Cargando…

Evaluating authentication options for mobile health applications in younger and older adults

OBJECTIVE: Apps promoting patient self-management may improve health outcomes. However, methods to secure stored information on mobile devices may adversely affect usability. We tested the reliability and usability of common user authentication techniques in younger and older adults. METHODOLOGY: Us...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grindrod, Kelly, Khan, Hassan, Hengartner, Urs, Ong, Stephanie, Logan, Alexander G., Vogel, Daniel, Gebotys, Robert, Yang, Jilan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754080/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29300736
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189048
_version_ 1783290366071406592
author Grindrod, Kelly
Khan, Hassan
Hengartner, Urs
Ong, Stephanie
Logan, Alexander G.
Vogel, Daniel
Gebotys, Robert
Yang, Jilan
author_facet Grindrod, Kelly
Khan, Hassan
Hengartner, Urs
Ong, Stephanie
Logan, Alexander G.
Vogel, Daniel
Gebotys, Robert
Yang, Jilan
author_sort Grindrod, Kelly
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Apps promoting patient self-management may improve health outcomes. However, methods to secure stored information on mobile devices may adversely affect usability. We tested the reliability and usability of common user authentication techniques in younger and older adults. METHODOLOGY: Usability testing was conducted in two age groups, 18 to 30 years and 50 years and older. After completing a demographic questionnaire, each participant tested four authentication options in random order: four-digit personal identification number (PIN), graphical password (GRAPHICAL), Android pattern-lock (PATTERN), and a swipe-style Android fingerprint scanner (FINGERPRINT). Participants rated each option using the Systems Usability Scale (SUS). RESULTS: A total of 59 older and 43 younger participants completed the study. Overall, PATTERN was the fastest option (3.44s), and PIN had the fewest errors per attempt (0.02). Participants were able to login using PIN, PATTERN, and GRAPHICAL at least 98% of the time. FINGERPRINT was the slowest (26.97s), had an average of 1.46 errors per attempt, and had a successful login rate of 85%. Overall, PIN and PATTERN had higher SUS scores than FINGERPRINT and GRAPHICAL. Compared to younger participants, older participants were also less likely to find PATTERN to be tiring, annoying or time consuming and less likely to consider PIN to be time consuming. Younger participants were more likely to rate GRAPHICAL as annoying, time consuming and tiring than older participants. CONCLUSIONS: On mobile devices, PIN and pattern-lock outperformed graphical passwords and swipe-style fingerprints. All participants took longer to authenticate using the swipe-style fingerprint compared to other options. Older participants also took two to three seconds longer to authenticate using the PIN, pattern and graphical passwords though this did not appear to affect perceived usability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5754080
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57540802018-01-26 Evaluating authentication options for mobile health applications in younger and older adults Grindrod, Kelly Khan, Hassan Hengartner, Urs Ong, Stephanie Logan, Alexander G. Vogel, Daniel Gebotys, Robert Yang, Jilan PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: Apps promoting patient self-management may improve health outcomes. However, methods to secure stored information on mobile devices may adversely affect usability. We tested the reliability and usability of common user authentication techniques in younger and older adults. METHODOLOGY: Usability testing was conducted in two age groups, 18 to 30 years and 50 years and older. After completing a demographic questionnaire, each participant tested four authentication options in random order: four-digit personal identification number (PIN), graphical password (GRAPHICAL), Android pattern-lock (PATTERN), and a swipe-style Android fingerprint scanner (FINGERPRINT). Participants rated each option using the Systems Usability Scale (SUS). RESULTS: A total of 59 older and 43 younger participants completed the study. Overall, PATTERN was the fastest option (3.44s), and PIN had the fewest errors per attempt (0.02). Participants were able to login using PIN, PATTERN, and GRAPHICAL at least 98% of the time. FINGERPRINT was the slowest (26.97s), had an average of 1.46 errors per attempt, and had a successful login rate of 85%. Overall, PIN and PATTERN had higher SUS scores than FINGERPRINT and GRAPHICAL. Compared to younger participants, older participants were also less likely to find PATTERN to be tiring, annoying or time consuming and less likely to consider PIN to be time consuming. Younger participants were more likely to rate GRAPHICAL as annoying, time consuming and tiring than older participants. CONCLUSIONS: On mobile devices, PIN and pattern-lock outperformed graphical passwords and swipe-style fingerprints. All participants took longer to authenticate using the swipe-style fingerprint compared to other options. Older participants also took two to three seconds longer to authenticate using the PIN, pattern and graphical passwords though this did not appear to affect perceived usability. Public Library of Science 2018-01-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5754080/ /pubmed/29300736 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189048 Text en © 2018 Grindrod et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Grindrod, Kelly
Khan, Hassan
Hengartner, Urs
Ong, Stephanie
Logan, Alexander G.
Vogel, Daniel
Gebotys, Robert
Yang, Jilan
Evaluating authentication options for mobile health applications in younger and older adults
title Evaluating authentication options for mobile health applications in younger and older adults
title_full Evaluating authentication options for mobile health applications in younger and older adults
title_fullStr Evaluating authentication options for mobile health applications in younger and older adults
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating authentication options for mobile health applications in younger and older adults
title_short Evaluating authentication options for mobile health applications in younger and older adults
title_sort evaluating authentication options for mobile health applications in younger and older adults
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754080/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29300736
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189048
work_keys_str_mv AT grindrodkelly evaluatingauthenticationoptionsformobilehealthapplicationsinyoungerandolderadults
AT khanhassan evaluatingauthenticationoptionsformobilehealthapplicationsinyoungerandolderadults
AT hengartnerurs evaluatingauthenticationoptionsformobilehealthapplicationsinyoungerandolderadults
AT ongstephanie evaluatingauthenticationoptionsformobilehealthapplicationsinyoungerandolderadults
AT loganalexanderg evaluatingauthenticationoptionsformobilehealthapplicationsinyoungerandolderadults
AT vogeldaniel evaluatingauthenticationoptionsformobilehealthapplicationsinyoungerandolderadults
AT gebotysrobert evaluatingauthenticationoptionsformobilehealthapplicationsinyoungerandolderadults
AT yangjilan evaluatingauthenticationoptionsformobilehealthapplicationsinyoungerandolderadults