3.3 Study Sample
3.3 Study Sample and Setting
The sample was selected from a church-sponsored charity institution, the Santa Casa da Misericórdia of Aveiro (SCMA) and the inclusion criteria were that participants would have to be over 18 years and be formal caregivers.
3.4 Multiple Methods for Data Collection
For the usability evaluation of AAL@MEO several test methods were considered: i) self-perceived usability; ii) usability evaluation based on the opinion of the evaluator on the user’s performance; iii) registration of quantitative data of the performance of the users in carrying out specific tasks; and registration of critical incidents.
The standardized instruments used for usability assessment were the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) …show more content…
I believe I could become productive quickly using this system.
The system gave error messages that clearly told me how to fix problems.
Whenever I made a mistake using the system, I could recover easily and quickly.
The information (such as on-line help, on-screen messages and other documentation) provided with this system was clear.
It was easy to find the information I needed.
The information provided for the system was easy to understand.
The information was effective in helping me complete the tasks and scenarios.
The organization of information on the system screens was clear.
The interface of this system was pleasant.
I liked using this interface of this system.
This system has all the functions and capabilities I expect it to have.
Overall, I am satisfied with this system.
The ICF-US (Table 2) [x21] considers the conceptual model of the International Classification of Functionality, Disability and Health (ICF) [x29] and, in this study, it was used the two parts of this scale: the ICF-US I to evaluate the usability according to the evaluators’ opinion about the performance of users; and the ICF ICF-US II to identify potential barriers or facilitators in the AAL product or service development, also according to the evaluators’ opinion. Both ICF-US components scores all items from -3 to 3, which -3 is the less positive (barrier) and 3 is the most positive response (facilitator). The final score of the ICF-US I is the sum of all items’ score. A score bellow 10 indicates pour usability and in that case the ICF-US II should be
The sample was selected from a church-sponsored charity institution, the Santa Casa da Misericórdia of Aveiro (SCMA) and the inclusion criteria were that participants would have to be over 18 years and be formal caregivers.
3.4 Multiple Methods for Data Collection
For the usability evaluation of AAL@MEO several test methods were considered: i) self-perceived usability; ii) usability evaluation based on the opinion of the evaluator on the user’s performance; iii) registration of quantitative data of the performance of the users in carrying out specific tasks; and registration of critical incidents.
The standardized instruments used for usability assessment were the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) …show more content…
I believe I could become productive quickly using this system.
The system gave error messages that clearly told me how to fix problems.
Whenever I made a mistake using the system, I could recover easily and quickly.
The information (such as on-line help, on-screen messages and other documentation) provided with this system was clear.
It was easy to find the information I needed.
The information provided for the system was easy to understand.
The information was effective in helping me complete the tasks and scenarios.
The organization of information on the system screens was clear.
The interface of this system was pleasant.
I liked using this interface of this system.
This system has all the functions and capabilities I expect it to have.
Overall, I am satisfied with this system.
The ICF-US (Table 2) [x21] considers the conceptual model of the International Classification of Functionality, Disability and Health (ICF) [x29] and, in this study, it was used the two parts of this scale: the ICF-US I to evaluate the usability according to the evaluators’ opinion about the performance of users; and the ICF ICF-US II to identify potential barriers or facilitators in the AAL product or service development, also according to the evaluators’ opinion. Both ICF-US components scores all items from -3 to 3, which -3 is the less positive (barrier) and 3 is the most positive response (facilitator). The final score of the ICF-US I is the sum of all items’ score. A score bellow 10 indicates pour usability and in that case the ICF-US II should be