SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale

John Brooke
Redhatch Consulting Ltd., 12 Beaconsfield Way, Earley, READ !" R"# 2$% $nited &ingdo' e'ail( john.brooke@redhatch.co.uk

Abstract
Usability does not exist in any absolute sense; it can only be defined with reference to particular contexts. This, in turn, means that there are no absolute measures of usability, since, if the usability of an artefact is defined by the context in which that artefact is used, measures of usability must of necessity be defined by that context too. Despite this, there is a need for broad general measures which can be used to compare usability across a range of contexts. n addition, there is a need for !"uick and dirty# methods to allow low cost assessments of usability in industrial systems e$aluation. This chapter describes the %ystem Usability %cale &%U%' a reliable, low(cost usability scale that can be used for global assessments of systems usability.

Usability and context

$sa)ility is not a *uality that e+ists in any real or a)solute sense. ,erha-s it can )e )est su''ed u- as )eing a general *uality of the appropriateness to a purpose of any -articular artefact. .his notion is neatly su''ed u- )y .erry ,ratchett in his no/el 01o/ing ,ictures2( Well, at least he keeps himself fit, said the Archchancellor nastily. Not like the rest of you fellows. I went into the Uncommon Room this mornin and it was full of chaps snorin ! "hat would #e the senior masters, $aster, said the %ursar. I would say they are supremely fit, myself. Fit? "he &ean looks like a man whos swallered a #ed! Ah, #ut $aster, said the %ursar, smilin indul ently, the word fit',as I understand it, means appropriate to a purpose', and I would say that the #ody of the &ean is supremely appropriate to the purpose of sittin around all day and eatin #i hea(y meals. "he &ean permitted himself a little smile. )*ratchett, +,,-. n 3ust the sa'e 4ay, the usa)ility of any tool or syste' has to )e /ie4ed in ter's of the conte+t in 4hich it is used, and its a--ro-riateness to that conte+t. With -articular reference to infor'ation syste's, this /ie4 of usa)ility is reflected in the current draft international standard 56 7281911 and in the Euro-ean Co''unity E5,R . -ro3ect 1$5iC :1easuring $sa)ility of 5yste's in Conte+t; :e.g., Be/an, &irako4ski and 1aissel, 1771;. n general, it is i'-ossi)le to s-ecify the usa)ility of a syste' :i.e., its fitness for -ur-ose; 4ithout first defining 4ho are the intended users of the syste', the tasks those users 4ill -erfor' 4ith it, and the characteristics of the -hysical, organisational and social en/iron'ent in 4hich it 4ill )e used.

5ince usa)ility is itself a 'o/ea)le feast, it follo4s that 'easures of usa)ility 'ust the'sel/es )e de-endent on the 4ay in 4hich usa)ility is defined. t is -ossi)le to talk of so'e general classes of usa)ility 'easure< 56 7281911 suggests that 'easures of usa)ility should co/er effecti/eness : the a)ility of users to co'-lete tasks using the syste', and the *uality of the out-ut of those tasks;, efficiency : the le/el of resource consu'ed in -erfor'ing tasks; satisfaction :users= su)3ecti/e reactions to using the syste';.

>o4e/er, the -recise 'easures to )e used 4ithin each of these classes of 'etric can /ary 4idely. ?or e+a'-le, 'easures of effecti/eness are /ery o)/iously deter'ined )y the ty-es of task that are carried out 4ith the syste'< a 'easure of effecti/eness of a 4ord -rocessing syste' 'ight )e the nu')er of letters 4ritten, and 4hether the letters -roduced are free of s-elling 'istakes. f the syste' su--orts the task of controlling an industrial -rocess -roducing che'icals, on the other hand, the 'easures of task co'-letion and *uality are o)/iously going to reflect that -rocess. A conse*uence of the conte+t9s-ecificity of usa)ility and 'easures of usa)ility is that it is /ery difficult to 'ake co'-arisons of usa)ility across different syste's. Co'-aring usa)ility of different syste's intended for different -ur-oses is a clear case of 0co'-aring a--les and oranges2 and should )e a/oided 4here/er -ossi)le. t is also difficult and -otentially 'isleading to generalise design features and e+-erience across syste's< for e+a'-le, 3ust )ecause a -articular design feature has -ro/ed to )e /ery useful in 'aking one syste' usa)le does not necessarily 'ean that it 4ill do so for another syste' 4ith a different grou- of users doing different tasks in other en/iron'ents. f there is an area in 4hich it is -ossi)le to 'ake 'ore generalised assess'ents of usa)ility, 4hich could )ear cross9syste' co'-arison, it is the area of su)3ecti/e assess'ents of usa)ility. 5u)3ecti/e 'easures of usa)ility are usually o)tained through the use of *uestionnaires and attitude scales, and e+a'-les e+ist of general attitude scales 4hich are not s-ecific to any -articular syste' :for e+a'-le, C$5 :&irako4ski and Cor)ett, 17@@;;.

Industrial usability evaluation

.he de'ands of e/aluating usa)ility of syste's 4ithin an industrial conte+t 'ean that often it is neither cost9effecti/e nor -ractical to -erfor' a full9)lo4n conte+t analysis and selection of suita)le 'etrics. 6ften, all that is needed is a general indication of the o/erall le/el of usa)ility of a syste' co'-ared to its co'-etitors or its -redecessors. E*ually, 4hen selecting 'etrics, it is often desira)le to ha/e 'easures 4hich do not re*uire /ast effort and e+-ense to collect and analyse data. .hese sorts of considerations 4ere /ery i'-ortant 4hen, 4hile setting u- a usa)ility engineering -rogra''e for integrated office syste's engineering 4ith Digital E*ui-'ent Co. Ltd, a need 4as identified for a su)3ecti/e usa)ility 'easure. .he 'easure had to )e ca-a)le of )eing ad'inistered *uickly and si'-ly, )ut also had to )e relia)le enough to )e used to 'ake co'-arisons of user -erfor'ance changes fro' /ersion to /ersion of a soft4are -roduct. .he need for si'-licity and s-eed ca'e fro' the e/aluation 'ethods )eing used< users fro' custo'er sites 4ould either /isit a hu'an factors la)oratory, or a tra/elling la)oratory 4ould )e set u- at the custo'er site. .he users 4ould then 4ork through e/aluation e+ercises lasting )et4een 2A 'inutes and an hour, at the end of 4hich a su)3ecti/e 'easure of syste' usa)ility 4ould )e collected. As can )e i'agined, after this -eriod of ti'e, users could )e /ery frustrated, es-ecially if they had encountered -ro)le's, since no assistance 4as gi/en. f they 4ere then -resented 4ith a long *uestionnaire, containing in e+cess of 2B *uestions it 4as /ery likely that they 4ould not co'-lete it and there 4ould )e insufficient data to assess su)3ecti/e reactions to syste' usa)ility.

SUS - the System Usability Scale

n res-onse to these re*uire'ents, a si'-le usa)ility scale 4as de/elo-ed. .he 5yste' $sa)ility 5cale :5$5; is a si'-le, ten9ite' scale gi/ing a glo)al /ie4 of su)3ecti/e assess'ents of usa)ility. 5$5 is a )ikert scale. t is often assu'ed that a Likert scale is si'-ly one )ased on forced9 choice *uestions, 4here a state'ent is 'ade and the res-ondent then indicates the degree of agree'ent or disagree'ent 4ith the state'ent on a B :or C; -oint scale. >o4e/er, the construction of a Likert scale is so'e4hat 'ore su)tle than this. Whilst Likert scales are -resented in this for', the state'ents 4ith 4hich the res-ondent indicates agree'ent and disagree'ent ha/e to )e selected carefully. .he techni*ue used for selecting ite's for a Likert scale is to identify e+a'-les of things 4hich lead to e+tre'e e+-ressions of the attitude )eing ca-tured. ?or instance, if one 4as interested in attitudes to cri'es and 'isde'eanours, one 'ight use serial 'urder and -arking offences as e+a'-les of the e+tre'e ends of the s-ectru'. When these e+a'-les ha/e )een selected, then a sa'-le of res-ondents is asked to gi/e ratings to these e+a'-les across a 4ide -ool of -otential *uestionnaire ite's. ?or instance, res-ondents 'ight )e asked to res-ond to state'ents such as 0hanging=s too good for the'2, or 0 can i'agine 'yself doing so'ething like this2. "i/en a large -ool of such state'ents, there 4ill generally )e so'e 4here there is a lot of agree'ent )et4een res-ondents. n addition, so'e of these 4ill )e ones 4here the state'ents -ro/oke e+tre'e state'ents of agree'ent or disagree'ent a'ong all res-ondents. t is these latter state'ents 4hich one tries to identify for inclusion in a Likert scale, since, 4e 4ould ho-e that, if 4e ha/e selected suita)le e+a'-les, there 4ould )e general agree'ent of e+tre'e attitudes to the'. te's 4here there is a')iguity are not good discri'inators of attitudes. ?or instance, 4hile one ho-es that there 4ould )e a general, e+tre'e disagree'ent that 0hanging=s too good2 for those 4ho -er-etrate -arking offences, there 'ay 4ell )e less agree'ent a)out a--lying this state'ent to serial killers, since o-inions differ 4idely a)out the ethics and efficacy of ca-ital -unish'ent. 5$5 4as constructed using this techni*ue. A -ool of BA -otential *uestionnaire ite's 4as asse')led. .4o e+a'-les of soft4are syste's 4ere then selected :one a linguistic tool ai'ed at end users, the other a tool for syste's -rogra''ers; on the )asis of general agree'ent that one 4as 0really easy to use2 and one 4as al'ost i'-ossi)le to use, e/en for highly technically skilled users. 2A -eo-le fro' the office syste's engineering grou-, 4ith occu-ations ranging fro' secretary through to syste's -rogra''er then rated )oth syste's against all BA -otential *uestionnaire ite's on a B -oint scale ranging fro' 0strongly agree2 to 0strongly disagree2. .he ite's leading to the 'ost e+tre'e res-onses fro' the original -ool 4ere then selected. .here 4ere /ery close intercorrelations )et4een all of the selected ite's :D A.C to D A.7;. n addition, ite's 4ere selected so that the co''on res-onse to half of the' 4as strong agree'ent, and to the other half, strong disagree'ent. .his 4as done in order to -re/ent res-onse )iases caused )y res-ondents not ha/ing to think a)out each state'ent< )y alternating -ositi/e and negati/e ite's, the res-ondent has to read each state'ent and 'ake an effort to think 4hether they agree or disagree 4ith it. .he 5yste' $sa)ility 5cale is sho4n in the ne+t section of this cha-ter. t can )e seen that the selected state'ents actually co/er a /ariety of as-ects of syste' usa)ility, such as the need for su--ort, training, and co'-le+ity, and thus ha/e a high le/el of face /alidity for 'easuring usa)ility of a syste'.

System Usability Scale

E Digital E*ui-'ent Cor-oration, 17@#.

5trongly disagree 1. think that 4ould like to use this syste' fre*uently 2. found the syste' unnecessarily co'-le+
1 2 3 4

5trongly agree

F. thought the syste' 4as easy to use

1 2 3 4 5

8. think that 4ould need the su--ort of a technical -erson to )e a)le to use this syste' B. found the /arious functions in this syste' 4ere 4ell integrated

#. thought there 4as too 'uch inconsistency in this syste'

1 2 3 4 5

C. 4ould i'agine that 'ost -eo-le 4ould learn to use this syste' /ery *uickly @. found the syste' /ery cu')erso'e to use

7. felt /ery confident using the syste'

1 2 3 4 5

1A. needed to learn a lot of things )efore could get going 4ith this syste'

Using SUS
.he 5$ scale is generally used after the res-ondent has had an o--ortunity to use the syste' )eing e/aluated, )ut )efore any de)riefing or discussion takes -lace. Res-ondents should )e asked to record their i''ediate res-onse to each ite', rather than thinking a)out ite's for a long ti'e. All ite's should )e checked. f a res-ondent feels that they cannot res-ond to a -articular ite', they should 'ark the centre -oint of the scale.

Scoring SUS
5$5 yields a single nu')er re-resenting a co'-osite 'easure of the o/erall usa)ility of the syste' )eing studied. !ote that scores for indi/idual ite's are not 'eaningful on their o4n. .o calculate the 5$5 score, first su' the score contri)utions fro' each ite'. Each ite'Gs score contri)ution 4ill range fro' A to 8. ?or ite's 1,F,B,C,and 7 the score contri)ution is the scale -osition 'inus 1. ?or ite's 2,8,#,@ and 1A, the contri)ution is B 'inus the scale -osition. 1ulti-ly the su' of the scores )y 2.B to o)tain the o/erall /alue of 5$. 5$5 scores ha/e a range of A to 1AA. .he follo4ing section gi/es an e+a'-le of a scored 5$ scale.

System Usability Scale

E Digital E*ui-'ent Cor-oration, 17@#.

5trongly disagree 1. think that 4ould like to use this syste' fre*uently 2. found the syste' unnecessarily co'-le+
1 2 3

5trongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

8 1

4 5

F. thought the syste' 4as easy to use

1

2 3 4 5

8. think that 4ould need the su--ort of a technical -erson to )e a)le to use this syste' B. found the /arious functions in this syste' 4ere 4ell integrated

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

#. thought there 4as too 'uch inconsistency in this syste' C. 4ould i'agine that 'ost -eo-le 4ould learn to use this syste' /ery *uickly @. found the syste' /ery cu')erso'e to use

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

7. felt /ery confident using the syste'

1 2 3 4

1A. needed to learn a lot of things )efore could get going 4ith this syste'

1 2 3 4 5

Total score = 22 SUS Score = 22 *22.5 = 55

Conclusion
5$5 has -ro/ed to )e a /alua)le e/aluation tool, )eing ro)ust and relia)le. t correlates 4ell 4ith other su)3ecti/es 'easures of usa)ility :eg., the general usa)ility su)scale of the 5$1 in/entory de/elo-ed in the 1$5iC -ro3ect :&irako4ski, -ersonal co''unication;;. 5$5 has )een 'ade freely a/aila)le for use in usa)ility assess'ent, and has )een used for a /ariety of research -ro3ects and industrial e/aluations< the only -rere*uisite for its use is that any -u)lished re-ort should ackno4ledge the source of the 'easure.

Acknowledgements
5$5 4as de/elo-ed as -art of the usa)ility engineering -rogra''e in integrated office syste's de/elo-'ent at Digital E*ui-'ent Co Ltd., Reading, $nited &ingdo'.

References
Be/an, !, &irako4ski, J and 1aissel, J, 1771, What is $sa)ilityH, in >.9J. Bullinger, :Ed.;. *uman +spects in ,omputing- Design and use of interacti$e systems and work with terminals, A'sterda'( Else/ier. &irako4ski, J and Cor)ett, 1, 17@@, 1easuring $ser 5atisfaction, in D 1 Jones and R Winder :Eds.; .eople and ,omputers /. Ca')ridge( Ca')ridge $ni/ersity ,ress. ,ratchett, .., 177A 0o$ing .ictures. London( "ollancI