The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Meta-Analytical Review of Empirical Mobile Usability Studies
Abstract
In this paper we present an adapted usability evaluation framework to the context of a mobile computing environment. Using this framework, we conducted a qualitative meta-analytical review of more than 100 empirical mobile usability studies. The results of the qualitative review include (a) the contextual factors studied; (b) the core and peripheral usability dimensions measured; and (c) key findings in the form of a research agenda for future mobile usability research, including open and unstructured tasks are underutilized, interaction effects between interactivity and complexity warrant further investigation, increasing research on accessibility may improve the usability of products and services for often overlooked audiences, studying novel technology and environmental factors will deepen contextual mobile usability knowledge, understanding which hedonic factors impact the aesthetic appeal of a mobile device or service and in turn usability, and a high potential for neuroscience research in mobile usability. Numerous additional findings and takeaways for practitioners are also discussed.
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
Wu, J.-H., & Wang, S.-C. (2005) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.07.001 · Cited by 2,284
Value-based Adoption of Mobile Internet: An empirical investigation
Kim, H.-W., Chan, H. C., & Gupta, S. (2007) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009 · Cited by 2,084
A Review of Mobile HCI Research Methods
Kjeldskov, J., & Graham, C. (2003) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45233-1_23 · Cited by 375
Cited by
Empirical Studies on Usability of mHealth Apps: A Systematic Literature Review
Zapata, B. C., Fernández-Alemán, J. L., Idri, A., & Toval, A. (2015) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-014-0182-2 · Cited by 585
Measuring the Usability of Mobile Applications for Phones and Tablets
Kortum, P., & Sorber, M. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1064658 · Cited by 222
Georgsson, M., & Staggers, N. (2016) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv099 · Cited by 200
Development of Smartphone Applications for Nutrition and Physical Activity Behavior Change
Hebden, L., Cook, A., van der Ploeg, H. P., & Allman-Farinelli, M. (2012) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/resprot.2205 · Cited by 160
The impact of age on website usability
Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.003 · Cited by 109
Rothstein, J. D., Jennings, L., Moorthy, A., Yang, F., Gee, L., Romano, K., Hutchful, D., Labrique, A. B., & LeFevre, A. E. (2016) · International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications · doi:10.1155/2016/2515420 · Cited by 74
Crane, D., Garnett, C., Brown, J., West, R., & Michie, S. (2017) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2017.00039 · Cited by 82
Silva, P. A., Holden, K., & Jordan, P. (2015) · 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2015.390 · Cited by 66
Towards the Development of Usability Heuristics for Native Smartphone Mobile Applications
Joyce, G., & Lilley, M. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07668-3_45 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Coursaris, C. K., & Kim, D. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Usability Studies archive
- Published
- 2011-05-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 117-171
- ISSN
- 1931-3357 (ISSN-L)
- DOI
- 10.5555/2007456.2007459
- OpenAlex
- W1835185994
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 3.12
- 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
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.
