Advertisement

Pre-testing of Polish Translation of System Usability Scale (SUS)

  • Anna Borkowska
  • Katarzyna JachEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 521)

Abstract

This study demonstrates the Polish translation of System Usability Scale (SUS). The translation was made according to the procedure of psychologic test adaptation and was made in several steps: (1) forward-translation, (2) formulating the list of problems, (3) comparison of all translations versions and translations synthesis, (4) procedure of collating (5) results comparison of both Polish and English versions of SUS questionnaire, (6) checking the validity of result in comparison to other five usability metrics. It was validated that features with The reliability of Polish SUS version was confirmed by high Cronbach’s alpha value (0.805), high correlations between adequate items of Polish and English SUS version as well as between total Polish and English SUS score. The validity of Polish SUS version measured by correlations with other usability metrics, including Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ) and Net Promoter Score (NPS) is sufficient. The Polish version of System Usability Scale is a valuable tool for quick usability assessment.

Keywords

Validity Reliability Computer system usability questionnaire Net promoter score 

References

  1. 1.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, A.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor and Francis, London (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tullis, T.S., Stetson, J.N.: A Comparison of Questionnaires for Assessing Website Usability. In: Usability Professionals Association (UPA) 2004 Conference, Minneapolis, USA. Retrieved 02 Mar 2016 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228609327_A_Comparison_of_Questionnaires_for_Assessing_Website_Usability (2004)
  3. 3.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int. J. Human-Comput. Interact. 24(6), 574–594 (2008). doi: 10.1080/10447310802205776 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kirakowski, J.: The use of questionnaire methods for usability assessment. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://sumi.ucc.ie/sumipapp.html (1994). Accessed 13 May 2016
  5. 5.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a retrospective. J. Usability Stud. 8(2), 29–40 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lohmann, K., Schäffer, J.: System Usability Scale (SUS)—An Improved German Translation of the Questionnaire. Published 18 Sept 2013, retrieved 08 Mar 2016. https://minds.coremedia.com/2013/09/18/sus-scale-an-improved-german-translation-questionnaire/ (2013)
  7. 7.
    Reinhardt, W.: Crowdsourcing the translation of SUS. Published 16 Jan 2012, retrieved 8 Apr 2016. http://isitjustme.de/2012/01/crowdsourcing-the-translation-of-sus/ (2012)
  8. 8.
    Martins, A.I., Rosa, A.F., Queirósa, A., Silvab, A., Rocha, N.P.: European Portuguese validation of the System Usability Scale (SUS). Procedia Comput. Sci. 67(1), 293–300 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dianat, I., Ghanbari, Z., AsghariJafarabadi, M.: Psychometric properties of the persian language version of the system usability scale. Health. Promot. Perspect. 4(1), 82–89 (2014). doi: 10.5681/hpp.2014.011
  10. 10.
    Finstad, K.: The system usability scale and non-native english speakers. J. Usability Stud. 1(4), 185–188 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis, J.R., Sauro, J.: The factor structure of the system usability scale. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Human Centered Design: Held as Part of HCI International 2009 (HCD 09), pp. 94–103. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12
  12. 12.
    Hornowska, E., Paluchowski, W.J.: Kulturowa adaptacja testów psychologicznych. In: Brzeziński, J. (ed.) Metodologia badań psychologicznych—wybór tekstów, pp. 149–190. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    World Health Organization: Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/ (2016). Retrieved 23 Feb 2016
  14. 14.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Stud. 4(3), 114–123 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reichheld, F.F.: The one number you need to grow. Harvard Bus. Rev. 81(12) 46–54 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schneider, D., Berent, M., Thomas, R., Krosnick, J.: Measuring Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty: Improving the ‘Net-Promoter’ Score. http://van-haafen.nl/images/documents/pdf/Measuring%20customer%20satisfaction%20and%20loyalty.pdf (2008). Published June 2008, retrieved 10 Mar 2016
  17. 17.
    Sauro, J.: Does better usability increase customer loyalty? The Net Promoter Score and the System Usability Scale (SUS). http://www.measuringu.com/usability-loyalty.php (2009). Published 07 Jan 2009, retrieved 06 Mar 2016
  18. 18.
    Drapińska, A.: Pomiar lojalności klientów—wybrane wskaźniki. Polityki Europejskie, Finanse i Marketing, 58(9), 125–136 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kozielski, R.: Wskaźniki marketingowe, Wolters Kluwer Polska (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siejak, M.: Net Promoter Score—jedyny wskaźnik kondycji marki, o który powinieneś się troszczyć. www.marketingowiec.pl (2012). Published 03 July 2012, retrieved 03 May 2016
  21. 21.
    Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Human-Comput. Interact. 7, 57–78 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewis, J.R.: Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. Int. J. Human-Comput. Interact. 14(3/4), 463–488 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frias-Martinez, E., Chen, S.Y., Liu, X.: Evaluation of a personalized digital library based on cognitive styles: adaptivity vs. adaptability. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 29, 48–56 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kartakis, S., Stephanidis, C.: A design-and-play approach to accessible user interface development in Ambient Intelligence environments. Comput. Ind. 61, 318–328 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perneger, T.V., Leplège, A., Etter, J.-F.: Cross-cultural adaptation of a psychometric instrument: two methods compared. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 52(11), 1037–1046 (1999). doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00088-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wrocław University of TechnologyWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations