MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408306606 · doi:10.2196/60156

Transcultural Adaptation, Validation, Psychometric Analysis, and Interpretation of the 22-Item Thai Senior Technology Acceptance Model for Mobile Health Apps: Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4408306606 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nida Buawangpong, Penprapa Siviroj, Kanokporn Pinyopornpanish, Wachiranun Sirikul

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)PsychologyCross-sectional studyInterpretation (philosophy)Applied psychologyClinical psychologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The rapid advancement of technology has made mobile health (mHealth) a promising tool to mitigate health problems, particularly among older adults. Despite the numerous benefits of mHealth, assessing individual acceptance is required to address the specific needs of older people and promote their intention to use mHealth. Objective This study aims to adapt and validate the senior technology acceptance model (STAM) questionnaire for assessing mHealth acceptance in the Thai context. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we adapted the original, 38-item, English version of the STAM using a 10-point Likert scale for mHealth acceptability among the Thai population. We translated the mHealth STAM into Thai using forward and backward translation. A total of 15 older adults and experts completed the pilot questionnaire and were interviewed to assess its validity. The pilot items of the Thai mHealth STAM were then reworded and revised for better comprehension and cross-cultural compatibility. The construct validity of the Thai mHealth STAM was evaluated by a multidimensional approach, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and nonparametric item response theory analysis. Discriminative indices consisting of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) were used to determine appropriate banding and discriminant validity for the intention to use mHealth. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach α and McDonald ω coefficients. Results Out of the 1100 participants with a mean age of 62.3 (SD 8.8) years, 360 (32.7%) were adults aged 45-59 years, and 740 (67.3%) were older adults aged 60 years and older. Of the 40-item pilot questionnaire, exploratory factor analysis identified 22 items with factor loadings >0.4 across 7 principal components, explaining 91.45% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that 9-dimensional sets of 22 items had satisfactory fit indices (comparative fit index=0.976, Tucker-Lewis index=0.968, root mean square error of approximation=0.043, standardized root mean squared residual=0.044, and R2 for each item>0.30). The score banding D (low≤151, moderate 152-180, and high≥181) was preferred as the optimal 22-item Thai mHealth STAM cutoff score based on the highest sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 86.1%-91.5%) and AUROC of 72.4% (95% CI 70%-74.8%) for predicting the intention to use mHealth. The final Thai mHealth STAM, consisting of 22 items, exhibited remarkable internal consistency, as evidenced by a Cronbach α of 0.88 (95% CI 0.87-0.89) and a McDonald ω of 0.85 (95% CI 0.83-0.87). For all 22 items, the corrected item-total correlations ranged between 0.26 and 0.71. Conclusions The 22-item Thai mHealth STAM demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties in both validity and reliability. The questionnaire has the potential to serve as a practical questionnaire in assessing the acceptance and intention to use mHealth among pre-older and older adults.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.423 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207