MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4384561483 · doi:10.2196/preprints.50839

mHealth App Usability Questionnaire for Stand-Alone mHealth Apps Used by Health Care Providers: Canadian French Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation (Part 1) (Preprint)

2023· preprint· en· W4384561483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie Gagnon, Sebastian Probst, Julie Chartrand, Michelle Lalonde

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilitymHealthCertificationHealth careGuidelineMedical educationPsychologyComputer scienceNursingMedicinePsychological interventionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND An increasing number of health care professionals are using mobile apps. The mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) was designed to evaluate the usability of mobile health apps by patients and providers. However, this questionnaire is not available in French. OBJECTIVE This study aims to translate (from English to Canadian French), cross-culturally adapt, and initiate the validation of the original version of MAUQ for stand-alone mobile health apps used by French-speaking health care providers. METHODS A cross-cultural research study using a well-established method was conducted to translate MAUQ to Canadian French by certified translators and subsequently review it with a translation committee. It was then back translated to English. The back translations were compared with the original by the members of the committee to reach consensus regarding the prefinal version. A pilot test of the prefinal version was conducted with a sample of 49 potential users and 10 experts for content validation. RESULTS The statements are considered clear, with interrater agreement of 99.14% among potential users and 90% among experts. Of 21 statements, 5 (24%) did not exceed the 80% interrater agreement of the experts regarding clarity. Following the revisions, interrater agreement exceeded 80%. The content validity index of the items varied from 0.90 to 1, and the overall content validity index was 0.981. Individual Fleiss multirater κ of each item was between 0.89 and 1, showing excellent agreement and increasing confidence in the questionnaire’s content validity. CONCLUSIONS This process of translation and cultural adaptation produced a new version of MAUQ that was validated for later use among the Canadian French–speaking population. An upcoming separate study will investigate the psychometric properties of the adapted questionnaire.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→