindler-Ruwisch, J. M., & Peters, A. (2020) · Informatics for Health and Social Care · doi:10.1080/17538157.2020.1837839 · Cited by 3
Hijab, M. H. F., Banire, B., & Al‐Thani, D. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-05637-6_27 · Cited by 3
Park, Y., Kim, D., Park, S., Na, J., Choi, Y., Ho, S. H., Lee, M., Kim, J. H., Kim, J. H., & Lee, J. (2022) · International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR) · doi:10.1109/ur55393.2022.9826273 · Cited by 3
Johnson, A. K., & Choi, S. W. (2022) · mHealth · doi:10.21037/mhealth-22-28 · Cited by 3
“QuestExplore was also evaluated by stakeholders using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) Questionnaire, a validated, quantitative rating that has been used for evaluation of thousands of mHealth apps to date (1,7,8).”
Compliance and Usability of an Asthma Home Monitoring System
Tsang, K. C. H., Pinnock, H., Wilson, A. M., Salvi, D., Olsson, C. M., & Shah, S. A. (2023) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-34586-9_9 · Cited by 2
Moore, H., White, M. J., Finlayson, G., & King, N. A. (2023) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-023-00453-3 · Cited by 2
“The user experience during the RIT app-based task was assessed by the user Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS; Stoyanov et al., 2016).”
Aplicativos móveis para o auxílio ao aleitamento materno no Brasil: protocolo de revisão de escopo
Leal, I. C., Gouvêa, E. F. G., Campos, L. M., de Oliveira, A. J. D., Teles, D. C. D. S., Silva, T. R. M., Barroso, J. M., Motta, A. R., & Furlan, R. M. M. M. (2023) · Revista CEFAC · doi:10.1590/1982-0216/20232569323s · Cited by 2
Mobile Health Solutions for Tinnitus
Mehdi, M., Hauck, F. J., Pryss, R., & Schlee, W. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35647-6_57 · Cited by 2
Durneva, P., & LeRouge, C. (2024) · Health Systems · doi:10.1080/20476965.2024.2435815 · Cited by 2
“MARS covers dimensions such as engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality (Stoyanov et al., 2016).”
Dubbala, K., Prizak, R., Metzler, I., & Rubeis, G. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/53823 · Cited by 2
“Our approach builds on previous studies that have used automated methods for collection of metadata from mHealth apps [27,42-46] and aimed to overcome the challenges posed by restrictive database designs, throttling limits, and IP blocking by using a replicable web crawling method.”
Morenigbade, H., Aljaber, T., Gordon, N. A., & Eke, G. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0319828 · Cited by 2
Persian adaptation and validation of the user version of The Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS)
Kohzadi, Z., Rahmatizadeh, S., Kohzadi, Z., & Valizadeh-Haghi, S. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320349 · Cited by 2
“The uMARS tool is a practical and feasible means of assessing the quality of an app by a layperson with no specialized training [17,18].”
InfluentialFrom Research to the Clinic: Using Technology to Measure Gait in Neurorehabilitation
Cain, A., & Leech, K. A. (2025) · Neurology Report · doi:10.1097/npt.0000000000000523 · Cited by 2
Wu, L., Pan, J., Dou, C., Gu, A., Huang, A., Tao, H., Wang, X., Zhang, C., & Wang, L. (2025) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/69637 · Cited by 2
“…been developed to evaluate the quality of mHealth apps, such as the User Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (uMARS) developed by Stoyanov et al [22], the Evaluation Tool for Mobile and Web-Based eHealth Interventions (ENLIGHT) developed by Baumel et al [23], and the System Usability Scale…”
Sheilini, M., Hande, M., Ravishankar, N., Akshay, M. J., Nayak, J., & Chandrababu, R. (2025) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/67216 · Cited by 3
“To check the quality and usefulness of the mHealth app, the mobile application rating scale (Multimedia Appendix 4) [30,31] was used by 12 participants from the experimental group after a few days of app usage.”
Chen, S., Wu, Y., Kennedy, J., Panza, G. A., Guidry, M. A., Pescatello, L. S., & FACSM (2025) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076251360884 · Cited by 2
“Furthermore, the large sample size of this study is generally uncommon among health care app evaluation survey studies that typically have samples ranging in size from 45 to 115 participants.”
InfluentialBucher, C. O., Martin, L., Santo, A. D., Pluchino, N., & Rio, L. M. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-103140 · Cited by 2
Sethi, M. I. S., Manickam, T., Chakraborty, T., & Math, S. B. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/75616 · Cited by 2
de Jesus, N. T., Lima, M. G. A., Leitão, H. A. D. S., & Dantas, D. D. S. (2025) · BioMedInformatics · doi:10.3390/biomedinformatics5040062 · Cited by 2
User Evaluation of Mobile Application for Dental Caries Management in Children and Adolescents
Yeo, A., Kang, Y., & Lee, S. (2025) · International Journal of Dental Hygiene · doi:10.1111/idh.70004 · Cited by 2
Kautz‐Turnbull, C., Olson, H. C., Coles, C. D., Tapparello, C., Love, K., Luehmann, A., Cole, L. L., Toth, S. L., Speybroeck, E. L., & Petrenko, C. L. M. (2025) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/acer.70189 · Cited by 2
Rizzi, S., Nicoletti, A. E., Luca, C. D., Poggianella, S., Dalmonego, C., Paoli, C., Marroni, D., Burlon, B., Chiodega, V., Dallafior, M., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1633229 · Cited by 3
“Usability and engagement measures include the User Engagement Scale Short-form (UES-SF) (28), the System Usability Scale (SUS) (29), the Italian version of the Chatbot Usability Scale (ITA BUS B) (30), and the User Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) (31).”
InfluentialDesign and development of an mHealth application for pressure ulcer care and caregiver support
Jogi, S., Shanbhag, V., Chauhan, L., Chhauda, S., Dubey, U., Shenoy, K. B. A., & Devi, E. S. (2025) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1694486 · Cited by 2
Mateo‐Orcajada, A., Abenza‐Cano, L., & Vaquero‐Cristóbal, R. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-25919-8 · Cited by 3
“The quality of the mobile apps will be evaluated by EG adolescents using the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) [44], a 26-item tool assessing objective (engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information) and subjective aspects on a 5-point Likert scale.”
Hagemann, S., Vigil-Hayes, M., Amresh, A., Adams, M., Joseph, D. H., & Collier, A. F. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/77898 · Cited by 2
“The contributions of this study are as follows: • We conducted a remote user study with 9 Hopi/Tewa youth (aged 14-24 years) to evaluate the acceptability of the ARORA app using a modified version of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale [30] and a subsequent focus group.”
Real-World Meditation App Engagement: Longitudinal Study of the Medito Meditation App
Adams, J. A., Davies, J. N., Wattanatakulchat, P., Galante, J., D’Alfonso, S., & Christodoulides, N. (2026) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/79366 · Cited by 2
“Digital therapeutic alliance or the relationship between the user and the digital intervention [84] and user Mobile Application Rating Scale [85] engagement (ie, appeal) merits further investigation as they have some of the strongest zero-order correlations with engagement [7].”
Petrenko, C. L. M., Rockhold, M. N., Myers, J., Tapparello, C., Kautz‐Turnbull, C., Speybroeck, E. L., Li, Z., Cole, L. L., & Olson, H. C. (2026) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/73647 · Cited by 2
“The uMARS [42] Family Forum, (4) Library, and (5) Notebook (Figure 1).”
Ziller, C., Gäumann, S., Lüscher, S., Paulissen, N., Behrendt, F., Suica, Z., Crüts, B., Gamerschlag, L., Parmar, K., Gerth, H. U., et al. (2026) · JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · doi:10.2196/77090 · Cited by 2
“…pressure measurements and on how to complete 2 questionnaires through the app (Stroke Impact Scale [SIS; 25,26], 36-Item Short Form Survey Instrument [SF-36 SF-36 ; 27 ,28 ]) Therapists were also introduced to the use of the app and had the opportunity to test it at the beginning of the session.”
Lin, H., Zhong, Y., Zheng, S., Jiang, X., Xu, Y., Chan, S., Liu, S., Chow, K. M., Yang, Q., Huang, W., et al. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/85913 · Cited by 2
Janabi, I. A., & Bland, T. (2026) · AI · doi:10.3390/ai7060223 · Cited by 2
Changing Behavior Using Control Theory
Mansell, W. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.009 · Cited by 11
Usability evaluation of a mHealth application for overweight and obesity
Palma, G. C. F. D. S., Ito, M., Silva, J. J., & Monteiro, A. M. V. (2023) · Journal of Health Informatics · doi:10.59681/2175-4411.v15.i1.2023.966 · Cited by 2
Translation and cross-cultural adaptation into Portuguese-Brazil of NuHISS, Enlight, and uMARS
Vasconcelos, J. M., Viana, Y. G., Pereira, N. D., & Polese, J. C. (2024) · Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies · doi:10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.01.009 · Cited by 2
Mobile app measuring sleep and behaviors: A trial in adolescents with addiction
Pitrat, B., Turpin, A., Peyret, E., Hamonnière, T., Drain, A., Maatoug, R., & Roux, É. L. (2024) · L Encéphale · doi:10.1016/j.encep.2023.11.007 · Cited by 3
Haegens, L. L., Huiskes, V. J. B., Bekker, C. L., & van den Bemt, B. J. F. (2024) · European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · doi:10.1136/ejhpharm-2023-004028 · Cited by 2
“26 Items from the uMARS questionnaire were screened and selected for applicability to this study by LH and CB. Selected questions were initially applied to the smartphone application and translated by LH, checked by CB, and adjusted by LH and CB until all discrepancies were resolved (English…”
Mobile calculator application for estimating human erythrocyte antigen frequency in Korea
Shin, D. W., Hong, Y. J., & Park, K. U. (2024) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1093/ajcp/aqae070 · Cited by 2
French Version of the User Mobile Application Rating Scale: Adaptation and Validation Study
Saliasi, I., Lan, R., Rhanoui, M., Fraticelli, L., Viennot, S., Tardivo, D., Clément, C., de Vigneulles, B. D. S., Bernard, S., Darlington-Bernard, A., et al. (2024) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/63776 · Cited by 2
“This study followed and applied the universalist approach [30] to translate, cross-culturally adapt, and validate the original version of uMARS [23] into French.”
InfluentialDesenvolvimento do método para avaliação de aplicativos móveis em saúde
Ferauche, T. M. Y., Silva, J. J., & Ito, M. (2024) · Journal of Health Informatics · doi:10.59681/2175-4411.v16.iespecial.2024.1320 · Cited by 2
Bhat, B., Nayak, P. P., Prabhakar, R. V., & Singhal, D. (2024) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.142038.2 · Cited by 2
Kim, M., & Hwang, S. Y. (2025) · Cancer Nursing · doi:10.1097/ncc.0000000000001459 · Cited by 2
Hakobyan, O., Hillmann, P.-J., Martin, F., Böttinger, E. P., & Drimalla, H. (2025) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02593-z · Cited by 4
“The perceived impact of the visual feed-back was evaluated by a modified version of the uMARS questionnaire, section F (Stoyanov et al., 2016).”
Thabrew, H., Boggiss, A. L., Hunt, P., Lim, D. H., Cavadino, A., & Serlachius, A. S. (2025) · Journal of Mental Health · doi:10.1080/09638237.2025.2460123 · Cited by 2
“Guided by the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS; Stoyanov et al., 2016) framework, a realist episte-mology position was chosen in which directed content analysis was used to systematically organise the data to find key themes and patterns amongst the data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).”
Gómez-Cuesta, N., Mateo‐Orcajada, A., Meroño, L., Abenza‐Cano, L., & Vaquero‐Cristóbal, R. (2025) · Children · doi:10.3390/children12050554 · Cited by 2
“The objective quality is divided into four sections: engagement (internal consistencies: α = 0.80), functionality (internal consis-tencies: α = 0.70), aesthetics (internal consistencies: α = 0.71), and information (internal consistencies: α = 0.78) [31].”
InfluentialRoberts, K. E., Beckenkamp, P. R., Comachio, J., Castrillón, C. I. M., Cabral, A. M., Ho, E. K., Comis, J., Jensen, C., Gordon, C., & Ferreira, P. H. (2025) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/14604582251340548 · Cited by 3
Shrivastava, T. P., Wagdhare, S., Saboo, B., & Goyal, R. K. (2025) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076251343700 · Cited by 2
“25,26 All the apps selected in Phase-II along with “ Madhumeh Setu ” were subjected to quality assessment by 6 secondary reviewers (including 2 Physicians, 2 Nurses, and 2 Pharmacists) as invited experts, utilizing MARS during May 2023.”
Gravas, S., Chasiotis, G., Gacci, M., Çalık, G., Liaci, A., Dellis, A., Sountoulides, P., Laguna, M. P., & de la Rosette, J. J. M. C. H. (2025) · Minerva Urology and Nephrology · doi:10.23736/s2724-6051.25.06352-9 · Cited by 2
Furlonger, B., Chung, J., Ostojic, M., Busacca, M. L., Moore, D. W., Anderson, A., Phillips, K. J., & D’Souza, L. (2020) · The Educational and Developmental Psychologist · doi:10.1017/edp.2020.3 · Cited by 2
Behavior Change in Community Contexts
Trickett, E. J., & Paterson, S. E. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.028 · Cited by 2
Des repères pour la conception des apps ?
Khazaal, Y., Potvin, S., Pennou, A., Djomo, W., Borgeat, F., & Lecomte, T. (2021) · Santé mentale au Québec · doi:10.7202/1081512ar · Cited by 4
Chan, P., Furlonger, B., Leif, E., D’Souza, L., Phillips, K. J., & Mattia, M. D. (2022) · The Educational and Developmental Psychologist · doi:10.1080/20590776.2022.2066994 · Cited by 2
“Information is about whether apps contain high quality information (for the complete scale, see Stoyanov et al., 2016).”
InfluentialPerceptions and Usability of PREVENTION: A Breast Cancer Risk Assessment e-Platform
Attieh, S., Monarque, M., Durand, A., Ahmed, S., Knoppers, B. M., Simard, J., & Loiselle, C. G. (2023) · Journal of Personalized Medicine · doi:10.3390/jpm13050850 · Cited by 2
“The uMARS had good psychometric properties and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha; α = 0.70–0.80) on subscales with high overall consistency ( α = 0.90) [23].”
InfluentialIntroducing the Chronic Disease mHealth App Quality Evaluation Framework (CHRONIQ)
Charlie, C., & Cilliers, L. (2024) · Conference on Information Communications Technology and Society (ICTAS) · doi:10.1109/ictas59620.2024.10507109 · Cited by 2
“The construct assesses patients' inclination to continue using the app based on perceived value, ease of use, and anticipated benefits in chronic disease management, retaining patients' interest and commitment to using the app over an extended period [41][42].”
Aydoğdu, Y. Ö., Somyürek, S., & Durak, H. Y. (2024) · Buca eğitim fakültesi dergisi (Online)/Buca Eğitim Fakültesi dergisi · doi:10.53444/deubefd.1388335 · Cited by 2
Quality improvement criteria of apps in Spanish for people with disabilities
Larco, A., Montenegro, C., & Luján‐Mora, S. (2018) · International Conference on Information Management · doi:10.1109/infoman.2018.8392846 · Cited by 2
Turning Ideas into Reality for mHealth Technology Users with Disabilities
Kim, H. N. (2020) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-60703-6_9 · Cited by 2
Perceptions of BELONG as a supportive e‐platform used by women with gynecologic cancers
Ahmed, S., Gotlieb, W. H., Erez, G., & Loiselle, C. G. (2021) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.5785 · Cited by 2
Gasteiger, N., Dowding, D., Norman, G., McGarrigle, L., Eost‐Telling, C., Jones, D. J., Vercell, A., Ali, S. M., & O’Connor, S. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2647200/v1 · Cited by 2
Ju, H., Seo, D.-H., Kim, S., Choi, J., & Kang, E. (2024) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/14604582241260644 · Cited by 2
“17,18 For each element of engagement, function, aesthetics, and informational quality, reviewers scored on a 5-point scale (from 1 = unsuitable to 5 = excellent).”
Larionov, K., Petrova, E., Demirbuga, N., Werth, O., Breitner, M. H., Gebhardt, P., Caldarone, F., Duncker, D., Westhoff-Bleck, M., Sensenhauser, A., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1138475 · Cited by 1
“The internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the uMARS total score and subscales were shown as excellent in the RCT (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90) (46).”
Influentialde Oliveira Salgado, P., Keenan, G. M., Chianca, T. C. M., & Macieira, T. G. R. (2025) · CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000001306 · Cited by 1
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations of Behavior Change Interventions
Wang, T., Downes, M., Byrnes, J., & Scuffham, P. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.026 · Cited by 1
Análise de questionários de avaliação de aplicativos na área da saúde: Uma Revisão Sistemática
Gralha, S. R., & Bittencourt, O. N. D. S. (2022) · Clinical & Biomedical Research · doi:10.22491/2357-9730.119236 · Cited by 1
Agbadjé, T. T., Pilon, C., Bérubé, P., Forest, J., Rousseau, F., Rahimi, S. A., Giguère, Y., & Légaré, F. (2022) · JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · doi:10.2196/35381 · Cited by 1
Avaliação da qualidade de aplicativos móveis utilizados no desenvolvimento da força muscular
Gómez, G. D. I., Roa, D. M. O., Valencia, H. G., & Puerchnambut-Cadena, B. S. (2024) · Retos · doi:10.47197/retos.v53.102391 · Cited by 1
Larsen, R. E., Hole, K., Selle, M. L., Landmark, C. J., Krogstad, T., & Holm, L. B. (2024) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2024.1379700 · Cited by 1
Deady, M., Collins, D., Azevedo, S., Stech, E. P., Harrison, A., Broomfield, C., Yadav, S., Gayed, A., Harvey, S. B., & Bryant, R. A. (2024) · Australian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00049530.2024.2399112 · Cited by 2
“Four items were included from the uMARS (Stoyanov et al., 2016) subjective quality subscale: (1) likelihood of recommending the app to others, (2) expected usage over the next 12 months, (3) likelihood of paying for the app, and (4) overall star rating.”
Thornton, L. K., Corliss, C., Deen, H., Teesson, M., Champion, K. E., Partridge, S. R., Heinsch, M., Spring, B. J., Gardner, L. A., Rickwood, D., et al. (2024) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-20124-5 · Cited by 1
“Subjective feed-back about the Health4Life app will be collected in the adolescent follow-up assessment using the Mobile App Rating Scale-User Version (uMARS) subjective quality rating scale [35].”
Temkin, A. B., Ayaz, A., Blicker, E., Liu, M. X., Oh, A., Siegel, I. E., Seewald, M. J., Hermann, A. D., Givrad, S., Baez, L. M., et al. (2024) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/59461 · Cited by 1
Practicality of the My Baby Now App for Fathers by Fathers: Qualitative Case Study
Gaynor, M., Hesketh, K. D., Gebremariam, K. T., Wynter, K. H., & Laws, R. (2024) · JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · doi:10.2196/64171 · Cited by 1
App-based first aid learning: what applications do we have now?
Kashtanov, A. D., Молоток, Е. В., Yavorovskiy, A. G., Алиев, В. А., Галата, А. А., Vasil’ev, Y. L., Volel, B. A., Kytko, O. V., & Ma, V. (2024) · Russian Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimatology · doi:10.17116/anaesthesiology202406189 · Cited by 1
Health-Related apps: Lifestyle application usability questionnaire (LAUQ)
Keller, V., Ercsey, I., & Printz-Markó, E. (2025) · Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Development · doi:10.24294/jipd8164 · Cited by 1
Petrini, G., Pala, D., Lenti, M. V., Lepore, F., Bosoni, P., Quaglini, S., & Lanzola, G. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) · doi:10.1109/bibm62325.2024.10822396 · Cited by 1
“At the time of writing, the app is being perfected and readied to be deployed in the context of a new clinical study focused on the impact of malnutrition in IBD treatments efficacy, at the end of which a U-MARS questionnaire [18] will be administered to collect feedback from its users.”
The Use of Mobile Apps in Adolescent Psychotherapy: Assessment of Psychotherapists’ Perspectives
Wüllner, S., Hermenau, K., Hecker, T., & Siniatchkin, M. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/65788 · Cited by 1
“To obtain a more distinct and structured assessment of perceived app quality and feasibility, 4 subscales of the user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) [53] were used in studies 2 and 3: engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and subjective app quality.”
Gagnon, J., Chartrand, J., Probst, S., Maillet, É., Reynolds, E., Chaplain, V., St-Jean, H., East, R., & Lalonde, M. (2025) · Canadian Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/08445621241312394 · Cited by 1
“The included applications underwent evaluation using uMARS, a multidimensional questionnaire for assessing app quality among end users (Stoyanov et al., 2016).”
InfluentialSakamoto, M., Suzuki, A., & Ishikawa, H. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-098838 · Cited by 1
Smart Devices and Digital Therapeutics for Asthma Care: Regulatory Challenges
Cefaloni, F., Passantino, L., Stasio, M. D., & Bonini, M. (2025) · Health informatics · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71021-6_15 · Cited by 1
Assessment of the “MND-Prism” smartphone application as a tool for self-management
Neville, S. A., Ziser, L., Henders, A. K., Milne, J., Ngo, S. T., Packer, R. L., & Steyn, F. J. (2025) · Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration · doi:10.1080/21678421.2025.2511119 · Cited by 1
Desenvolvimento de um Método de Avaliação para Aplicativos Móveis de Saúde – O método QRAMHe
Ferauche, T. M. Y., & Ito, M. (2025) · doi:10.5753/sbcas_estendido.2025.7282 · Cited by 1
Marciniak, M. A., Rohde, J., Yuen, K. S. L., Binder, H., Walter, H., Wieser, M. J., Kalisch, R., Roelofs, K., & Kleim, B. (2025) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2025.100843 · Cited by 3
“(k) uMARS (user version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale), tool used for assessment of the feasibility of the app, including aspects of engagement, aesthetics, functionality, and the quality of information provided in the EMI, with 20 questions (Stoyanov et al., 2016).”
Glatzel, C., Dege, T., Glatzel, B., Goebeler, M., Presser, D., & Schmieder, A. (2025) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/69030 · Cited by 1
“The quality of the included apps was assessed by physicians and patients using the validated and widely used MARS score [16,18], and the overall score (mean MARS and uMARS score) ranged from a minimum of 2.72 to a maximum of 3.53 out of 5 possible points.”
InfluentialAlves, T. F., Crosby, K., Horner, R. D., Dai, H. D., Krishnamurthy, J., & Cozad, M. J. (2025) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/66050 · Cited by 1
“…and usability (aims 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, and 2c): the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) [22] with care team participants, the Mobile Application Rating Scale user version (uMARS) [23] with patient participants, and the System Usability Scale (SUS) [24,25] with both patients and care team members.”
HEALTHCOMM SIMULATOR: virtual simulation tool for training communication skills
Escribano, S., Sánchez‐Marco, M., Juliá‐Sanchis, R., Manzano, A. P., Krauss, A., Macur, M., Smajlović, S. K., García‐Sanjuán, S., Fernández‐Alcántara, M., & Cabañero‐Martínez, M. J. (2025) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110893 · Cited by 1
Helseth, S. A., Piper, K. N., Dunne, C. J., Kemp, K. A., Barnett, N. P., Clark, M. A., Spirito, A., & Becker, S. J. (2025) · Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology · doi:10.1007/s10802-025-01370-6 · Cited by 1
“First, diverted youth completed the Mobile Application Rating Scale - User Version (uMARS; Stoyanov et al., 2016) at follow-up.”
Barbieri, J. S., Noe, M. H., Bensellam, N., Holz, P., Wafae, B. G. D. O., Anshelevich, E., Williams, J. N., Snorrason, Í., Weingarden, H. M., Harrison, O., et al. (2025) · Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis · doi:10.1177/24755303251387099 · Cited by 1
Ferguson, M., Sherman, K. A., Bothe, E., Timmer, B. H. B., Dawes, P., MYERS, B. J., Norman, R., Mejia, J., Bennett, R. J., Mottershaw, A. L., et al. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-106751 · Cited by 1
McKay, S., Ng, C., Nicholas, J., Browne, V., Chinnery, G. L., Choi, I., Nation-Ingle, B., Allison, K., Perlow, E., Lamblin, M., et al. (2025) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2025.101578 · Cited by 2
“Acceptability of the intervention will be assessed at T3 in the intervention group using the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS [55]) and a single general satisfaction item (e.g., how satisfied were you with the app?).”
Ristau, J., Okobi, A., Miller, M. J., Cheng, J., Deviren, S., Schwarz, E. B., Fairchild, T., Tsoh, J. Y., Aguilera, A., Zheng-Huang, C. J., et al. (2026) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-025-09402-8 · Cited by 1
Glinkowski, W., Cedro, T., Nowicka, J., Doniec, R., Michalak, B., Glinkowska, B., & Stoyanov, S. R. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/65067 · Cited by 1
“The original uMARS comprises 4 objective domains—engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information—and 1 subjective quality subscale [32].”
InfluentialSimon, L., Steubl, L., Gossmann, M., Stach, M., Terhorst, Y., Witte, J., Reis, O., Kölch, M., Berger, C., Pryss, R., et al. (2026) · Sleep Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2026.108814 · Cited by 1
Addanki, S., Macedo, L., MacDermid, J. C., & Moll, S. E. (2026) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/57046 · Cited by 1
“Feedback about usability, acceptability, and relevance was tracked qualitatively but also through standardized measures such as the Mobile Application Rating Scale [70] and the System Usability Scale [71].”
Quality assessment of menopause apps using Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) in India
Ramachandran, R., Kunhardt, H., Chaltikyan, G., & Ivanova, O. (2026) · BMC Digital Health · doi:10.1186/s44247-026-00246-z · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Stoyanov, S. R., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D. J., & Wilson, H.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Hides, Leanne
- Venue
- JMIR mhealth and uhealth
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2016-06-10
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e72
- ISSN
- 2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4920963
- OpenAlex
- W2415928823
- Cited by
- 872
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 95 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 138 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 107 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 59.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Faculty of Health; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
- Funders
- Queensland University of Technology
- Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
- Keywords
- Mobile App Rating Scale, Umar, mobile health apps, app quality assessment, youth, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, scale development, app ratings
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
