The most used questionnaires for evaluating the usability of robots and smart wearables: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.041 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".