Skip to main content

Table 2 Correlations among app ratings, MARS, number of techniques and total number of features

From: A review and content analysis of engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information quality, and change techniques in the most popular commercial apps for weight management

Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1. Avg. rating iTunes

1.00

         

2. Avg. rating GP

.16

1.00

        

3. User ratings iTunes

.27

-.05

1.00

       

4. User ratings GP

-.02

.40

.22

1.00

      

5. MARS engagement

.47*

.24

.33

.25

1.00

     

6. MARS functionality

-.01

-.01

.08

.25

.62**

1.00

    

7. MARS aesthetics

.31

.26

.21

.29

.81**

.80**

1.00

   

8. MARS information quality

-.12

.29

-.06

.22

.28

.54**

.50*

1.00

  

9. MARS total score

.24

.18

.21

.26

.82**

.90**

.96**

.58**

1.00

 

10. Number of change techiques

.06

.00

.51*

.18

.49*

.48*

.55**

.47*

.58**

1.00

11. Number of features

.19

.07

.63**

.51*

.64**

.33

.52*

.07

.48*

.61**

  1. Notes: GP google play, MARS mobile app rating scale. ** p < .01; * p < .05