This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Principal Component Analysis of System Usability Scale for Its Application in Automotive In-Vehicle Information System Development
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published April 14, 2020 by SAE International in United States
This content contains downloadable datasetsAnnotation ability available
The System Usability Scale (SUS) is used across industries, to evaluate a product’s ease of use. As the automotive industry increases its digital footprint, the SUS has found its application as a simple and reliable assessment of various in-vehicle human machine interfaces. These evaluations cover a broad scope and it is important to design studies with participant fatigue, study time, and study cost in mind. Reducing the number of items in the SUS questionnaire could save researchers time and resources. The SUS is a ten-item questionnaire that can measure usability and learnability, depending on the system. These ten questions are highly correlated to each other suggesting the SUS score can be determined with fewer items. Thus, the focus of this paper is two-fold: using principal component analysis (PCA) to determine the dimensionality of SUS and using this finding to reduce variables and build a regression equation for SUS scores for in-vehicle human machine interfaces. Data from 42 systems were used for this evaluation. Building a prediction model using items 3 (I thought the system was easy to use), 9 (I felt very confident using the system) and 10 (I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with the system) was determined to be the best way to reduce the questionnaire while preserving the learnability dimension that occurs in measuring in-vehicle systems. Further studies should be done on how a reduced questionnaire impacts the assumptions built into SUS protocol.
CitationChandran, S., Maley, N., Forbes, J., Bittick, C. et al., "Principal Component Analysis of System Usability Scale for Its Application in Automotive In-Vehicle Information System Development," SAE Technical Paper 2020-01-1200, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4271/2020-01-1200.
Data Sets - Support Documents
|[Unnamed Dataset 1]|
|[Unnamed Dataset 2]|
|[Unnamed Dataset 3]|
|[Unnamed Dataset 4]|
- Barry, K. , “Choose an Infotainment System You’ll Love,” Consumer Reports, 2019.
- Robertson, I. and Kortum, P. , “Extraneous Factors in Usability Testing: Evidence of Decision Fatigue During Sequential Usability Judgments,” 2018, doi: 10.1177/1541931218621321.
- Brooke, J. , “System Usability Scale (SUS): A Quick-and-Dirty Method of System Evaluation User Information,” Digital Equipment Co Ltd, Reading UK, 1986.
- Lewis, J. and Sauro, J. , “The Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale,” Human Centered Design Lecture Notes in Computer Science 94-103, 2009, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12.
- Bangor, A. , “Determining What the Individual SUS Score Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale,” Journal of Usability Studies 4(3):114-123, 2009.
- Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., and Miller, J.T. , “An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale,” Int J Hum Comp Interact 24:574-594, 2008.
- Pribeanu, C. , “Comments on the Reliability and Validity of UMUX and UMUX-LITE Short Scales,” Proceedings of the ROCHI Conference in Human Computer Interaction (ROCHI '16), in Romania, 2016, 2099-2102.
- Lewis, J. and Sauro, J. , “Revisiting the Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale,” Journal of Usability Studies 12(4):183-192, 2017.
- Orfanou, K., Tselios, N.K., and Katsanos, C. , “Perceived Usability Evaluation of Learning Management Systems: Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale,” 2015, doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.1955.
- Chandran, S.K., Forbes, J., Bittick, C., Allanson, K. et al. , “Impact of Pre-Study Exploration on System Usability Scale and Task Success Rates for Automotive Interfaces,” SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-1385, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-1385.