Development and validation of a virtual learning management system usability questionnaire: A case study.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Mohamad Sadegh Ghasemi, Raheleh Aghajafari, Jamileh Abolaghasemi, Mojtaba Khosravi Danesh, Ehsan Garosi
{"title":"Development and validation of a virtual learning management system usability questionnaire: A case study.","authors":"Mohamad Sadegh Ghasemi, Raheleh Aghajafari, Jamileh Abolaghasemi, Mojtaba Khosravi Danesh, Ehsan Garosi","doi":"10.3233/WOR-230290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The post-pandemic era has seen a surge in the popularity of Virtual Learning Management Systems (VLMS). However, there is a noticeable lack of tools to measure the usability of these systems. As technology evolves, user needs change, necessitating updated tools for system evaluation.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to develop and validate a VLMS usability questionnaire, specifically designed to assess the usability of a university learning management system.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The VLMS usability tool was systematically developed based on relevant domains identified in existing literature and expert opinions. It was then tested for face validity, content validity, and reliability. In a case study, the tool was distributed among 200 students from a Medical Sciences university who had used the Navid VLMS system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Semi-structured interviews with experts were analyzed using directed content analysis, resulting in 21 items categorized into four domains: effectiveness, reliability, learnability, and security. The content validity index and ratio were 0.939 and 0.976, respectively. The Intra Class Correlation (ICC) estimates for each section of the questionnaire ranged from 0.8-0.9, indicating high reliability. Cronbach's alpha was 0.97, suggesting excellent internal consistency. The case study results showed that the Navid platform achieved an average usability score of 70.36, with a standard deviation of 10.6, indicating moderate to high usability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The VLMS usability tool is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the usability of the Navid learning management system. It can be used to improve the usability of the Navid system and serve as a benchmark for assessing the usability of other similar VLMSs.</p>","PeriodicalId":51373,"journal":{"name":"Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-230290","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The post-pandemic era has seen a surge in the popularity of Virtual Learning Management Systems (VLMS). However, there is a noticeable lack of tools to measure the usability of these systems. As technology evolves, user needs change, necessitating updated tools for system evaluation.

Objective: This study aims to develop and validate a VLMS usability questionnaire, specifically designed to assess the usability of a university learning management system.

Methods: The VLMS usability tool was systematically developed based on relevant domains identified in existing literature and expert opinions. It was then tested for face validity, content validity, and reliability. In a case study, the tool was distributed among 200 students from a Medical Sciences university who had used the Navid VLMS system.

Results: Semi-structured interviews with experts were analyzed using directed content analysis, resulting in 21 items categorized into four domains: effectiveness, reliability, learnability, and security. The content validity index and ratio were 0.939 and 0.976, respectively. The Intra Class Correlation (ICC) estimates for each section of the questionnaire ranged from 0.8-0.9, indicating high reliability. Cronbach's alpha was 0.97, suggesting excellent internal consistency. The case study results showed that the Navid platform achieved an average usability score of 70.36, with a standard deviation of 10.6, indicating moderate to high usability.

Conclusions: The VLMS usability tool is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the usability of the Navid learning management system. It can be used to improve the usability of the Navid system and serve as a benchmark for assessing the usability of other similar VLMSs.

虚拟学习管理系统可用性问卷的开发与验证:案例研究
背景:后大流行病时代,虚拟学习管理系统(VLMS)的普及率激增。然而,衡量这些系统可用性的工具明显不足。随着技术的发展,用户需求也在不断变化,因此有必要更新系统评估工具:本研究旨在开发并验证一份 VLMS 可用性问卷,专门用于评估大学学习管理系统的可用性:方法:根据现有文献和专家意见中确定的相关领域,系统地开发了 VLMS 可用性工具。然后对其进行了面效度、内容效度和可靠性测试。在一项案例研究中,该工具在一所医科大学的 200 名使用过 Navid VLMS 系统的学生中进行了分发:采用定向内容分析法对专家的半结构式访谈进行了分析,得出了 21 个项目,分为四个领域:有效性、可靠性、可学性和安全性。内容效度指数和比率分别为 0.939 和 0.976。问卷各部分的类内相关(ICC)估计值在 0.8-0.9 之间,表明问卷具有较高的可靠性。Cronbach's alpha 为 0.97,表明内部一致性极佳。案例研究结果表明,Navid 平台的平均可用性得分为 70.36 分,标准差为 10.6 分,表明可用性处于中等偏上水平:VLMS 可用性工具是评估 Navid 学习管理系统可用性的有效而可靠的工具。它可以用来提高 Navid 系统的可用性,并作为评估其他类似 VLMS 可用性的基准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation
Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
30.40%
发文量
739
期刊介绍: WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation is an interdisciplinary, international journal which publishes high quality peer-reviewed manuscripts covering the entire scope of the occupation of work. The journal''s subtitle has been deliberately laid out: The first goal is the prevention of illness, injury, and disability. When this goal is not achievable, the attention focuses on assessment to design client-centered intervention, rehabilitation, treatment, or controls that use scientific evidence to support best practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信