Development and Psychometric Validation of a Usability Instrument Based on ISO 25010 for Electronic Health Record Systems in Peruvian Health Care Settings: Methodological Study
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses, administrative staff) using electronic health record systems in Peruvian healthcare settings |
| I — Intervention | 23-item usability assessment instrument based on ISO 25010 quality model |
| C — Comparator | Expert validation using modified Delphi method and existing usability frameworks |
| O — Outcomes | Content validity (Aiken's V), internal consistency (Cronbach's α), structural validity (confirmatory factor analysis), and compliance with Peruvian Technical Health Standard |
Bottom Line
This methodological study successfully developed and validated a 23-item usability assessment instrument for electronic health record systems based on ISO 25010 standards. The instrument demonstrated excellent psychometric properties including high content validity (Aiken's V=0.95) and internal consistency (α=0.968) among 115 Peruvian healthcare professionals. While the study provides a robust validation methodology and represents the first Spanish-language instrument of this type, its direct applicability to Australian healthcare settings is limited due to different regulatory frameworks. The work offers valuable insights for developing similar standardised usability assessment tools that could support EHR implementation and optimisation in local contexts. Healthcare organisations considering EHR usability evaluation should note the importance of culturally appropriate, validated instruments that align with local regulatory requirements.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported for primary validation outcomes
Effect Size: High content validity (Aiken's V=0.95) and excellent internal consistency (α=0.968)
Primary Outcome: Instrument validation with excellent psychometric properties
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Sensitivity: 81.7% rated usability as very high, 18.3% as high; Specificity: 80% compliance with regulatory standards
Confidence Interval: 95% CI 0.84-0.98 for Aiken's V coefficient
Clinical Application
Moderate - requires trained personnel for administration and interpretation of psychometric results Limited direct applicability due to different regulatory framework, but methodology could inform development of similar instruments for Australian Digital Health Standards Healthcare organisations implementing or evaluating EHR systems, particularly in Spanish-speaking contexts
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The usability of electronic health records influences patient safety, clinical efficiency, and the sustainable digital transformation of health care. While tools such as the System Usability Scale exist, few are based on structured software quality models or align with local regulatory frameworks, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and psychometrically validate an instrument to assess electronic health record usability, based on the ISO 25010 (International Organization for Standardization) quality model, and in accordance with the Peruvian Technical Health Standard (Norma Técnica de Salud [NTS]). METHODS: A 3-stage methodological study was conducted following COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) guidelines. First, a 23-item instrument was developed, grouped into 7 usability dimensions based on ISO 25010. Second, content validity was assessed using a modified Delphi method with 10 experts, using Aiken's V coefficient. Third, structural validity and reliability were evaluated in 115 participants (physicians, nurses, and administrative staff) using confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach α. Additionally, the module's functional compliance with the NTS was verified. RESULTS: The instrument demonstrated excellent psychometric properties among 115 participants (53 physicians, 48 nurses, and 14 administrative staff); high content validity (Aiken's V=0.95; 95% CI 0.84-0.98), excellent internal consistency (α=.968), and optimal factor fit (Comparative Fit Index=1.000; Tucker-Lewis Index=1.001). Overall usability was perceived as very high by 94 of 115 users (81.7%), and high by 21 of 115 users (18.3%), with no perceptions at lower levels. The module met 28 of 35 requirements (80%) of the Peruvian Technical Health Standard. Administrative staff reported higher satisfaction (13/14, 93% rated it as very high) compared with clinical professionals (81/101, 80% rated it as very high), particularly in the dimensions of error protection and operability. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first fully psychometrically validated instrument in Spanish based on ISO 25010, System Usability Scale, and other theoretical foundations for evaluating the usability of information systems. The results highlight the importance of considering both international standards and local regulatory requirements (NTS) in the design of digital health systems. The instrument is applicable in Spanish-speaking contexts and can serve as a reference for future usability evaluations in the region as well as in low- and middle-income countries.
References
- 1.Mamani-Pari, D., Peñaloza-Hualpa, A. F., Humpiri-Flores, M. E., Gutierrez-Quispe, E., & Otazu-Luque, J. E. (2026). Development and psychometric validation of a usability instrument based on ISO 25010 for electronic health record systems in Peruvian health care settings: Methodological study. JMIR Human Factors. https://doi.org/10.2196/81377
Related Research
Journal of medical Internet research
Advancing Human-Centered AI in Clinical Decision Support: Sociocognitive Human-in-the-Loop Study in HIV Care
2 Aug 2026
Neurological research
Federated deep learning model for epilepsy seizure detection using electroencephalogram (EEG) signal
2 Aug 2026
Neural networks : the official journal of the International Neural Network Society
MFBD: Model-free backdoor defense based on vision-language pre-trained models
2 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service