Development of the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ)

Authors

  • Bambang Parmanto University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
  • Allen Nelson Lewis, Jr.
  • Kristin M. Graham Department of Rehabilitation Science and Technology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,
  • Marnie H. Bertolet Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2016.6196

Abstract

Current telehealth usability questionnaires are designed primarily for older technologies, where telehealth interaction is conducted over dedicated videoconferencing applications. However, telehealth services are increasingly conducted over computer-based systems that rely on commercial software and a user supplied computer interface. Therefore, a usability questionnaire that addresses the changes in telehealth service delivery and technology is needed.  The Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) was developed to evaluate the usability of telehealth implementation and services.  This paper addresses: 1) the need for a new measure of telehealth usability, 2) the development of the TUQ, 3) intended uses for the TUQ, and 4) the reliability of the TUQ. Analyses indicate that the TUQ is a solid, robust, and versatile measure that can be used to measure the quality of the computer-based user interface and the quality of the telehealth interaction and services.    

  

References

Aoki, N., Dunn, K., Johnson-Throop, K.A., & Turley, J.P. (2003). Outcomes and methods in telemedicine evaluation. Journal of Telemedicine and eHealth, 9, 393– 401.

Bakken, S., Grullon-Figueroa, L., Izquierdo, R, Lee, N.J., Morin, P., Palmas, W.,, Starren, J. (2006). Development, validation, and use of English and Spanish versions of the telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire. IDEATel Consortium. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13, 660-667.

Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475–487.

Demiris, G., Speedie, S., & Finkelstein, S. (2000). A questionnaire for the assessment of patients’ impressions of the risks and benefits of home telecare. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 6, 278–284.

Demiris, G., Speedie, SM, & Finkelstein, S. (2001). Change of patients’ perceptions of TeleHomeCare. Journal of Telemedicine and eHealth, 7, 241–248.

Demiris, G., Speedie, S.M., & Hicks, L.L. (2004). Assessment of patients’ acceptance of and satisfaction with teledermatology. Journal of Medical Systems, 28, 575–579.

Ekeland, A.G., Bowes, A., & Flottorp, S. (2010). Effectiveness of telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79, 736-771.

Heinzelmann, P.J., Williams, C.M., Lugn, N.E., & Kvedar, J.C. (2005), Clinical outcomes associated with telemedicine/telehealth. Journal of Telemedicine and eHealth, 11, 329 - 347.

ISO (1992). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -- Part 1: General introduction, ISO 9241-1:1992. Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=16873

Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7(1), 57–78. doi:10.1080/10447319509526110

Mair, F., & Whitten P. (2000). Systematic review of studies of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. British Medical Journal, 320, 1517–1520.

Nielsen, J. & Mack, R. (1994). Usability inspection methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Nielsen, J. (2012). Usability 101: Introduction to usability. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/

Parmanto, B., Saptono, A., Pramana, G., Pulantara, W., Schein, R., Schmeler, M.,…Brienza, D. (2010). VISYTER: Versatile and Integrated System for Telerehabilitation. Telemedicine and e-Health, 16, 1-6. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2010.0033.

Peel, N.M., Russell, T.G., & Gray, L.C. (2011). Feasibility of using an in-home video conferencing system in geriatric rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 43, 364-366. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0675.

Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2009). Foundations of clinical research: Application to practice (Vol. 3). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schlachta-Fairchild L, Elfrink V, Deickman A. (2008). Patient safety and quality: An evidence-based handbook for nurses. In R.G. Hughes (Ed.), Patient safety, telenursing, and telehealth (Ch. 48). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2687/

Schutte, J., McCue, M., Parmanto, B., McGonigle, J., Handen, B., Lewis, A.,…Saptono, A. (2015). Usability and reliability of a remotely administered adult autism assessment, the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) Module 4. Journal of Telemedicine and eHealth, 21, 1-9. PMID: 25569603.

Yip, M.P., Chang, A.M., Chan, J., & MacKenzie, A.E. (2003). Development of the Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire to evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine: A preliminary study. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 9, 46-50.

Yu, D., Parmanto, B., Dicianno, B.E., & Pramana, G. (2015). Accessibility of mHealth self-care apps for individuals with spina bifida. Perspectives in Health Information Management [eCollection 2015]. Available at http://perspectives.ahima.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AccessibilityofmHealth.pdf

Yu, D., Parmanto, B., Dicianno, B.E., Watzlaf, V.J., & Seelman, K.D. (2015) Accessibility needs and challenges of a mHealth system for patients with dexterity impairments. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1-9. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2015.1063171

Downloads

Published

2016-07-01

How to Cite

Parmanto, B., Lewis, Jr., A. N., Graham, K. M., & Bertolet, M. H. (2016). Development of the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ). International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 8(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.5195/ijt.2016.6196

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 1: Spring 2016

Section

Usability

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link. 

Most read articles by the same author(s)