Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40315454›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Psychometric Validation of the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale in China: Instrument Validation Study.

Rongrong Guo, Ziling Zheng, Fangyu Yang, Ying Wu

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors.

Rongrong Guo *School of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2861-3023
Ziling Zheng *Department of Hematology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9121-4287
Fangyu YangSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1961-2387
Ying WuSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8633-5404

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe dramatic growth of digital health apps highlights an urgent need for rigorous usability evaluation tools. While the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (Health-ITUES) has gained validation, a Chinese version has not yet been developed and validated.

objectiveThis study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the Health-ITUES into Chinese, customize it for both service consumers and professional health care providers, and evaluate its reliability and validity in the Chinese context.

methodsFollowing the Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-report measures, the Health-ITUES was meticulously translated and culturally adapted into Chinese version following 2 rounds of expert consultation. Subsequently, based on the SMART system, an intelligent and integrated older adult care model, the Chinese version of the Health-ITUES was customized into the care receiver version (Health-ITUES-R) and professional health care provider version (Health-ITUES-P). Older individuals and nurses participated in the validation testing conducted between December 2020 and February 2021, facilitated by the improvement of the COVID-19 pandemic and the timing preceding the Spring Festival, which ensured feasible recruitment and a sufficient sample size. In addition, the pandemic-driven increase in digital health app usage allowed us to assess usability in a relevant real-world health care setting. Content validity, internal consistency reliability, construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and criterion validity were used to evaluate the psychometric attributes of the Health-ITUES-R and Health-ITUES-P.

resultsA Chinese version of the Health-ITUES comprising 20 items across 4 dimensions was formulated, informing the customization of the Health-ITUES-R and Health-ITUES-P. In total, 110 and 124 eligible older adults and nurses validated the customized Health-ITUES-R and Health-ITUES-P, respectively. Both versions exhibited satisfactory content validity (content validity index of items=0.83-1.00; content validity index of scale=0.99) and adequate internal consistency reliability (Cronbach α and McDonald ω>0.80 for the overall scale; >0.75 for individual items). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a 4D structure with acceptable construct validity, as indicated by model fit indices. Both the Health-ITUES-R and Health-ITUES-P showed satisfactory convergent validity (average variance extracted [AVE] value>0.5, composite reliability value>0.7), except for a slightly lower AVE value (0.478) for the second dimension of the Health-ITUES-R. Discriminant validity was supported, with the square root of AVE values exceeding correlation coefficients and the Hetereotrait-Monotrait ratio below 0.85. Furthermore, Pearson correlation coefficients for the perceived usefulness dimension, perceived ease of use dimension, and overall scale of the Health-ITUES-R and patient acceptance questionnaire for mobile health application were 0.587, 0.647, and 0.743 (all P<.01), demonstrating a significant correlation.

conclusionsThe Chinese version of the Health-ITUES can be used as a valid and reliable tool to evaluate the usability of digital health apps for both care receivers and professional health care providers in the Chinese context.

Indexed as

Medical InformaticsPsychometricsAdultAgedChinaCOVID-19Cross-Cultural ComparisonFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesTranslatingcross-cultural adaptationdigital health applicationreliabilitytranslationusabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID40315454
PMCPMC12084768

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.