A ten-item questionnaire that produces a single score from 0 to 100 for how usable people find a system.
| Full name | System Usability Scale (SUS) |
| Website | CRC Press (1996) |
| Developed by | John Brooke (Digital Equipment Corporation) (1996) |
| Type | Questionnaire: Ten-item paper or online questionnaire |
| Lifecycle phase | Evaluation, Deployment |
| FUTURE-AI | Usability |
| For | Researchers, AI developers, Healthcare professionals |
| Time needed | a few minutes per participant |
| Facilitation | No facilitator needed |
| Skills needed | none; basic arithmetic to score |
| Cost | Free |
| Languages | English |
| Maturity | Established |
| Licence | Free to use with acknowledgement of the source; scale © Digital Equipment Corporation 1986 |
What it is¶
Each participant rates ten short statements about the system on a five-point agreement scale, straight after using it and before any discussion. The statements alternate between positive and negative wording, so people have to read each one. You convert the answers into one overall score between 0 and 100; the individual items are not meant to be interpreted on their own. Because it is short and widely used, you can compare your score with published benchmarks and track it across design iterations.
In healthcare¶
SUS is widely used to measure usability in digital health and clinical decision support studies. Give it to clinicians or patients after they have used the AI tool on realistic tasks, not after a demonstration.
Where to use it in The ELSA Way¶
Usability and user experience › Validated questionnaires: It is the standard short instrument named in this passage, and its single 0-100 score lets you compare clinicians’ experience across versions of your tool and against published benchmarks.
References¶
Brooke J. SUS: a ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland IL, editors. Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996. CRC Press (1996)
Brooke J. SUS: a retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies. 2013;8(2).
- (1996). In Usability Evaluation In Industry (pp. 207–212). CRC Press. 10.1201/9781498710411-35