ArticlemHealth2025
Translation and validation of the traditional Chinese Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-TW) for evaluating mHealth apps.
Article in mHealth, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mobile health (mHealth) applications are widely used in Taiwan, yet their quality remains unregulated. The Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) is a validated tool for assessing mHealth app quality, but a Traditional Chinese version has not been developed and validated. This study aimed to translate and validate the traditional Chinese version of MARS (MARS-TW) and assess its reliability and validity using a cross-cultural adaptation framework. Methods: A three-phase cross-sectional study was conducted: (I) conceptual and item equivalence were evaluated by three experts; (II) semantic equivalence was assessed through forward and backward translation; (III) operational, measurement, and functional equivalence were tested on 44 mHealth apps related to cancer care (CC) and hypertension self-management (HTM), rated independently by two reviewers. Results: The expert review confirmed conceptual and item equivalence. Semantic equivalence was achieved through iterative refinements. Reliability testing demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α ≥0.80) and inter-rater reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ≥0.76]. Convergent validity was supported by strong correlations within subscales [item-subscale (I-S) correlation >0.3, item-total (I-T) correlation >0.2], while divergent validity was acceptable (subscale correlations <0.70, P<0.05). Conclusions: MARS-TW is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating Traditional Chinese mHealth apps. Future research should explore its applicability across broader health-related app categories.
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.