Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Making Tax eForms Less Taxing—Comparing Evaluation Measures of User-Experience, Usability, and Acceptance in Public Sector eForms

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2021) (IEA 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 223))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 2470 Accesses

Abstract

eForms have become a means to decrease workload and processing speed in the public sector. As eForms go beyond simply “digitally replacing” analogue systems, their potential is not yet exhausted. However, to systematically improve eForms, appropriate tools to tailor eForms to user needs and evaluate their usability are required. The objective of this paper is to develop and evaluate a user experience questionnaire for eForms. We introduce the eForms User Experience Scale (EFUXS), which is based on the psychological needs aspect of Self-Determination Theory and its three facets (competence, autonomy, and relatedness). To assess the validity of EFUXS, its results were compared with well-known usability (System Usability Scale; Brooke, 1996) and acceptance (simple acceptance scale, van der Laan, 1997) measures. In an online study with a randomized within-subject design, university students (N = 60) evaluated their experience with two versions of the same registration form. These forms were designed to implement the best practices from a governmental guide on eForms or their inverse (“worst practices”). All three scales were able to differentiate between “good” and “bad” tax-form versions. The item-analysis of the EFUXS showed acceptable to excellent internal consistency, item difficulty, and discrimination. The scale correlated with the two comparison measures, indicating convergent validity, while offering additional insights into psychological need fulfilment. This study suggests the viability of the EFUXS as a user experience measure and highlights advantages in its use to improve eForms.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

References

  1. Wroblewski, L.: Web Form Design: Filling in the Blanks. Rosenfeld Media (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. ELSTER - Presse. https://www.elster.de/eportal/infoseite/presse. Accessed 05 Feb 2021

  3. UN E-Government Survey 2020. UN DESA, New York (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Krcmar, H., Akkaya, C., Müller, L.-S., Dietrich, S., Boberach, M., Exel, S.: eGovernment MONITOR 2017. Bundesministerium des Innern (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. ISO 9241–11:2018(en), Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 11: usability: definitions and concepts. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en. Accessed 05 Feb 2021

  6. Chen, L., Aklikokou, A.K.: Determinants of E-government adoption: testing the mediating effects of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Int. J. Public Adm. 43, 850–865 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1660989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ozen, A.O., Pourmousa, H., Alıpourc, N.: Investigation of the critical factors affecting e-government acceptance: a systematic review and a conceptual model. Innov. J. Bus. Manage. 7, 77–84 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bruun, A., Law, E.L.-C., Heintz, M., Alkly, L.H.A.: Understanding the relationship between frustration and the severity of usability problems: what can psychophysiological data (not) tell us? In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3975–3987. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. ISO 9241–210:2010(en), Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-210:ed-1:v1:en. Accessed 05 Feb 2021

  10. Fehnert, B., Kosagowsky, A.: Measuring user experience: complementing qualitative and quantitative assessment. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 383–386. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1409240.1409294

  11. Gloyd, D.M.: Positive user experience and medical adherence. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, pp. 17–21. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2003). https://doi.org/10.1145/782896.782902

  12. Scholta, H., Balta, D., Räckers, M., Becker, J., Krcmar, H.: Standardization of forms in governments. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 62, 535–560 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00623-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L.: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 61, 101860 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.: The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality. J. Res. Pers. 19, 109–134 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Metrics & Methods: Questionnaires – selfdeterminationtheory.org. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/questionnaires/. Accessed 08 Feb 2021

  16. Huang, Y.-C., Backman, S.J., Backman, K.F., McGuire, F.A., Moore, D.: An investigation of motivation and experience in virtual learning environments: a self-determination theory. Educ. Inf. Technol. 24, 591–611 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9784-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tyack, A., Mekler, E.D.: Self-determination theory in HCI games research: current uses and open questions. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–22. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376723

  18. Cupido, K., Ophoff, J.: A model of fundamental components for an e-government crowdsourcing platform. Electron. J. e-Govern. 12, 142–157 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Boateng, G.O., Neilands, T.B., Frongillo, E.A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H.R., Young, S.L.: Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front. Public Health. 6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

  20. Brooke, J.: SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Usability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 207–212. CRC Press, London (1996). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498710411-35

  21. Lewis, J.R.: The system usability scale: past, present, and future. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 34, 577–590 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Der Laan, J.D., Heino, A., De Waard, D.: A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 5, 1–10 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-090X(96)00025-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dunleavy, P., Davies, M., O’Farrell, H.: Improving and reviewing government forms: a practical guide. National Audit Office (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schmitz, C.: LimeSurvey: an open source survey tool. LimeSurvey Project, Hamburg, Germany (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  25. R Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  26. RStudio Team: RStudio: integrated development environment for R. Boston, MA (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  27. George, D., Mallery, P.: Reliability analysis. SPSS for Windows, step by step: a simple guide and reference, p. 222, 232. Allyn & Bacon, Boston (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  28. DeVellis, R.F.: Scale Development: Theory and Applications. SAGE Publications (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fu, H.N., Konstan, J.A., Wolfson, J.A., Adam, T.J., Clancy, T.R., Wyman, J.F.: Influence of patient characteristics and psychological needs on diabetes mobile app usability in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes: crossover randomized trial. JMIR Diabetes 4, e11462 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Clark, L.A., Watson, D.: Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. American Psychological Association, Washington (2016). https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-012

  31. Hassenzahl, M.: The thing and i: understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe, M.A., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A.F., and Wright, P.C. (eds.) Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, pp. 31–42. Springer, Dordrecht (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2967-5_4

  32. Laugwitz, B., Held, T., Schrepp, M.: Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Holzinger, A. (ed.) HCI and Usability for Education and Work, pp. 63–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Multimedia and Interactive Systems, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

    Mourad Zoubir, Daniel Wessel, Tim Schrills, Thomas Franke & Moreen Heine

Authors
  1. Mourad Zoubir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Wessel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tim Schrills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Franke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Moreen Heine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mourad Zoubir .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Département de génie mécanique, Université de Moncton, Moncton, NB, Canada

    Nancy L. Black

  2. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    W. Patrick Neumann

  3. Toronto, ON, Canada

    Ian Noy

Appendix

Appendix

The Original German Language EFUXS

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Zoubir, M., Wessel, D., Schrills, T., Franke, T., Heine, M. (2022). Making Tax eForms Less Taxing—Comparing Evaluation Measures of User-Experience, Usability, and Acceptance in Public Sector eForms. In: Black, N.L., Neumann, W.P., Noy, I. (eds) Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2021). IEA 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 223. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74614-8_91

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74614-8_91

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-74613-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-74614-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation