A- A  A+

Commonly Used Questionnaires and Rating Scales in HCI Research

Last update:

In Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) research, various rating scales are commonly used to assess user experience, usability, and other factors. These scales provide vital insights into the interaction between users and computer systems, helping researchers and designers to enhance the effectiveness and intuitiveness of technology. The following list categorizes some of the most popular rating scales used in HCI research, highlighting the specific factors they are designed to assess. Cite this page as follows:

Ahmed Sabbir Arif. 2023. Commonly Used Questionnaires and Rating Scales in HCI Research. University of California, Merced, United States. https://www.theiilab.com/notes/scales.html
Evaluation Instrument Reference
Acceptance Technology (Acceptance Questionnaire) Van Der Laan et al. (1997)
Customer Satisfaction Net Promoter Score (NPS) Reichheld (2003)
Eye/Visual Fatigue Visual Fatigue Questionnaire Heuer et al. (1989)
Flow,
Presence, and
Engagement		 Core Flow Scale Martin & Jackson (2008)
Short Flow Scale Martin & Jackson (2008)
Flow for Presence Questionnaire (FPQ) Redaelli & Riva (2011)
Flow State Scale (FSS) Jackson & Marsh (1996)
Presence Questionnaire (PQ) Witmer & Singer (1998)
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) Schaufeli & Bakker (2003)
Game Game Engagement Questionnaire (GEQ) Brockmyer et al. (2009)
Game Experience Questionnaire (GE) IJsselsteijn et al. (2007)
Player Experience Inventory (PXI) Abeele et al. (2020)
Mini Player Experience Inventory (miniPXI) Haider et al. (2022)
Habit Self-Report Habit Index (SRHI) Verplanken & Orbell (2003)
Handedness Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI) Oldfield (1971)
Hedonic and
Pragmatic Qualities		 Modular Evaluation of Components of User Experience (MeCUE) Minge et al. (2017)
Intuitiveness Intuitive Interaction Questionnaire (INTUI) Ullrich & Diefenbach (2010)
Media
Virtual Reality
Augmented Reality		 Immersive Tendencies Questionnaire (ITQ) Witmer & Singer (1998)
Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) Kennedy et al. (1993)
Relationship Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) Spanier (1976)
Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Scale Aron et al. (1992)
Relationship Closeness Inventory (RCI) Berscheid et al. (1989)
Satisfaction End-user Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) Doll & Torkzadeh (1988)
Situational
Awareness		 Situational Awareness Rating Technique (SART) Taylor (1989)
Somatic
Symptoms		 Borg's Category-Ratio Scale (CR10) Borg (1998)
Borg's Ratings of Perceived Exertion & Pain (RPE) Borg (1998)
Trust Trust in Automation (TiA) Körber (2019)
Usability After-Scenario Questionnaire (ASQ) Lewis (1991)
AttrakDiff Questionnaire Hassenzahl et al. (2003)
Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ) Lewis (1995)
Nielsen's Attributes of Usability (NAU) Nielsen (1993)
Nielsen's Heuristic Evaluation (NHE) Nielsen (1993)
Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use (PUEU) Davis (1989)
Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) Lewis (1992)
Practical Heuristics for Usability Evaluation (PHUE) Perlman (1997)
Purdue Usability Testing Questionnaire (PUTQ) Lin et al. (1997)
Questionnaire for User Interface Satisfaction (QUIS) Chin et al. (1988)
Single Ease Question (SEQ) Sauro & Lewis (2012)
System Usability Scale (SUS) Brooke (1996)
Technology Acceptance Model Satisfaction (TAM) Davis (1989)
Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of use (USE) Questionnaire Lund (2001)
User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) Laugwitz et al. (2008)
Website Website Analysis and MeasureMent Inventory (WAMMI) Kirakowski & Cierlik (1998)
Workload Integrated Workload Scale (IWS) Pickup et al. (2005)
NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) NASA (1986) by Sandra G. Hart
Overall Workload Scale (OW) Vidulich & Tsang (1987)
Rating Scale Mental Effort (RSME) Zijlstra & Van Doorn (1985) pp. 59
Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT) Reid & Nygren (1988)
Workload Profile (WP) Tsang & Velazquez (1996)

Alternatives to Likert Scale

  1. Constant Sum Scale (CMS) or Points Allocation: Respondents distribute points among items to indicate relative importance or preference.
  2. Dichotomous Scale: A simple two-point scale, like "Yes/No" or "True/False."
  3. Guttman Scale (Guttman, 1944): Involves statements that increase in intensity, assuming agreement with less intense statements implies agreement with more intense ones.
  4. Mokken Scale (Mokken, 2011): A non-parametric model for creating scales from binary items.
  5. Ranking Scale: Respondents rank order items according to a criterion.
  6. Semantic Differential Scale (Osgood et al., 1957): Uses a line with opposing adjectives at each end for rating.
  7. Stapel Scale (by Jan Stapel): Centers around a single adjective rated against a numerical range.
  8. Thurstone Scale (Thurstone, 1928): Involves expert-assigned values to statements, with respondents indicating agreement.
  9. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): A continuous line where respondents mark their level of agreement or feeling.

Alternatives to Likert Scale for Young Children

  1. Color Scale: Uses different colors to represent different levels of agreement or satisfaction, which is intuitive and engaging for younger children.
  2. Smileyometer (Read & MacFarlane, 2000): A visual scale with a range of smiley faces, from very happy to very sad, for children to indicate their feelings or satisfaction.
  3. Facial Expression Scale (based on Paul Ekman's work): Similar to the Smileyometer, this scale uses a range of facial expressions to gauge feelings or reactions.
  4. Picture Scale: Incorporates pictures or icons that represent different levels of feelings or opinions, suitable for children who are not yet reading.
  5. Sticky Ladder Scale (Airey et al., 2002): Children use stickers or tokens on a ladder-like structure to indicate preferences.
  6. Paper Ladder Scale (Sylla et al., 2017): A paper-based, simpler version of the Sticky Ladder Scale, allowing children to express their preferences in an easy and accessible way.
  7. Thermometer Scale: Uses the metaphor of a thermometer to gauge levels of feeling or satisfaction, with higher temperatures indicating more of a certain feeling.
  8. Token Voting: Children are given a set number of tokens to allocate to different options, indicating their preference or priority.

References

  1. Abeele, V.V., Spiel, K., Nacke, L., Johnson, D. and Gerling, K. 2020. Development and Validation of the Player Experience Inventory: A Scale to Measure Player Experiences at the Level of Functional and Psychosocial Consequences. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 135, (Mar. 2020), 102370.
  2. Airey, S., Plowman, L., Connolly, D. and Luckin, R. 2002. Rating Children's Enjoyment of Toys, Games and Media. 3rd World Congress of the International Toy Research Association on Toys, Games and Media (London, U.K., 2002).
  3. Albert, B. and Tullis, T. 2022. Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting UX Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann.
  4. Aron, A., Aron, E.N. and Smollan, D. 1992. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63, 4 (1992), 596–612.
  5. Berscheid, E., Snyder, M. and Omoto, A.M. 1989. The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57, 5 (1989), 792–807.
  6. Borg, G. 1998. Borg's Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Human Kinetics.
  7. Brockmyer, J.H., Fox, C.M., Curtiss, K.A., McBroom, E., Burkhart, K.M. and Pidruzny, J.N. 2009. The Development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A Measure of Engagement in Video Game-Playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 45, 4 (Jul. 2009), 624–634.
  8. Brooke, J. 1996. SUS: A "Quick and Dirty" Usability. Usability Evaluation in Industry. P.W. Jordan, B. Thomas, I.L. McClelland, and B. Weerdmeester, eds. CRC Press. 189–194.
  9. Chin, J.P., Diehl, V.A. and Norman, K.L. 1988. Development of an Instrument Measuring User Satisfaction of the Human-Computer Interface. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, May 1988), 213–218.
  10. Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 13, 3 (1989), 319–340.
  11. Doll, W.J. and Torkzadeh, G. 1988. The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction. MIS Quarterly. 12, 2 (1988), 259–274.
  12. Guttman, L. 1944. A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data. American Sociological Review. 9, 2 (1944), 139–150.
  13. Haider, A., Harteveld, C., Johnson, D., Birk, M.V., Mandryk, R.L., Seif El-Nasr, M., Nacke, L.E., Gerling, K. and Vanden Abeele, V. 2022. miniPXI: Development and Validation of an Eleven-Item Measure of the Player Experience Inventory. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 6, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2022), 244:1-244:26.
  14. Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M. and Koller, F. 2003. AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. Mensch & Computer 2003: Interaktion in Bewegung. G. Szwillus and J. Ziegler, eds. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag. 187–196.
  15. Heuer, H., Hollendiek, G., Kröger, H., Römer, T. 1989. Die Ruhelage der Augen und ihr Einfluss auf Beobachtungsabstand und visuelle Ermüdung bei Bildschirmarbeit [Rest position of the eyes and its effect on viewing distance and visual fatigue in computer display work]. Z Exp Angew Psychol. 1989;36(4):538-66. German.
  16. IJsselsteijn, W., Kort, Y. de, Poels, K., Jurgelionis, A. and Bellotti, F. 2007. Characterising and Measuring User Experiences in Digital Games. International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (ACE 2007) (2007), 1–4.
  17. Jackson, S.A. and Marsh, H.W. 1996. Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Optimal Experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 18, 1 (Mar. 1996), 17–35.
  18. Kennedy, R.S., Lane, N.E., Berbaum, K.S. and Lilienthal, M.G. 1993. Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology. 3, 3 (Jul. 1993), 203–220.
  19. Kirakowski, J. and Cierlik, B. 1998. Measuring the Usability of Web Sites. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 42, 4 (Oct. 1998), 424–428.
  20. Körber, M. 2019. Theoretical Considerations and Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Trust in Automation. Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (Cham, 2019), 13–30.
  21. Laugwitz, B., Held, T. and Schrepp, M. 2008. Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire. HCI and Usability for Education and Work (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008), 63–76.
  22. Lewis, J.R. 1991. Psychometric Evaluation of An After-Scenario Questionnaire for Computer Usability Studies: the ASQ. ACM Sigchi Bulletin, 23(1), pp.78-81.
  23. Lewis, J.R. 1995. Computer System Usability Questionnaire. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. (1995).
  24. Lewis, J.R. 1995. IBM Computer Usability Satisfaction Questionnaires: Psychometric Evaluation and Instructions for Use. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 7, 1 (Jan. 1995), 57–78.
  25. Lewis, J.R. 1992. Psychometric Evaluation of the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire: The PSSUQ. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting. 36, 16 (Oct. 1992), 1259–1260.
  26. Lin, H.X., Choong, Y.-Y. and Salvendy, G. 1997. A Proposed Index of Usability: A Method for Comparing the Relative Usability of Different Software Systems. Behaviour & Information Technology. 16, 4–5 (Jan. 1997), 267–277.
  27. Lund, A.M. 2001. Measuring Usability with the Use Questionnaire. Usability interface. 8, 2 (2001), 3–6.
  28. Minge, M., Thüring, M., Wagner, I. and Kuhr, C.V. 2017. The meCUE Questionnaire: A Modular Tool for Measuring User Experience. Advances in Ergonomics Modeling, Usability & Special Populations (Cham, 2017), 115–128.
  29. Mokken, R.J. 2011. A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis: With Applications in Political Research. A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis. De Gruyter Mouton.
  30. NASA 1986. NASA Task Load Index (TLX) V 1.0: Paper and Pencil Package. Human Performance Research Group, NASA Ames Research Center.
  31. Nielsen, J. 1994. Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
  32. Oldfield, R.C. 1971. The Assessment and Analysis of Handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia. 9, 1 (Mar. 1971), 97–113.
  33. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J. and Tannenbaum, P.H. 1957. The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press.
  34. Perlman, G. 1997. Practical Usability Evaluation. CHI '97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, Mar. 1997), 168–169.
  35. Read, J.C. and MacFarlane, S. 2000. Measuring Fun. Computers and Fun. 3, (2000).
  36. Redaelli, C. and Riva, G. 2011. Flow for Presence Questionnaire. Digital Factory for Human-oriented Production Systems: The Integration of International Research Projects. L. Canetta, C. Redaelli, and M. Flores, eds. Springer. 3–22.
  37. Reichheld, F.F. 2003. The One Number You Need to Grow. Harvard Business Review. 81, 12 (Dec. 2003), 46–54, 124.
  38. Reid, G.B. and Nygren, T.E. 1988. The Subjective Workload Assessment Technique: A Scaling Procedure for Measuring Mental Workload. Advances in Psychology. P.A. Hancock and N. Meshkati, eds. North-Holland. 185–218.
  39. Sauro, J. and Lewis, J.R. 2016. Quantifying the User Experience: Practical Statistics for User Research. Morgan Kaufmann.
  40. Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. 2003. Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Preliminary Manual. Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University, Utrecht. 26, 1 (2003), 64–100.
  41. Spanier, G.B. 1976. Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales for Assessing the Quality of Marriage and Similar Dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family. 38, 1 (1976), 15–28.
  42. Sylla, C.M., Arif, A.S., Segura, E.M. and Brooks, E.I. 2017. Paper Ladder: A Rating Scale to Collect Children's Opinion in User Studies. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (New York, NY, USA, Sep. 2017), 1–8.
  43. Tsang, P. S., & Velazquez, V. L. (1996). Diagnosticity and multidimensional subjective workload ratings. Ergonomics, 39(3), 358-381.
  44. Taylor, R.M. 1989. Situational Awareness Rating Technique (SART): The Development of a Tool for Aircrew Systems Design. Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations. Aerospace Medical Panel Symposium (Copenhagen, Denmark, Oct. 1989).
  45. Thurstone, L.L. 1928. Attitudes Can Be Measured. American Journal of Sociology. 33, 4 (Jan. 1928), 529–554.
  46. Ullrich, D. and Diefenbach, S. 2010. INTUI. Exploring the Facets of Intuitive Interaction. Mensch & Computer 2010. J. Ziegler and A. Schmidt, eds. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag. 251–260.
  47. Van Der Laan, J.D., Heino, A. and De Waard, D. 1997. A Simple Procedure for the Assessment of Acceptance of Advanced Transport Telematics. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 5, 1 (Feb. 1997), 1–10.
  48. Verplanken, B. and Orbell, S. 2003. Reflections on Past Behavior: A Self-Report Index of Habit Strength. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 33, 6 (2003), 1313–1330.
  49. Vidulich, M.A. and Tsang, P.S., 1987, September. Absolute Magnitude Estimation and Relative Judgement Approaches to Subjective Workload Assessment. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 31, No. 9, pp. 1057-1061). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
  50. Witmer, B.G. and Singer, M.J. 1998. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 7, 3 (Jun. 1998), 225–240.
  51. Zijlstra, F. R. H., and L. Van Doorn. The Construction of a Scale to Measure Perceived Effort (Technical Report). Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University of Technology (1985).