ArticleScientific reports2025
User experience questionnaire in sign language for native users of Slovenian sign language.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accessibility of interactive services is vital for building an inclusive society. While accessibility standards are increasingly being adopted, there remains a gap in user experience evaluation approaches tailored to deaf participants. To address this, the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) was translated to Slovenian Sign Language (SSL) and its appropriateness and reliability evaluated in a research study. Two interactive TV solutions for deaf viewers were developed and evaluated using a standard written UEQ in Slovenian (UEQ TXT) and a UEQ translated to Slovenian Sign Language (UEQ SSL). A total of 27 deaf participants and 6 Slovenian Sign Language interpreters participated in the study. A thorough statistical analysis of the results was conducted on both individual UEQ attributes and overall scales. The results show no statistically significant differences in evaluation results when gathered with UEQ SSL and UEQ TXT. Participants expressed a strong preference for UEQ SSL, as it enabled them to express their opinions more accurately and completely in their primary language, fostering greater independence and ensuring their perspectives are fully represented. The findings show that the UEQ SSL is a valid and effective tool, with the potential to bridge the inclusion gap for deaf and hard-of-hearing users in UX evaluation studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.