Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33137123›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Validation of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS).

Yannik Terhorst, Paula Philippi, Lasse B Sander, Dana Schultchen, Sarah Paganini, Marco Bardus, Karla Santo, Johannes Knitza, Gustavo C Machado, Stephanie Schoeppe and 7 more

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 146 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
146citing papers in PubMed, 21 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

146 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Evaluation of temporomandibular disorder self-management apps in Australia: a systematic review to inform clinical use.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

86 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

17 authors.

Yannik TerhorstDepartment of Research Methods, Institute of Psychology and Education, University Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4091-5048
Paula PhilippiDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, University Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Lasse B SanderDepartment of Rehabilitation Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Dana SchultchenDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Institute of Psychology and Education, University Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5623-535X
Sarah PaganiniDepartment of Sport Psychology, Institute of Sports and Sport Science, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Marco BardusDepartment of Health Promotion and Community Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Karla SantoAcademic Research Organization, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.
Johannes KnitzaDepartment of Internal Medicine 3 - Rheumatology and Immunology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Gustavo C MachadoInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Stephanie SchoeppeSchool of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Appleton Institute, Physical Activity Research Group, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1937-876X
Natalie BauereißDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, University Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Alexandra PortenhauserDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, University Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Matthias DomhardtDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, University Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Benjamin WalterDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Gastroenterology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Martin KruscheDepartment of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Harald BaumeisterDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, University Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Eva-Maria MessnerDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, University Ulm, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile 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.

objectiveThis study evaluates the construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability, and objectivity, of the MARS.

methodsData 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.

resultsIn 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).

conclusionThe 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.

Indexed as

Factor Analysis, StatisticalHumansMobile ApplicationsModels, TheoreticalReproducibility of ResultsTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33137123
PMCPMC7605637

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.