面向所有利益相关者的应用程序评估系统:一项试点研究

IF 1.2 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
M. A. Da Fonte, Nicole P. Wolfe, Emily R. DeLuca, Melissa J. Cavagnini, Krista L. Nardi
{"title":"面向所有利益相关者的应用程序评估系统:一项试点研究","authors":"M. A. Da Fonte, Nicole P. Wolfe, Emily R. DeLuca, Melissa J. Cavagnini, Krista L. Nardi","doi":"10.1177/01626434221135158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mobile technologies, including apps, have become increasingly popular, and are being used to support daily activities among a variety of individuals. While the use of mobile technologies will not eliminate barriers often faced by individuals with disabilities, these systems have the potential to help minimize some of these barriers. As the popularity of apps is increasing, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, internal consistency, and social validity among novice raters on two app evaluation rating scales. A total of 17 adults, with and without identified disabilities, evaluated apps using two team-designed app rating scales. Overall, findings indicated that the ratings completed during the pilot phase by the research team were more reliable than those completed by novice raters during the testing phase; that the dimension of individualization was the most reliable among team raters and novice participants without disabilities; and that the highest level of inconsistency in the reliability was among novice participants with disabilities. Practical implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46468,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Special Education Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An App Evaluation System for All Stakeholders: A Pilot Study\",\"authors\":\"M. A. Da Fonte, Nicole P. Wolfe, Emily R. DeLuca, Melissa J. Cavagnini, Krista L. Nardi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01626434221135158\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Mobile technologies, including apps, have become increasingly popular, and are being used to support daily activities among a variety of individuals. While the use of mobile technologies will not eliminate barriers often faced by individuals with disabilities, these systems have the potential to help minimize some of these barriers. As the popularity of apps is increasing, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, internal consistency, and social validity among novice raters on two app evaluation rating scales. A total of 17 adults, with and without identified disabilities, evaluated apps using two team-designed app rating scales. Overall, findings indicated that the ratings completed during the pilot phase by the research team were more reliable than those completed by novice raters during the testing phase; that the dimension of individualization was the most reliable among team raters and novice participants without disabilities; and that the highest level of inconsistency in the reliability was among novice participants with disabilities. Practical implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Special Education Technology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Special Education Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434221135158\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Special Education Technology","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434221135158","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

移动技术,包括应用程序,已经变得越来越流行,并被用于支持各种个人的日常活动。虽然使用移动技术不会消除残疾人经常面临的障碍,但这些系统有可能帮助减少其中一些障碍。随着应用的普及程度越来越高,本研究的目的是评估新手评价者在两种应用评价量表上的信度、内部一致性和社会效度。共有17名成年人,有或没有残疾,使用两个团队设计的应用程序评分量表对应用程序进行评估。总体而言,研究结果表明,研究小组在试点阶段完成的评分比新手在测试阶段完成的评分更可靠;个性化维度在团队评分者和非残疾新手参与者中最可靠;信度不一致的程度最高的是有残疾的新手参与者。讨论了该方法的实际意义、局限性和未来的研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An App Evaluation System for All Stakeholders: A Pilot Study
Mobile technologies, including apps, have become increasingly popular, and are being used to support daily activities among a variety of individuals. While the use of mobile technologies will not eliminate barriers often faced by individuals with disabilities, these systems have the potential to help minimize some of these barriers. As the popularity of apps is increasing, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, internal consistency, and social validity among novice raters on two app evaluation rating scales. A total of 17 adults, with and without identified disabilities, evaluated apps using two team-designed app rating scales. Overall, findings indicated that the ratings completed during the pilot phase by the research team were more reliable than those completed by novice raters during the testing phase; that the dimension of individualization was the most reliable among team raters and novice participants without disabilities; and that the highest level of inconsistency in the reliability was among novice participants with disabilities. Practical implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
15.80%
发文量
31
×
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