Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire

  • Bettina Laugwitz
  • Theo Held
  • Martin Schrepp
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5298)


An end-user questionnaire to measure user experience quickly in a simple and immediate way while covering a preferably comprehensive impression of the product user experience was the goal of the reported construction process. An empirical approach for the item selection was used to ensure practical relevance of items. Usability experts collected terms and statements on user experience and usability, including ‘hard’ as well as ‘soft’ aspects. These statements were consolidated and transformed into a first questionnaire version containing 80 bipolar items. It was used to measure the user experience of software products in several empirical studies. Data were subjected to a factor analysis which resulted in the construction of a 26 item questionnaire including the six factors Attractiveness, Perspicuity, Efficiency, Dependability, Stimulation, and Novelty. Studies conducted for the original German questionnaire and an English version indicate a satisfactory level of reliability and construct validity.


User experience Software evaluation User satisfaction Questionnaire Usability assessment Perceived usability 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gediga, G., Hamborg, K.-C., Düntsch, I.: The IsoMetrics Usability Inventory: An operationalisation of ISO 9241-10. Behaviour and Information Technology 18, 151–164 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dzida, W., Hofmann, B., Freitag, R., Redtenbacher, W., Baggen, R., Geis, T., Beimel, J., Zurheiden, C., Hampe-Neteler, W., Hartwig, R., Peters, H.: Gebrauchstauglichkeit von Software: ErgoNorm: Ein Verfahren zur Konformitätsprüfung von Software auf der Grundlage von DIN EN ISO 9241 Teile 10 und 11, Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitschutz und Arbeitsmedizin [Usability of Software: ErgoNorm: A method to check software conformity on the basis of DIN EN ISO 9241 parts 10 and 11, Institute Report Series of the BAuA]. Bundesanstalt für Arbeitschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, Dortmund, Germany (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hassenzahl, M.: The effect of perceived hedonic quality on product appealingness. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 13, 481–499 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kirakowski, J., Corbett, M.: SUMI: The Software Usability Measurement Inventory. British Journal of Educational Technology 24, 210–212 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nielsen, J.: Heuristic Evaluation. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, pp. 25–62. Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO 9241-10: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 10: Dialogue principles. Beuth, Berlin, Germany (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 11: Guidance on usability. Beuth, Berlin, Germany (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharpe, H.: Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., Koller, F.: AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. [AttrakDiff: A questionnaire for the measurement of perceived hedonic and pragmatic quality]. In: Ziegler, J., Szwillus, G. (eds.) Mensch & Computer 2003: Interaktion in Bewegung, Teubner, Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 187–196 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindgaard, G., Dudek, C.: What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction? Interacting with Computers 15, 429–452 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Kleinberger, T., Seffah, A., Javahery, H.: Investigating Usability Metrics for the Design and Development of Applications for the Elderly. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W., Karshmer, A. (eds.) ICCHP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5105, pp. 98–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norman, D.: Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tractinsky, N.: Aesthetics and Apparent Usability: Empirical Assessing Cultural and Methodological Issues. In: CHI 1997. Electronic Publications (1997),
  14. 14.
    Schrepp, M., Held, T., Laugwitz, B.: The influence of hedonic quality on the attractiveness of user interfaces of business management software. Interacting with Computers 18, 1055–1069 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nielsen, J.: Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox August 5, 2001: First rule of usability: Don’t listen to users (2001),
  16. 16.
    Laugwitz, B.: Experimentelle Untersuchung von Regeln der Ästhetik von Farbkombinationen und von Effekten auf den Benutzer bei ihrer Anwendung im Benutzungsoberflächendesign. [Experimental investigation of the aesthetics of colour combinations and of its impact on users when applied to graphical user interface design]. im Internet, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Komine, K., Sawahata, Y., Uratani, N., Yoshida, Y., Inoue, T.: Evaluation of a prototype remote control for digital broadcasting receivers by using semantic differential method. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 53(2), 561–568 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Catell, R.B.: The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioural Research 1, 245–276 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bettina Laugwitz
    • 1
  • Theo Held
    • 1
  • Martin Schrepp
    • 1
  1. 1.SAP AGWalldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations