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