TY - JOUR
T1 - Acceptance of new technology: a usability test of a computerized adaptive test for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis
AU - Nikolaus, Stephanie
AU - Bode, Christina
AU - Taal, Erik
AU - Vonkeman, H.E.
AU - Glas, Cornelis A.W.
AU - van de Laar, Mart A F J
N1 - Open access
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Background: Little is known about the acceptance and usability of computerized adaptive tests
(CATs) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The main difference between completing a CAT and a traditional questionnaire concerns item presentation. CATs only provide one item at a time on the screen, and skipping forward or backward to review and change already given answers is often not possible.
Objective: The objective of this study was to examine how patients with RA experience a Web-based
CAT for fatigue.
Methods: In individual sessions, participants filled in the CAT while thinking aloud, and were
subsequently interviewed about their experience with the new instrument. The technology acceptance model (TAM) was used to structure the results.
Results: The participants were 15 patients with RA. They perceived the CAT as clear, brief, and
easy to use. They were positive about answering one question per screen, the changing response
options, layout, progress bar, and item number. There were 40% (6/15) of the participants that also
mentioned that they experienced the completion of the CAT as useful and pleasant, and liked the
adaptive test mechanism. However, some participants noted that not all items were applicable to
everybody, and that the wordings of questions within the severity dimension were often similar.
Conclusions: Participants perceived the “CAT Fatigue RA” as easy to use, and also its usefulness
was expressed. A 2.0 version has been improved according to the participants’ comments, and is
currently being used in a validation study before it will be implemented in daily clinical
practice. Our results give a first indication that CAT methodology may outperform traditional
questionnaires not merely on measurement precision, but also on usability and acceptance valuation.
AB - Background: Little is known about the acceptance and usability of computerized adaptive tests
(CATs) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The main difference between completing a CAT and a traditional questionnaire concerns item presentation. CATs only provide one item at a time on the screen, and skipping forward or backward to review and change already given answers is often not possible.
Objective: The objective of this study was to examine how patients with RA experience a Web-based
CAT for fatigue.
Methods: In individual sessions, participants filled in the CAT while thinking aloud, and were
subsequently interviewed about their experience with the new instrument. The technology acceptance model (TAM) was used to structure the results.
Results: The participants were 15 patients with RA. They perceived the CAT as clear, brief, and
easy to use. They were positive about answering one question per screen, the changing response
options, layout, progress bar, and item number. There were 40% (6/15) of the participants that also
mentioned that they experienced the completion of the CAT as useful and pleasant, and liked the
adaptive test mechanism. However, some participants noted that not all items were applicable to
everybody, and that the wordings of questions within the severity dimension were often similar.
Conclusions: Participants perceived the “CAT Fatigue RA” as easy to use, and also its usefulness
was expressed. A 2.0 version has been improved according to the participants’ comments, and is
currently being used in a validation study before it will be implemented in daily clinical
practice. Our results give a first indication that CAT methodology may outperform traditional
questionnaires not merely on measurement precision, but also on usability and acceptance valuation.
KW - METIS-307606
KW - IR-93444
U2 - 10.2196/humanfactors.3424
DO - 10.2196/humanfactors.3424
M3 - Article
SN - 0018-7208
VL - 1
JO - Human factors
JF - Human factors
IS - 1
M1 - e4
ER -