e.g. mhealth
Search Results (1 to 10 of 120 Results)
Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS
Skip search results from other journals and go to results- 38 Journal of Medical Internet Research
- 23 JMIR Formative Research
- 17 JMIR mHealth and uHealth
- 5 JMIR Research Protocols
- 4 JMIR Cardio
- 4 JMIR Human Factors
- 4 JMIR Medical Informatics
- 3 Interactive Journal of Medical Research
- 3 JMIR Medical Education
- 3 JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies
- 2 Iproceedings
- 2 JMIR Aging
- 2 JMIR Cancer
- 2 JMIR Infodemiology
- 2 JMIR Serious Games
- 1 Asian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal
- 1 JMIR Mental Health
- 1 JMIR Neurotechnology
- 1 JMIR Nursing
- 1 JMIR Perioperative Medicine
- 1 JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- 0 Medicine 2.0
- 0 iProceedings
- 0 JMIR Preprints
- 0 JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology
- 0 JMIR Challenges
- 0 JMIR Diabetes
- 0 JMIR Biomedical Engineering
- 0 JMIR Data
- 0 Journal of Participatory Medicine
- 0 JMIR Dermatology
- 0 JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting
- 0 JMIRx Med
- 0 JMIRx Bio
- 0 Transfer Hub (manuscript eXchange)
- 0 JMIR AI
- 0 Online Journal of Public Health Informatics
- 0 JMIR XR and Spatial Computing (JMXR)
The questionnaire had satisfactory reliability and validity, with the scale-content validity index (S-CVI), Cronbach α coefficient, and split-half reliability of 0.97, 0.96, and 0.99, respectively [25]. Given its focus on users of medical apps, the questionnaire was only administered to older people.
J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e67948
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach α, Mc Donald ω, and composite reliability coefficients, and values of ≥0.7 were classified as satisfactory [29,30].
The SECP developers specified a 4-factor model of the SECP, as presented in Table 1 [19]. Discriminant validity was evaluated using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, where good discriminant validity is indicated when the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each factor is greater than the correlations between factors [31].
JMIR Form Res 2025;9:e68173
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
The higher the coefficient, the stronger the test-retest reliability [13]. κ values between 0.41 and 0.6 were considered to be of moderate reliability, between 0.61 and 0.8 as substantial reliability and between 0.81 and 1 very high reliability [19]. κ is influenced by the trait prevalence and basal rates. κ may be low even though there are high levels of agreement and even though individual ratings are accurate, thus we have also calculated the proportion of observed and expected agreement only by chance.
Interact J Med Res 2025;14:e64720
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Measurement reliability was evaluated using person separation indices with defined thresholds: 0.67-0.80 (fair), 0.81-0.90 (good), 0.91-0.94 (very good), and >0.94 (excellent) [33]. The strata were classified as follows: 2 (poor), 2-3 (fair), 3-4 (good), 4-5 (very good), and >5 (magnificent). To confirm model fit, we ran repeated Rasch analyses, modifying items to create new scales and assessing person reliability, separation indices, and scale-to-sample targeting.
J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e64591
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
The objective of this study was to explore the acceptability and technical reliability of 2 wearable sensors that are commonly used by people with PD.
This study is reported in line with the CROSS checklist (Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies) [12] (Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1).
JMIR Form Res 2025;9:e63704
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
The second goal of this study was to alter stopping rules to improve reliability and, more specifically, to achieve clinically relevant reliability (eg, reliability ≥0.95). This is especially important today as the NIH Toolbox is increasingly being used with clinical populations and in clinical settings, even though it was developed specifically for use in research.
JMIR Form Res 2025;9:e60215
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Although previous validation studies lack consensus and have defined varying accuracy thresholds, this study classified a device as having very high accuracy if MAPE was
Reliability was assessed using the within-subject coefficient of variation (WSCV), calculated based on the differences between the tested devices and the reference data, where lower values indicate greater consistency.
JMIR Cardio 2025;9:e67110
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
It included 22 questions from the TUQ, using a 7-point Likert scale, to assess the ease of use and learnability, interface quality, interaction quality, reliability, satisfaction and future use, and usefulness. The remaining questions ascertained participants’ demographics and details on the respondent’s use of the videoconferencing system in the ICU. Free-text comment boxes were available to gather additional qualitative data.
JMIR Hum Factors 2025;12:e54560
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Cronbach α and Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to assess the internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the instrument. A Cronbach α≥0.70 indicated good internal consistency, while ICC>0.70 indicated good time stability [23]. The I-CVI and the Scale CVI/Average (S-CVI/Ave) were used to evaluate content validity of the instrument. I-CVI≥0.78 and S-CVI/Ave≥0.90 indicate satisfactory content validity [24].
JMIR Hum Factors 2025;12:e65373
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS