Skip to content

System usability scale

A ten-item alternating-valence questionnaire yielding a standardized global score of perceived system usability.

Version
v1 · 2026-09-08 · History
Domain-specific #
7043
Origin domain
human computer interaction
Subdomain
human computer interaction

Core Idea

SUS asks respondents to rate ten statements on a five-point agreement scale, reverses negative items, sums adjusted responses, and rescales the result to 0–100. Balanced wording reduces acquiescence effects, and aggregation supplies a quick comparative attitude measure whose score is not itself a percentage. The abstraction is therefore identified by a declared carrier, a transformation or constraint over that carrier, and an invariant that tells an analyst whether the named structure is genuinely present.

The load-bearing residual is not the broad topic of human computer interaction. It is the domain-specific identity determined by all ten standard items, response scale, reverse scoring, and multiplier are applied and interpretation uses appropriate benchmark evidence.

Scope of Application

System usability scale belongs to human computer interaction and is useful where the analyst can specify the typed human computer interaction carrier, defining objects and relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundary cases and comparison targets, then evaluate all ten standard items, response scale, reverse scoring, and multiplier are applied and interpretation uses appropriate benchmark evidence. The scope is broad within that domain but bounded by the need for all ten standard items, response scale, reverse scoring, and multiplier are applied and interpretation uses appropriate benchmark evidence. The entry records a descriptive analytical identity; practical use requires the governing domain's evidence, standards, and safety obligations.

Clarity

The abstraction clarifies a crowded vocabulary by making all ten standard items, response scale, reverse scoring, and multiplier are applied and interpretation uses appropriate benchmark evidence the center of the account. A claim should name the carrier, the governing operation or relation, the applicable assumptions, and the recognition test. A bare label is insufficient because the name System usability scale can be used for a formal identity, an implementation, or a neighboring result unless carrier and convention are stated.

Manages Complexity

Without the abstraction, an analyst must reason directly over many local details: the carrier roles, admissibility assumptions, competing conventions, derived invariants, boundary cases, and proof or validation obligations specific to System usability scale. System usability scale compresses them into the roles in the structural signature. That compression permits comparison across instances without erasing the variables that determine validity. It also exposes which details may be varied safely and which are constitutive.

Abstract Reasoning

  1. Identify the carrier. State what the elements, states, objects, or observations are: the typed human computer interaction carrier, defining objects and relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundary cases and comparison targets. Reject examples whose alleged carrier belongs to a different problem. 2. Lock the constitutive rule. Express all ten standard items, response scale, reverse scoring, and multiplier are applied and interpretation uses appropriate benchmark evidence independently of one notation or implementation.

Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge transfers strongly among subfields of human computer interaction because they reuse the typed human computer interaction carrier, defining objects and relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundary cases and comparison targets, Balanced wording reduces acquiescence effects, and aggregation supplies a quick comparative attitude measure whose score is not itself a percentage., and type the carrier, state every parameter and convention in the definition, test that all ten standard items, response scale, reverse scoring, and multiplier are applied and interpretation uses appropriate benchmark evidence, compare the nearest accepted identity, and report counterexamples, uncertainty, and limiting cases.

Relationships to Other Abstractions

Local relationship map for System usability scaleParents appear above the current abstraction, mutual partners to the right, and children below. Node labels state whether each abstraction is prime or domain-specific; colors identify relation types.Systemusability scaleDOMAINPrime abstraction: Measurement — is a kind ofMeasurementPRIME

Current abstraction System usability scale Domain-specific

Parents (1) — more general patterns this builds on

  • System usability scale is a kind of Measurement Prime

    The proposed strict upward parent is prime:measurement.

Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space

System usability scale sits in a crowded region of the domain-specific corpus (11th percentile for distinctiveness): several abstractions share nearly its structure, so a description that fits it tends to fit its neighbors too.

Family — Human–Computer Interaction & Interface Design (24 abstractions)

Nearest neighbors

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-09-08