Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10773/31429
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSilva, Anabela G.pt_PT
dc.contributor.authorMartins, Ana Isabelpt_PT
dc.contributor.authorCaravau, Hilmapt_PT
dc.contributor.authorAlmeida, Ana Margaridapt_PT
dc.contributor.authorSilva, Telmopt_PT
dc.contributor.authorRibeiro, Óscarpt_PT
dc.contributor.authorSantinha, Gonçalopt_PT
dc.contributor.authorRocha, Nelson P.pt_PT
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-25T17:41:46Z-
dc.date.available2021-05-25T17:41:46Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.isbn978-1-4503-8937-2-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10773/31429-
dc.description.abstractBackground: it is important to standardize the evaluation and reporting procedures across usability studies to guide researchers, facilitate comparisons, and promote high-quality studies. A first step to standardizing is to have an overview of how experts-based usability evaluation studies are reported across the literature. Objectives: to describe and synthesize the procedures of usability evaluation by experts that are being reported to conduct inspection usability assessments of digital solutions relevant for older adults. Methods: a scoping review of reviews was performed using a five-stage methodology to identify and describe relevant literature published between 2009 and 2020 as follows: i) identification of the research question; ii) identification of relevant studies; iii) select studies for review; iv) charting of data from selected literature; and v) collation, summary, and report of results. The research was conducted on five electronic databases: PubMed, ACM Digital Library, IEEE, Scopus, and Web of Science. The articles that met the inclusion criteria were identified, and data extracted for further analysis, including evaluators, current usability inspection methods, and instruments to support usability inspection methods. Results: a total of 3958 articles were identified. After a detailed screening, 12 reviews matched the eligibility criteria. Conclusion: overall, we found a variety of unstandardized procedures and a lack of detail on some important aspects of the assessment, including a thorough description of the evaluators and of the instruments used to facilitate the inspection evaluation such as heuristics checklists. These findings suggest the need for a consensus framework on the experts’ assessment of usability that informs researchers and allows standardization of procedures.pt_PT
dc.language.isoengpt_PT
dc.publisherACMpt_PT
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/857159/EUpt_PT
dc.rightsopenAccesspt_PT
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/pt_PT
dc.subjectUsabilitypt_PT
dc.subjectOlder adultspt_PT
dc.subjectScoping review-
dc.subjectDigital solutions-
dc.subjectInspection methods-
dc.subjectHeuristics-
dc.subjectExperts’-based usability-
dc.titleExperts evaluation of usability for digital solutions directed at older adults: a scoping review of reviewspt_PT
dc.typebookPartpt_PT
dc.description.versionin publicationpt_PT
dc.peerreviewedyespt_PT
degois.publication.titleDSAI 2020 Proceedingspt_PT
dc.identifier.doi10.1145/3439231.3439238pt_PT
Appears in Collections:DCM - Capítulo de livro
DCSPT - Capítulo de livro
DeCA - Capítulo de livro
DEP - Capítulo de livro
IEETA - Capítulo de livro
ESSUA - Capítulo de livro
GOVCOPP - Capítulo de livro
DigiMedia - Capítulo de livro
CINTESIS - Capítulo de livro

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
DSAI2020-6 (1).pdf432.58 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


FacebookTwitterLinkedIn
Formato BibTex MendeleyEndnote Degois 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.