Development and Validation of Four Social Scales for the UX Evaluation of Interactive Products
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social dimension of interactive products covers all aspects of our relationships with others that are impacted by owning and using such products. Although social features are making their way into a growing number of interactive products, there is a lack of an evaluation tool to capture the social dimension of the user experience (UX). This study addressed this shortcoming by developing and validating new social scales based on the UEQ + framework. We developed four social scales to encompass various aspects within the social dimension. For scale development, 229 participants rated their UX with products having social aspects. Exploratory factor analysis allowed us to identify four sub-dimensions (Identification, Social interaction, Social stimulation, and Social acceptance), each evaluated with four items. For scale validation, 450 participants evaluated the UX of three product categories, using the new social scales, AttrakDiff, and the six UX dimensions of UEQ+. Results of MANOVA showed that the social scales discriminated the three categories (F (8, 560) = 20.68, p < 0.001, Pillai’s trace = 0.456). The four social scales developed in this study can be combined with other UX dimensions of the UEQ + modular framework to provide a comprehensive overview of user interaction with products.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it