Skip to main content

Table 4 Corrected item-subscale and item-total Spearman’s ρ correlation coefficients, by rater

From: Development and validation of the Italian version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale and its generalisability to apps targeting primary prevention

Subscale

Item

Corrected item-subscale correlation, ρ (95 % CI)

Corrected item-total correlation, ρ (95 % CI)

Rater 1

Rater 2

Rater 1

Rater 2

Engagement

1

.80 (.65–.89)

.81 (.68–.89)

.78 (.61–.88)

.74 (.55–.86)

2

.82 (.64–.92)

.79 (.64–.89)

.78 (.62–.88)

.75 (.57–.86)

3

.47 (.20–.68)

.71 (.52–.84)

.35 (.06–.59)

.62 (.37–.78)

4

.62 (.35–.82)

.44 (.15–.69)

.54 (.24–.76)

.28 (−.03–.56)

5

.61 (.39–.77)

.54 (.28–.74)

.77 (.60–.88)

.69 (.48–.84)

Functionality

6

.64 (.41–.82)

.62 (.40–.76)

.48 (.20–.69)

.42 (.11–.67)

7

.50 (.22–.72)

.71 (.51–.84)

.33 (.02–.60)

.62 (.38–.79)

8

.75 (.56–.88)

.78 (.63–.87)

.45 (.17–.68)

.74 (.57–.86)

9

.65 (.44–.81)

.80 (.62–.90)

.53 (.29–.70)

.73 (.53–.86)

Aesthetics

10

.69 (.45–.84)

.60 (.36–.78)

.82 (.66–.91)

.69 (.50–.83)

11

.75 (.55–.89)

.88 (.80–.93)

.60 (.35–.78)

.75 (.57–.86)

12

.86 (.73–.93)

.87 (.76–.93)

.68 (.48–.82)

.75 (.55–.87)

Informationa

13

.33 (.03–.58)

.43 (.14–.66)

.30 (−.02–.59)

.43 (.11–.69)

14

.32 (.01–.59)

.34 (.01–.63)

.23 (−.11–.54)

.27 (−.06–.56)

15

.70 (.51–.84)

.76 (.62–.83)

.61 (.35–.80)

.58 (.36–.76)

16

.49 (.22–.71)

.51 (.29–.67)

.73 (.54–.86)

.56 (.28–.77)

17

.54 (.23–.77)

.54 (.28–.71)

.63 (.39–.79)

.71 (.52–.84)

18

.62 (.42–.76)

.59 (.36–.77)

.61 (.38–.78)

.57 (.33–.76)

Subjective quality

20

.94 (.90–.97)

.89 (.80–.94)

.89 (.79–.94)

.83 (.69–.90)

21

.88 (.77–.94)

.86 (.75–.92)

.81 (.67–.89)

.81 (.69–.88)

22

.88 (.81–.92)

.79 (.65–.86)

.81 (.65–.90)

.69 (.51–.80)

23

.95 (.91–.97)

.94 (.89–.97)

.89 (.79–.94)

.88 (.79–.94)

  1. aItem 19 was excluded from all calculations because of lack of ratings