biostudies-literatureAzad-Khaneghah PAGE-WELL326-338https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9511245biostudies-literatureUnknown89(3)<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.Canadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapieAlberta Rating Index for Apps: Study of Reliability and Validity.PMC9511245AW CRP 2015-WP6.1Azad-Khaneghah PLiu LRoduta Roberts MfalseAlberta Rating Index for Apps: Study of Reliability and Validity.<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.2022-01-01T00:00:00Z2022 Sep2025-04-21T20:09:53.138Z2025-04-05T17:54:36.03ZS-EPMC95112453529431210.1177/00084174221085451