
Jim Lewis
Related Authors
Anja Mohorko
University of Ljubljana
Mohd Khairol
UPM - Universiti Putra Malaysia
Mehmet Orgun
Macquarie University
José Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Patrick Koelling
Virginia Tech
Eileen Van Aken
Virginia Tech
Anton Baranov
Saint-Petersburg State University
Jana Javornik
University of East London
Gwen Robbins Schug
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Uploads
Papers by Jim Lewis
The original System Usability Scale (SUS) and an all positively worded version were administered in two experiments (n=161 and n=213) across eleven websites. There was no evidence for differences in the response biases between the different versions. A review of 27 SUS datasets found 3 (11%) were miscoded by researchers and 21 out of 158 questionnaires (13%) contained mistakes from users.
We found no evidence that the purported advantages of including negative and positive items in usability questionnaires outweigh the disadvantages of mistakes and miscoding. It is recommended that researchers using the standard SUS verify the proper coding of scores and include procedural steps to ensure error-free completion of the SUS by users.
Researchers can use the all positive version with confidence because respondents are less likely to make mistakes when responding, researchers are less likely to make errors in coding, and the scores will be similar to the standard SUS.
The original System Usability Scale (SUS) and an all positively worded version were administered in two experiments (n=161 and n=213) across eleven websites. There was no evidence for differences in the response biases between the different versions. A review of 27 SUS datasets found 3 (11%) were miscoded by researchers and 21 out of 158 questionnaires (13%) contained mistakes from users.
We found no evidence that the purported advantages of including negative and positive items in usability questionnaires outweigh the disadvantages of mistakes and miscoding. It is recommended that researchers using the standard SUS verify the proper coding of scores and include procedural steps to ensure error-free completion of the SUS by users.
Researchers can use the all positive version with confidence because respondents are less likely to make mistakes when responding, researchers are less likely to make errors in coding, and the scores will be similar to the standard SUS.