Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32217504›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

The German Version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G): Development and Validation Study.

Eva-Maria Messner, Yannik Terhorst, Antonia Barke, Harald Baumeister, Stoyan Stoyanov, Leanne Hides, David Kavanagh, Rüdiger Pryss, Lasse Sander, Thomas Probst

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

92 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Eva-Maria MessnerClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6100-8354
Yannik TerhorstClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4091-5048
Antonia BarkeClinical and Biological Psychology, Catholic University Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6863-3213
Harald BaumeisterClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2040-661X
Stoyan StoyanovCreative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3399-3347
Leanne HidesFaculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4550-8460
David KavanaghPsychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9072-8828
Rüdiger PryssInstitute of Databases and Information Systems, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1522-785X
Lasse SanderDepartment of Rehabilitation Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4222-9837
Thomas ProbstDepartment for Psychotherapy and Biopsychosocial Health, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6113-2133

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of mobile health apps (MHAs), which are developed to promote healthy behaviors, prevent disease onset, manage and cure diseases, or assist with rehabilitation measures, has exploded. App store star ratings and descriptions usually provide insufficient or even false information about app quality, although they are popular among end users. A rigorous systematic approach to establish and evaluate the quality of MHAs is urgently needed. The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) is an assessment tool that facilitates the objective and systematic evaluation of the quality of MHAs. However, a German MARS is currently not available.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to translate and validate a German version of the MARS (MARS-G).

methodsThe original 19-item MARS was forward and backward translated twice, and the MARS-G was created. App description items were extended, and 104 MHAs were rated twice by eight independent bilingual researchers, using the MARS-G and MARS. The internal consistency, validity, and reliability of both scales were assessed. Mokken scale analysis was used to investigate the scalability of the overall scores.

resultsThe retranslated scale showed excellent alignment with the original MARS. Additionally, the properties of the MARS-G were comparable to those of the original MARS. The internal consistency was good for all subscales (ie, omega ranged from 0.72 to 0.91). The correlation coefficients (r) between the dimensions of the MARS-G and MARS ranged from 0.93 to 0.98. The scalability of the MARS (H=0.50) and MARS-G (H=0.48) were good.

conclusionsThe MARS-G is a reliable and valid tool for experts and stakeholders to assess the quality of health apps in German-speaking populations. The overall score is a reliable quality indicator. However, further studies are needed to assess the factorial structure of the MARS and MARS-G.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsHealth BehaviorHumansReproducibility of ResultsassessmentmHealthmobile appMobile App Rating Scaleratingscale development

Identifiers

PMID32217504
PMCPMC7148545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.