Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Mobile Information Systems
Volume 2015, Article ID 649374, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/649374
Research Article

Effects of Dexterity Level and Hand Anthropometric Dimensions on Smartphone Users’ Satisfaction

1Department of Industrial Engineering, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey
2Statistics Department, Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

Received 8 June 2015; Accepted 12 October 2015

Academic Editor: Salil Kanhere

Copyright © 2015 N. Firat Ozkan and Fulya Gokalp-Yavuz. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. V. Balakrishnan and P. H. P. Yeow, “A study of the effect of thumb sizes on mobile phone texting satisfaction,” Journal of Usability Studies, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 118–128, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  2. S. N. Zulkefly and R. Baharudin, “Mobile phone use amongst students in a university in Malaysia: its correlates and relationship to psychological health,” European Journal of Scientific Research, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 206–218, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. J. H. Choi and H.-J. Lee, “Facets of simplicity for the smartphone interface: a structural model,” International Journal of Human Computer Studies, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 129–142, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. Y. S. Park and S. H. Han, “Touch key design for one-handed thumb interaction with a mobile phone: effects of touch key size and touch key location,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 68–76, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. D. Lobo, K. Kaskaloglu, C. Y. Kim, and S. Herbert, “Web usability guidelines for smartphones: a synergic approach,” International Journal of Information and Electronics Engineering, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33–37, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. M. Nitsche, A. Nürnberger, and K. Bade, “An ergonomic user interface supporting information search and organization on a mobile device,” in Proceedings of the Personal Information Management in a Socially Networked World, Seattle, Wash, USA, February 2012.
  7. S. Jain and G. Pathmanathan, “Importance of anthropometry for designing user-friendly devices: mobile phones,” Journal of Ergonomics, vol. 2, no. 4, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. M. Bradley, S. Waller, J. Goodman-Deane et al., “A population perspective on mobile phone related tasks,” in Designing Inclusive Systems, pp. 55–64, Springer, London, UK, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  9. S. Wright, “Correlation and causation,” Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 557–585, 1921. View at Google Scholar
  10. T. Raykov and G. A. Marcoulides, A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
  11. R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny, “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173–1182, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. T. I. M. Hilgenkamp, R. Van Wijck, and H. M. Evenhuis, “Physical fitness in older people with ID—concept and measuring instruments: a review,” Research in Developmental Disabilities, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1027–1038, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. P. Blau and O. Duncan, The American Occupational Structure, Wiley, 1967.
  14. E. L. Pedhazur, Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research, Thomson Learning, 1997.
  15. R. P. McDonald and M.-H. R. Ho, “Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses,” Psychological Methods, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 64–82, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. G. M. Maruyama, Basics of Structural Equation Modeling, Sage Publications, 1997.
  17. S. Wright, “The method of path coefficients,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 161–215, 1934. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA, 2005.
  19. J. L. Arbuckle, Amos User's Guide, Smallwaters, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1995.
  20. P. M. Bentler, EQS Structural Equations Program Manual, Multivariate Software, Encino, Calif, USA, 2006.
  21. L.-T. Hu, P. M. Bentler, and Y. Kano, “Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted?” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 351–362, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. P. Barrett, “Structural equation modelling: adjudging model fit,” Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 815–824, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. H. Steiger, “Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 173–180, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. D. Hooper, J. Coughlan, and M. R. Mullen, “Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit,” The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 53–60, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. A. Diamantopoulos and J. A. Siguaw, Introducing LISREL, Sage, London, UK, 2000.
  26. M. W. Browne and R. Cudeck, “Alternative ways of assessing model fit,” Sociological Methods & Research, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 230–258, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. H. Akaike, “Factor analysis and AIC,” Psychometrika, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 317–332, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus