Alissa L. Russ-Jara , Jason J. Saleem , Jennifer Herout
{"title":"A practical guide to usability questionnaires that evaluate clinicians’ perceptions of health information technology","authors":"Alissa L. Russ-Jara , Jason J. Saleem , Jennifer Herout","doi":"10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Numerous usability questionnaires are available to evaluate the usability of health information technology (IT). It can be difficult for practitioners to determine which questionnaire most closely aligns with their health IT evaluation goals. Our objective was to develop a practical guide to enable practitioners to select an appropriate usability questionnaire for their health IT evaluation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Questionnaires were identified from the literature and input from usability experts. Inclusion criteria included: 1) post-test or post-task usability questionnaire; 2) demonstrated validity, with good internal reliability (Cronbach α ≥ 0.70); 3) freely available for use; 4) applicable across a wide range of health IT products; and 5) demonstrated use with health IT in peer-reviewed literature, even if not originally designed for healthcare.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Criteria were met by seven usability questionnaires. Results include a synopsis of each usability questionnaire along with a matrix to visually compare methodological characteristics across questionnaires. Additionally, results include an analysis of distinguishing methodological strengths and limitations that set each usability questionnaire apart. For each questionnaire, we also outline considerations for use when evaluating health IT.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This novel, practical guide provides an important methodological analysis of currently available usability questionnaires for health IT evaluation. This article can help practitioners make a more efficient, but also well-informed, choice when selecting a usability questionnaire for health IT evaluation. This practical, methodological guide applies to a wide range of health IT products, including electronic health records (EHRs).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15263,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biomedical Informatics","volume":"165 ","pages":"Article 104822"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biomedical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046425000516","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
Numerous usability questionnaires are available to evaluate the usability of health information technology (IT). It can be difficult for practitioners to determine which questionnaire most closely aligns with their health IT evaluation goals. Our objective was to develop a practical guide to enable practitioners to select an appropriate usability questionnaire for their health IT evaluation.
Methods
Questionnaires were identified from the literature and input from usability experts. Inclusion criteria included: 1) post-test or post-task usability questionnaire; 2) demonstrated validity, with good internal reliability (Cronbach α ≥ 0.70); 3) freely available for use; 4) applicable across a wide range of health IT products; and 5) demonstrated use with health IT in peer-reviewed literature, even if not originally designed for healthcare.
Results
Criteria were met by seven usability questionnaires. Results include a synopsis of each usability questionnaire along with a matrix to visually compare methodological characteristics across questionnaires. Additionally, results include an analysis of distinguishing methodological strengths and limitations that set each usability questionnaire apart. For each questionnaire, we also outline considerations for use when evaluating health IT.
Conclusion
This novel, practical guide provides an important methodological analysis of currently available usability questionnaires for health IT evaluation. This article can help practitioners make a more efficient, but also well-informed, choice when selecting a usability questionnaire for health IT evaluation. This practical, methodological guide applies to a wide range of health IT products, including electronic health records (EHRs).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Biomedical Informatics reflects a commitment to high-quality original research papers, reviews, and commentaries in the area of biomedical informatics methodology. Although we publish articles motivated by applications in the biomedical sciences (for example, clinical medicine, health care, population health, and translational bioinformatics), the journal emphasizes reports of new methodologies and techniques that have general applicability and that form the basis for the evolving science of biomedical informatics. Articles on medical devices; evaluations of implemented systems (including clinical trials of information technologies); or papers that provide insight into a biological process, a specific disease, or treatment options would generally be more suitable for publication in other venues. Papers on applications of signal processing and image analysis are often more suitable for biomedical engineering journals or other informatics journals, although we do publish papers that emphasize the information management and knowledge representation/modeling issues that arise in the storage and use of biological signals and images. System descriptions are welcome if they illustrate and substantiate the underlying methodology that is the principal focus of the report and an effort is made to address the generalizability and/or range of application of that methodology. Note also that, given the international nature of JBI, papers that deal with specific languages other than English, or with country-specific health systems or approaches, are acceptable for JBI only if they offer generalizable lessons that are relevant to the broad JBI readership, regardless of their country, language, culture, or health system.