MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394696857 · doi:10.1177/20552076241237384

The most used questionnaires for evaluating the usability of robots and smart wearables: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4394696857 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKerman University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsUsabilityWearable computerComputer scienceWearable technologyHuman–computer interactionScopusSystem usability scaleWeb usabilityApplied psychologyPsychologyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: As the field of robotics and smart wearables continues to advance rapidly, the evaluation of their usability becomes paramount. Researchers may encounter difficulty in finding a suitable questionnaire for evaluating the usability of robotics and smart wearables. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify the most commonly utilized questionnaires for assessing the usability of robots and smart wearables. Methods: A comprehensive search of databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, was conducted for this scoping review. Two authors performed the selection of articles and data extraction using a 10-field data extraction form. In cases of disagreements, a third author was consulted to reach a consensus. The inclusions were English-language original research articles that utilized validated questionnaires to assess the usability of healthcare robots and smart wearables. The exclusions comprised review articles, non-English publications, studies not focused on usability, those assessing clinical outcomes, articles lacking questionnaire details, and those using non-validated or researcher-made questionnaires. Descriptive statistics methods (frequency and percentage), were employed to analyze the data. Results: A total of 314 articles were obtained, and after eliminating irrelevant and duplicate articles, a final selection of 50 articles was included in this review. A total of 17 questionnaires were identified to evaluate the usability of robots and smart wearables, with 10 questionnaires specifically for wearables and 7 questionnaires for robots. The System Usability Scale (50%) and Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (19.44%) were the predominant questionnaires utilized to assess the usability of smart wearables. Moreover, the most commonly used questionnaires for evaluating the usability of robots were the System Usability Scale (56.66%), User Experience Questionnaire (16.66%), and Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (10%). Conclusion: Commonly employed questionnaires serve as valuable tools in assessing the usability of robots and smart wearables, aiding in the refinement and optimization of these technologies for enhanced user experiences. By incorporating user feedback and insights, designers can strive towards creating more intuitive and effective robotic and wearable solutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.283
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.299 · 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