{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Azad-Khaneghah P"],"funding":["AGE-WELL"],"pagination":["326-338"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9511245"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["89(3)"],"pubmed_abstract":["<b>Background.</b> The number of mobile health applications is rapidly increasing, yet no reliable tool exists for occupational therapists and their clients to rate the quality of these apps. <b>Purpose</b>. To develop the Alberta Rating Index for Apps (ARIA). <b>Methods.</b> Through a sequential design in three phases, we developed a rating index for mobile health applications and examined its reliability and validity with 10 participants. <b>Findings.</b> The coefficients of reliability were 0.95 for occupational therapists, 0.60 for older adults, and 0.88 for adults with a mental health condition. ARIA's correlation with another scale used in app review studies, U-MARS, was low to moderate. <b>Implications.</b> ARIA showed a high inter-rater reliability in two of the three user groups. ARIA is comprehensive and includes criteria not captured by U-MARS, such as privacy and security. Further studies are warranted with diverse raters and health apps."],"journal":["Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie"],"pubmed_title":["Alberta Rating Index for Apps: Study of Reliability and Validity."],"pmcid":["PMC9511245"],"funding_grant_id":["AW CRP 2015-WP6.1"],"pubmed_authors":["Azad-Khaneghah P","Liu L","Roduta Roberts M"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Alberta Rating Index for Apps: Study of Reliability and Validity.","description":"<b>Background.</b> The number of mobile health applications is rapidly increasing, yet no reliable tool exists for occupational therapists and their clients to rate the quality of these apps. <b>Purpose</b>. To develop the Alberta Rating Index for Apps (ARIA). <b>Methods.</b> Through a sequential design in three phases, we developed a rating index for mobile health applications and examined its reliability and validity with 10 participants. <b>Findings.</b> The coefficients of reliability were 0.95 for occupational therapists, 0.60 for older adults, and 0.88 for adults with a mental health condition. ARIA's correlation with another scale used in app review studies, U-MARS, was low to moderate. <b>Implications.</b> ARIA showed a high inter-rater reliability in two of the three user groups. ARIA is comprehensive and includes criteria not captured by U-MARS, such as privacy and security. Further studies are warranted with diverse raters and health apps.","dates":{"release":"2022-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2022 Sep","modification":"2025-04-21T20:09:53.138Z","creation":"2025-04-05T17:54:36.03Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC9511245","cross_references":{"pubmed":["35294312"],"doi":["10.1177/00084174221085451"]}}