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