Original Article

Usability Evaluation of the Integrated Research Automation System (Syat) at Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Satisfaction

Abstract

Background: Usability, as defined by ISO 9241-11, refers to the extent to which a system can be used effectively, efficiently, and with satisfaction in a specified context. Web-based academic research management platforms require high usability to ensure user satisfaction and productivity. This study aimed to evaluate the usability of the Integrated Research Automation System (Syat) at Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. To the best of our knowledge, this study is among the first to systematically assess the usability of the Syat system in a medical academic setting.
Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study was conducted among 130 faculty members who had used Syat at least five times for research-related activities. Six primary tasks were assessed: registering a thesis as a research project, granting and restricting student access to theses, submitting evaluations, editing thesis information, and overall system interaction. Effectiveness was measured by error rates, efficiency by task completion time, and satisfaction by the System Usability Scale (SUS). Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc tests, and chi-square tests for associations between demographic factors and error rates.
Results: The proportion of error-free performance ranged from 57.0% to 64.7%, with “Restrict Access” being the most error-prone (mean errors = 0.57). Task completion times varied significantly (F(5,1414) = 12.091, p < 0.001), with “Submit Evaluation” being the longest (mean = 79.80 s). SUS scores were low across all tasks (overall mean = 28.86), far below the benchmark of 68. Gender, education level, and work experience had a significant influence on error rates (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Although Syat allows task completion, low satisfaction and efficiency issues indicate the need for interface simplification, targeted training for less experienced users, and iterative user-centered design improvements.

1. International Organization for Standardization. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) — Part 11: Guidance on usability. ISO 9241-11. Geneva: ISO; 1998.
2. Nielsen J. Usability engineering. Cambridge (MA): Academic Press; 1993.
3. Kowsar E, Elahe A, Roya N, Siavash E. Psychometric Evaluation of the Persian PSSUQ Third Edition and Usability Assessment of a Library Website. J Health Saf Work. 2025;15(1):88-90.
4. Brooke J. SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester B, McClelland AL, editors. Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996. p. 189-94.
5. Dianat I, Ghanbari Z, Asghari Jafarabadi M. Psychometric properties of the Persian language version of the System Usability Scale. Health Promot Perspect. 2014;4(1):82-9.
6. Shekari M, Afshari D. Evaluation of usability of gas chromatography systems: efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Iran Occup Health J. 2014;11(6):34-42.
7. Roncal Belzunce V, Gutiérrez Valencia M, Velilla N, Ramírez-Vélez R. System Usability Scale for Gamified E-learning Courses: Cross-cultural Adaptation and Measurement Properties of the Spanish Version. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2024;40(15):4021-30.
8. Abelson RP. Statistics as principled argument. New York: Psychology Press; 2012.
9. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human participants. Fortaleza: WMA General Assembly; 2024 [cited 2026 Jun 6]. Available from: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/
10. Damanabi S, Monaghesh E, Faraji R. Usability of laboratory information system in Tabriz educational hospitals from users’ perspective. J Mod Med Inform Sci. 2019;5(1):60-5.
11. Brugliera P. The Effectiveness of Digital Learning Platforms in Enhancing Student Engagement and Academic Performance. J Educ Humanit Soc Res. 2024;1(1):12-25.
12. Khalid M, Akanmu A, Afolabi A, Murzi H, Awolusi I, Agee P. Design and Usability Evaluation of an End User Programming Environment for Equipping Construction Students with Sensor Data Analytics Skills. ITcon. 2025;30:213-42.
13. Roncal-Belzunce V, Gutierrez-Valencia M, Martinez-Velilla N, Ramírez-Vélez R. System Usability Scale for Gamified E-Learning Courses: Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Measurement Properties of the Spanish Version. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2025;41(1):180-92.
14. Khan Q, Hickie IB, Loblay V, Ekambareshwar M, Zahed IUM, Naderbagi A, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the System Usability Scale in the context of a childrearing app co-designed for low- and middle-income countries. Digit Health. 2025;11:1-15.
15. Sha L, Fernandez-Nieto GM, Li Y, Tsai YS, Chen G, Wen J, et al. Shareflows: Seamless Knowledge Capture and Proactive Push for Efficient Teacher Workflows in Higher Education. Br J Educ Technol. 2025;56(3):987-1006.
Files
IssueVol 17 No 3 (2025) QRcode
SectionOriginal Article(s)
Published2026-06-08
Keywords
Usability Human-Computer Interaction System Usability Scale Academic Information Systems Faculty Members
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Etemadinezhad S, Amouzadeh E, Yazdani Charati J. Usability Evaluation of the Integrated Research Automation System (Syat) at Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Satisfaction. Int J Occup Hyg. 2026;17(3):190-197.