Skip to main content

Practicing the Test of New System-Services for Elderly Care: How to Introduce and Measure User Experience and Related Outcomes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Digital Health Technology for Better Aging

Abstract

The implementation and, above all, the exploitation of e-health or m-health services come through the acceptance of the technology by users. If this could be assumed as implicit for the native digital people, indeed it is a very critical factor for current elderly population. For this reason, usability and its assessment are crucial not only to evaluate acceptance and its impact on efficacy of the intervention, but since the very beginning to retrieve dedicated requirements for system design and refinement. This chapter discusses the design process and user-experience development and test in new e-/m-health services for seniors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Angelini, L., Mugellini, E., Khaled, O. A., Röcke, C., Guye, S., Porcelli, S., et al. (2019). The NESTORE e-coach: Accompanying older adults through a personalized pathway to wellbeing. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (pp. 620–628).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ku, B., & Lupton, E. (2020). Health design thinking: Creating products and services for better health. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. ISO. (2006). 20282-1:2006. Ease of operation of everyday products. Design requirements for context of use and user characteristics. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  4. ISO. (2013). 20282-2:2013. Usability of consumer products and products for public use. Summative test method. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  5. ISO. (2002). 16982:2002. Ergonomics of human-system interaction. Usability methods supporting human-centred design. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  6. ISO. (2011). 26800:2011: ErgonomicsGeneral approach, principles and concepts. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  7. ISO. (2018). 9241–11:2018 Ergonomics of humansystem interaction. Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  8. ISO 9241–210:2019. Ergonomics of humansystem interaction. Part 210: Humancentred design for interactive systems. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brooke, J. (2013). SUS: A retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies, 8(2), 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319–340.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Laugwitz, B., Held, T., & Schrepp, M. (2008, November). Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group (pp. 63–76). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schrepp, M., Hinderks, A., & Thomaschewski, J. (2017). Design and evaluation of a short version of the user experience questionnaire (UEQ-S). Ijimai, 4(6), 103–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schrepp, M., Hinderks, A., & Thomaschewski, J. (2017). Construction of a benchmark for the user experience questionnaire (UEQ). IJIMAI, 4(4), 40–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lawson, S., & Chesney, T. (2007). The impact of owner age on companionship with virtual pets.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Luh, D. B., Li, E. C., & Gao, Y. R. (2010). The study on companionship scale of electronic pet. In 2010 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design & Conceptual Design 1 (Vol. 1, pp. 533–538). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hawthorne, G. (2006). Measuring social isolation in older adults: Development and initial validation of the friendship scale. Social Indicators Research, 77(3), 521–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hassenzahl, M. (2013). User experience and experience design. The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction2.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Newbery, P., & Farnham, K. (2013). Experience design: A framework for integrating brand, experience, and value. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  22. IDEO. (2015). The field guide to humancentered design.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Papanek, V., & Fuller, R. B. (1972). Design for the real world. London: Thames and Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hassenzahl, M., Platz, A., Burmester, M., & Lehner, K. (2000). Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software’s appeal. In Proceedings of the CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York, NY: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Green, W. S., & Jordan, P. W. (Eds.). (2002). Pleasure with products: Beyond usability. CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Soegaard, M., & Dam, R. F. (2012). The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pizzocaro, S. (2015). Introduzione agli studi sull’utente. Conoscere gli utenti tra ricerca e design dei prodotti. Edizioni Unicopli, Milano.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pugh, S. (1990). Integrated methods for successful product engineering. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Neely, S., et al. (2008). Evaluating pervasive and ubiquitous systems. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7, 85–88.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jordan, P. W. (1998). An introduction to usability. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo Emilio Standoli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Standoli, C.E. et al. (2021). Practicing the Test of New System-Services for Elderly Care: How to Introduce and Measure User Experience and Related Outcomes. In: Andreoni, G., Mambretti, C. (eds) Digital Health Technology for Better Aging. Research for Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72663-8_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics