An Arabic Adaptation of the Usability Metric for User Experience (UMUX)

References

• AlGhannam, B. A., Albustan, S. A., Al-Hassan, A. A., & Albustan, L. A. (2018). Towards a standard Arabic system usability scale: Psychometric evaluation using communication disorder app. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 34(9), 799–804. doi:10.1080/10447318.2017.1388099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkman, M. I., & Karahoca, D. (2016). Re-assessing the usability metric for user experience (UMUX) scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 11(3), 89–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borsci, S., Federici, S., Bacci, S., Gnaldi, M., & Bartolucci, F. (2015). Assessing user satisfaction in the era of user experience: Comparison of the SUS, UMUX, and UMUX-LITE as a function of product experience. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 31(8), 484–495. doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1064648
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189(194), 4–7.
   Google Scholar
• Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, K. L. (1988). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 213–218). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVon, H. A., Block, M. E., Moyle‐Wright, P., Ernst, D. M., Hayden, S. J., Lazzara, D. J., … Kostas‐Polston, E. (2007). A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 39(2), 155–164. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finstad, K. (2010). The usability metric for user experience. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 323–327. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finstad, K. (2013). Response to commentaries on ‘The usability metric for user experience’. Interacting with Computers, 25(4), 327–330. doi:10.1093/iwc/iwt005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems. Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers. doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN
   Google Scholar
• Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development: Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 98–107. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00295-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haynes, S. N., Richard, D., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, J., & van de Vijver, F. (2012). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural research. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2), 8. doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1111
   Google Scholar
• ISO 9241-11. (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals – Part 11: Guidance on usability.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 9241-210. (2010). Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems.
   Google Scholar
• Ivory, M. Y., & Hearst, M. A. (2001). The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 33(4), 470–516. doi:10.1145/503112.503114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. R. (2014). Usability: Lessons learned … and yet to be learned. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 30(9), 663–684. doi:10.1080/10447318.2014.930311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. R., Utesch, B. S., & Maher, D. E. (2013). UMUX-LITE: When there’s no time for the SUS. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2099–2102). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. R., Utesch, B. S., & Maher, D. E. (2015). Measuring perceived usability: The SUS, UMUX-LITE, and AltUsability. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 31(8), 496–505. doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1064654
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H., & Berge, J. M. T. (1967). Psychometric theory (1st ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-hill.
   Google Scholar
• Petrie, H., & Bevan, N. (2009). The evaluation of accessibility, usability, and user experience. The Universal Access Handbook, 1, 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-240X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauro, J., & Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Simões-Marques, M., & Nunes, I. L. (2012). Usability of interfaces. In I. L. Nunes (ed.), Ergonomics-A systems approach. Croatia: IntechOpen.
   Google Scholar
• Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2001). Research methods knowledge base (Vol. 2). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Wellington, J., & Szczerbinski, M. (2007). Research methods for the social sciences. London, UK: Continuum publishing.
   Google Scholar