Evaluating the Usability, Perceived Performance, and Perceived Effects of KBGAN iHealth© and KBGAN iFeed© Mobile Apps for Buffalo Management in Selected Municipalities in the Philippines

Eric Parala  Palacpac; Kae Ann Marie  Pacsa Balingit; Airon Andrew  Dinulos Bonifacio; Marvin Ardeza  Villanueva; Randolph Bautista  Tolentino; Mary Rose De Leon  Uy-DeGuia; Phoebe Lyndia  Tolentino Llantada; Charity Ignacio  Castillo; Beverly Janabajal  Brul; Hannah Carmela  Adecer Rubio; Maica Miclat  Abes

doi:10.6000/1927-520X.2024.13.04

Authors

Eric Parala Palacpac Department of Agriculture-Philippine Carabao Center, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3674-2113
Kae Ann Marie Pacsa Balingit Abra State Institute of Sciences and Technology, Bangued, Abra, Philippines https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6500-7041
Airon Andrew Dinulos Bonifacio Grameen Foundation, 37th Floor Cyberscape Gamma, Topaz & Ruby Roads, Ortigas Center San Antonio, Pasig City, 1605, Philippines
Marvin Ardeza Villanueva Department of Agriculture-Philippine Carabao Center, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines
Randolph Bautista Tolentino Department of Agriculture-Philippine Carabao Center, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1427-2475
Mary Rose De Leon Uy-DeGuia Department of Agriculture-Philippine Carabao Center, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9124-2042
Phoebe Lyndia Tolentino Llantada Department of Agriculture-Philippine Carabao Center, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8651-6566
Charity Ignacio Castillo Department of Agriculture-Philippine Carabao Center, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines
Beverly Janabajal Brul Grameen Foundation, 37th Floor Cyberscape Gamma, Topaz & Ruby Roads, Ortigas Center San Antonio, Pasig City, 1605, Philippines https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0208-7020
Hannah Carmela Adecer Rubio Grameen Foundation, 37th Floor Cyberscape Gamma, Topaz & Ruby Roads, Ortigas Center San Antonio, Pasig City, 1605, Philippines
Maica Miclat Abes Grameen Foundation, 37th Floor Cyberscape Gamma, Topaz & Ruby Roads, Ortigas Center San Antonio, Pasig City, 1605, Philippines https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6848-2299

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-520X.2024.13.04

Keywords:

Mobile apps, usability, perceived performance, agricultural extension professionals

Abstract

This study evaluates the KBGAN iHealth© and KBGAN iFeed© mobile apps designed for buffalo health and feeding management, particularly for agricultural extension professionals (AEPs) in selected Philippine municipalities. These apps aim to address challenges in buffalo management, such as limited access to veterinary expertise, personalized recommendations, organized data, communication channels, and difficulties in calculating ideal feed compositions and meeting the distinct needs of smallholder farmers and AEPs. Despite System Usability Scale (SUS) scores indicating marginal acceptability for both apps, weighted mean scores by AEPs for statements assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (1 as strongly disagree and 5 as strongly agree), demonstrate that AEPs reported high confidence in the accuracy of buffalo health diagnostics (Mean of 4.20) and health management recommendations (Mean of 4.17) provided by KBGAN iHealth©. Similarly, KBGAN iFeed© received favorable ratings, with AEPs expressing agreement on the accuracy of feeding recommendations (Mean of 3.89) and the facilitation of feeding ration computations (Mean of 4.00). These positive perceived performance outcomes, coupled with increased confidence (Mean of 4.03) and motivation (Mean of 4.00) among AEPs, suggest the potential for frequent and consistent app usage despite usability concerns. Chi-square tests examining the relationship between AEP characteristics and SUS scores for the apps reveal significant associations between AEPs' education and experience levels and SUS scores for KBGAN iFeed©. The choice of IT device also influences KBGAN iHealth© SUS scores. Proposed enhancements by AEPs include refining algorithms, improving the user interface for navigation, speed, and efficiency, and incorporating features such as photo uploads and geotagging.

References

Nielsen A. American families see tablets as playmate, teacher and babysitter. 2012. Available from: https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2012/american-families-see-tablets-as-playmate-teacher-and-babysitter/.

Tiwari R, Phand S, Sharma M. Status and scope of information and communication technology for livestock and poultry production in India-A review. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 2010; 80(12): 1235. Available from: https://epubs. icar.org.in/index.php/IJAnS/article/view/2235/561.

Drill SL. Tools for creating mobile applications for Extension. Journal of Extension 2012; 50(6): n6. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.50.06.27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.50.06.27

Fulcher BD, Little MA, Jones NS. Highly comparative time-series analysis: the empirical structure of time series and their methods. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2013; 10(83): 20130048. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0048 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0048

Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989: 319-40. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 2000; 46(2): 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Kassem HS, Shabana RM, Ghoneim YA, Alotaibi BM. Farmers’ perception of the quality of mobile-based extension services in Egypt: A comparison between public and private provision. Information Development 2020; 36(2): 161-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666919832649 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666919832649

Mugabi N, Omona J, Jansson B. Revolutionalizing agriculture extension delivery through mobile telephony: the experience of village enterprise agent model in Greater Masaka area, Uganda. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 2018; 217: 963-74. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP180811 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP180811

Dillon A, Morris MG. User acceptance of new information technology: theories and models 1996. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105584

Soronen O, Widengren H. Differences in Perceived Performance of Mobile Devices Between Managers and Employees in Grocery Stores 2019. Available from: https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn: nbn: se: umu: diva-161031.

Cruz AM, Portillo HPL, Daum C, Rutledge E, King S, Liu L. Technology acceptance and usability of a mobile app to support the workflow of health care aides who provide services to older adults: pilot mixed methods study. JMIR Aging 2022; 5(2): e37521. https://doi.org/10.2196/37521 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/37521

ISO I. Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts (ISO 9241-11: 2018) 2018. Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso: std: iso: 9241: -11: ed-2: v1: en.

Nielsen J, editor Usability inspection methods. Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems; 1994. https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260531 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260531

Tan W-S, Liu D, Bishu R. Web evaluation: Heuristic evaluation vs. user testing. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2009; 39(4): 621-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.02.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.02.012

Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions, and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 1993; 38(3): 475-87. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022

Ajzen I, Fishbein, M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall 1980.

Henderson R, Divett MJ. Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and electronic supermarket use. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2003; 59(3): 383-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00079-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00079-X

Lu J, Yu CS, Liu C, Yao JE. Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Research 2003. https://doi.org/10.1108/1066224031047822 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240310478222

Lai PC, Zainal AA. Perceived risk as an extension to TAM model: Consumers’ intention to use a single platform e-payment. Australia Journal Basic and Applied Science 2015; 9(2): 323-30. Available from: https://www.ajbasweb.com/ old/ajbas/ 2015/February/323-330.pdf.

Zahid MJA, Ashraf MM, Malik BT, Hoque MR, editors. Information communication technology (ICT) for disabled persons in Bangladesh: Preliminary study of impact/outcome. Grand Successes and Failures in IT Public and Private Sectors: IFIP WG 86 International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT, TDIT 2013, Bangalore, India, June 27-29, 2013 Proceedings; 2013: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38862-0_48 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38862-0_48

Armenteros M, Liaw SS, Fernández M, Díaz RF, Sánchez RA. Surveying FIFA instructors' behavioral intention toward the Multimedia Teaching Materials. Computers & Education 2013; 61: 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.010

Putra I, Saukah A, Basthomi Y, Irawati E. The acceptance of the English language learning mobile application Hello English across genders and experience differences. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET) 2020; 15(15): 219-28. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i15.11077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i15.11077

Brooke J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in Industry 1996; 189(194): 4-7. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Brooke6/publication/228593520_SUS_A_quick_and_dirty_usability_scale/links/5f24381392851cd302cbaf25/SUS-A-quick-and-dirty-usability-scale.pdf.

Ng AWY, Lo HWC, Chan AHS, editors. Measuring the Usability of Safety Signs: A use of system usability scale (SUS). Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists; 2011: Citeseer.

Sauro J. 5 Ways to Interpret a SUS Score 2018. Available from: https://measuringu.com/interpret-sus-score/

Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies 2009; 4(3): 114-23. Available from: https://uxpajournal.org/determining-what-individual-sus-scores-mean-adding-an-adjective-rating-scale/.

Sauro J. Measuring usability with the system usability scale (SUS) 2011. Available from: https://measuringu.com/sus/

Snyder LG, Snyder MJ. Teaching critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The Journal of Research in Business Education 2008; 50(2): 90. Available from: https://dme.childrenshospital.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Optional-_Teaching-Critical-Thinking-and-Problem-Solving-Skills.pdf.

Kirwan M, Duncan MJ, Vandelanotte C, Mummery WK. Design, development, and formative evaluation of a smartphone application for recording and monitoring physical activity levels: the 10,000 Steps “iStepLog”. Health Education & Behavior 2013; 40(2): 140-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198112449460 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198112449460

O'dell C, Grayson CJ. If only we knew what we know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review 1998; 40(3): 154-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165948 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/41165948

Borsci S, Federici S, Lauriola M. On the dimensionality of the System Usability Scale: a test of alternative measurement models. Cognitive Processing 2009; 10: 193-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0268-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0268-9

Nitze A, Schmietendorf A, editors. A survey on mobile users' software quality perceptions and expectations 2015 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW) 2015; IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSTW.2015.7107417 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSTW.2015.7107417

Huang G, Ren Y. Linking technological functions of fitness mobile apps with continuance usage among Chinese users: Moderating role of exercise self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior 2020; 103: 151-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.013

Kim YH, Kim DJ, Wachter K. A study of mobile user engagement (MoEN): Engagement motivations, perceived value, satisfaction, and continued engagement intention. Decision support systems 2013; 56: 361-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.07.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.07.002

Huber GP. A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence, and decision-making. Academy of Management Review 1990; 15(1): 47-71. https://doi.org/10.2307/258105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4308227

Punchoojit L, Hongwarittorrn N. Usability studies on mobile user interface design patterns: a systematic literature review. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 2017; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6787504 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6787504

Harrison R, Flood D, Duce D. Usability of mobile applications: literature review and rationale for a new usability model. J Interact Sci 2013; 1: 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0827-1-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0827-1-1

Sheth R, Brahmbhatt K. Geo-Tagging of Agricultural Products Using Mobile Application in Remote Areas. Reliability: Theory & Applications 2021; 16(SI 1 (60)): 369-75. Available from: https://www.gnedenko.net/Journal/ 2021/SI_012021/RTA_SI_1_2021-36_369-375.pdf.