ArticleJournal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences2026
Validity and reliability assessment of the Persian version of the User Mobile Application Rating Scale.
Article in Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 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
Background: Smartphone health applications have gained popularity among users; however, the accuracy of the health information they provide often goes unchecked, potentially compromising user safety. This highlights the need for assessing mobile health applications. While several evaluation tools exist, including the User Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS), there is currently no available Persian version of uMARS. This study aims to validate the Persian version of uMARS. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study involved students from the management and medical information science, modern medical technologies, and rehabilitation science programs at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Participants were selected using cluster random sampling and nonrandom quota sampling, resulting in a total of 106 undergraduate, master's, and PhD students. Nonrandom quota sampling was then conducted among undergraduate, master's, and PhD students from the aforementioned schools. One hundred and six students were chosen using nonrandom quota sampling. First, this questionnaire was translated by two English-Persian language expert translators and backtranslated, and this was compared with the original uMARS. After assessing face and content validity, convergent and divergent validity were assessed. To determine reliability, the Cronbach's alpha method and test-retest was used. Results: Face, content, convergent, and divergent validity scale of uMARS was affirmed, and internal consistency for all subjective and objective quality dimensions with Cronbach's alpha of 0.929 was affirmed. The reliability of all subscale test-retest was also acceptable. Considering calculated indicators, the Persian version of uMARS in this study has a good reliability and validity and is expected to be useful for mobile health applications as a standard tool. Conclusion: uMARS Persian version is a reliable tool to assess the quality of mobile health applications from the user's perspective. This assessment framework offers a comprehensive evaluation of various aspects of mobile health applications, including their engagement, functionality, esthetics, information, and subjective quality.
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.