ArticlePloS one2026
Psychometric evaluation of the Asthma Diary Usability Questionnaire (ADU-Q): An adaptation and validation of a usability assessment tool among adults with Asthma.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
The asthma diary has been established as a self-management tool to help patients achieve good disease control. However, asthma diary compliance is low, indicating a need to assess the diary's usability. Given the scarcity of a validated tool for assessing asthma diary usability, this study aims to adapt the Malay version of the mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (M-MAUQ) into the Asthma Diary Usability Questionnaire (ADU-Q) (Malay) and to assess its psychometric properties. In the first phase, the M-MAUQ items were adapted and rearranged into the four domains of the Nielsen usability model. In the second phase, content validity was assessed in two stages: domain validation by 3 experts, followed by item content validation by 7 experts. Face validation was then conducted by 10 patients with asthma. In the third phase, a cross-sectional study of 115 asthma patients attending the primary care clinic and the respiratory clinic follow-up was conducted. All patients completed the ADU-Q (Malay), and 62 patients were contacted 2 weeks later to complete the ADU-Q again. Exploratory factor analysis was performed with promax rotation, while reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and the intraclass correlation coefficient. The item content validity index was 1.0, and item face validity indices ranged from 0.9 to 1.0. Exploratory factor analysis identified a three-factor structure with factor loadings >0.5 for all items; corrected item-total correlations exceeded 0.5, Cronbach's alpha was 0.982, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.988, demonstrating excellent internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Based on these findings, ADU-Q is a valid, reliable and stable tool for assessing the usability of an asthma diary among adults with asthma.
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.