Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37484392›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Effectiveness of embodied evaluation of mobile applications: A qualitative study.

Júlia Carneiro de Almeida Nogueira, Alex Sandro Gomes, Amadeu Sá de Campos Filho, Fernando Moreira

RetractedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Júlia Carneiro de Almeida NogueiraCentro de Informática - CIn - UFPE, Brazil.
Alex Sandro GomesCentro de Informática - CIn - UFPE, Brazil.
Amadeu Sá de Campos FilhoCentro de Informática - CIn - UFPE, Brazil.
Fernando MoreiraREMIT, IJP, Universidade Portucalense & IEETA, Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As a consequence of technological advances, the number of devices has increased, with the emergence of different smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches present in both personal and professional activities. As a result, mobile applications have been developed, and with them comes the need for techniques and methods that provide support for conducting evaluation and prototyping since the current approaches are limited and cannot support the complexity and the need for understanding the context. The overall goal of the study is to evaluate the applicability of adopting a situated and embodied approach to mobile application usability testing. The aspects of postmodern and phenomenological approaches were taken into consideration. The study was conducted using the technique of digital ethnography, in particular the re-enactment technique, combined with qualitative research techniques to capture the evidence that the situated and embodied approach allows for capturing the perceptions and experience of the participants about the use of the application under evaluation. As motivation, there is the theoretical and methodological evolution and contribution and the proof that the postmodern and situated approach allows us to evaluate the usability of mobile applications in a complete way, considering the context and the user experience. The results show aspects of experience, reflections, perceptions, contingencies, practices, and meanings that go beyond the complexity of interactions and context with the use of the application, reinforcing the effectiveness of the use of the situated prototyping approach.

Indexed as

Embodied assessment techniqueHuman-computer interactionMobile computingPrototypingUsability evaluationUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID37484392
PMCPMC10361124

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.