Validation of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS)

Yannik Terhorst(Universität Ulm), Paula Philippi(Universität Ulm), Lasse Sander, Dana Schultchen(Universität Ulm), Sarah Paganini(University of Freiburg), Marco Bardus(American University of Beirut), Karla Santo(The University of Sydney), Johannes Knitza(Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg), Gustavo C Machado(The University of Sydney), Stephanie Schöeppe(Central Queensland University), Natalie Bauereiß(Universität Ulm), Alexandra Portenhauser(Universität Ulm), Matthias Domhardt(Universität Ulm), Benjamin Walter(University Hospital Ulm), Martin Krusche(Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin), Harald Baumeister(Universität Ulm), Eva-Maria Meßner(Universität Ulm)
PLoS ONE
November 2, 2020
Cited by 295Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mobile health apps (MHA) have the potential to improve health care. The commercial MHA market is rapidly growing, but the content and quality of available MHA are unknown. Instruments for the assessment of the quality and content of MHA are highly needed. The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) is one of the most widely used tools to evaluate the quality of MHA. Only few validation studies investigated its metric quality. No study has evaluated the construct validity and concurrent validity. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability, and objectivity, of the MARS. METHODS: Data was pooled from 15 international app quality reviews to evaluate the metric properties of the MARS. The MARS measures app quality across four dimensions: engagement, functionality, aesthetics and information quality. Construct validity was evaluated by assessing related competing confirmatory models by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Non-centrality (RMSEA), incremental (CFI, TLI) and residual (SRMR) fit indices were used to evaluate the goodness of fit. As a measure of concurrent validity, the correlations to another quality assessment tool (ENLIGHT) were investigated. Reliability was determined using Omega. Objectivity was assessed by intra-class correlation. RESULTS: In total, MARS ratings from 1,299 MHA covering 15 different health domains were included. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a bifactor model with a general factor and a factor for each dimension (RMSEA = 0.074, TLI = 0.922, CFI = 0.940, SRMR = 0.059). Reliability was good to excellent (Omega 0.79 to 0.93). Objectivity was high (ICC = 0.82). MARS correlated with ENLIGHT (ps<.05). CONCLUSION: The metric evaluation of the MARS demonstrated its suitability for the quality assessment. As such, the MARS could be used to make the quality of MHA transparent to health care stakeholders and patients. Future studies could extend the present findings by investigating the re-test reliability and predictive validity of the MARS.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis