Evaluating user perception and satisfaction in a digital platform designed for executive function assessment: a user-centered evaluation of Bloom 2.0 in higher education
Journal
Frontiers in Education
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Date Issued
2026-06-12
Author(s)
Martínez-Orozco, Elizabeth
Paipa-Galeano, Luis A.
García-Becerra, Andrea Milena
Agudelo-Otalora, Luis Mauricio
Type
Article
Abstract
Introduction
Digital platforms are increasingly used in higher education to deliver content, assess learning, and measure complex cognitive processes such as executive functions. Although the DeLone and McLean information systems success framework has been widely applied to e-learning platforms, empirical evidence on user-centered evaluation of digital cognitive assessment tools in higher education remains limited.
Methods
The study evaluated Bloom 2.0, a web-based platform that administers six executive function tasks: Tower of Hanoi (3-disc and 4-disc), Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Stroop, Token Test, and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Sixty-four undergraduate students from Universidad Panamericana (Mexico City) completed the full six-task battery in March 2026. Of these, 55 also responded to a 15-item Spanish adaptation of Doll and Torkzadeh’s End-User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) survey and two open-ended prompts. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s
α
, and inductive thematic coding of open-ended responses.
Results
Overall satisfaction was high (
M
=
4.28
,
S
D
=
0.91
on a 1–5 scale), with 81.0% of responses rated 4 or 5. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s
α
=
0.936
for the full scale;
α
=
0.749
–
0.874
across dimensions). Accuracy was the highest-rated EUCS dimension (
M
=
4.39
), whereas Content received the lowest mean rating (
M
=
4.20
). Open-ended responses yielded six themes, with instruction clarity the most frequent (58%). The remaining themes were overall positive comments, interface and visual design, cognitive fatigue during the Raven task, the closing and feedback experience, and anxiety related to visible timers or error counters.
Discussion
Bloom 2.0 was usable in this undergraduate sample and produced internally consistent satisfaction responses. The findings address users’ perceptions of system quality and satisfaction and do not constitute psychometric validation of the underlying cognitive tasks. No criterion or convergent validity was evaluated against a clinician-administered reference battery in this study. The main issues were related to task instructions, interpretation of feedback, and usability elements associated with task guidance. The next version should revise task instructions, improve the closing feedback screen, and recalibrate task cutoffs before the platform is compared with a clinician-administered reference battery.
Digital platforms are increasingly used in higher education to deliver content, assess learning, and measure complex cognitive processes such as executive functions. Although the DeLone and McLean information systems success framework has been widely applied to e-learning platforms, empirical evidence on user-centered evaluation of digital cognitive assessment tools in higher education remains limited.
Methods
The study evaluated Bloom 2.0, a web-based platform that administers six executive function tasks: Tower of Hanoi (3-disc and 4-disc), Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Stroop, Token Test, and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Sixty-four undergraduate students from Universidad Panamericana (Mexico City) completed the full six-task battery in March 2026. Of these, 55 also responded to a 15-item Spanish adaptation of Doll and Torkzadeh’s End-User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) survey and two open-ended prompts. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s
α
, and inductive thematic coding of open-ended responses.
Results
Overall satisfaction was high (
M
=
4.28
,
S
D
=
0.91
on a 1–5 scale), with 81.0% of responses rated 4 or 5. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s
α
=
0.936
for the full scale;
α
=
0.749
–
0.874
across dimensions). Accuracy was the highest-rated EUCS dimension (
M
=
4.39
), whereas Content received the lowest mean rating (
M
=
4.20
). Open-ended responses yielded six themes, with instruction clarity the most frequent (58%). The remaining themes were overall positive comments, interface and visual design, cognitive fatigue during the Raven task, the closing and feedback experience, and anxiety related to visible timers or error counters.
Discussion
Bloom 2.0 was usable in this undergraduate sample and produced internally consistent satisfaction responses. The findings address users’ perceptions of system quality and satisfaction and do not constitute psychometric validation of the underlying cognitive tasks. No criterion or convergent validity was evaluated against a clinician-administered reference battery in this study. The main issues were related to task instructions, interpretation of feedback, and usability elements associated with task guidance. The next version should revise task instructions, improve the closing feedback screen, and recalibrate task cutoffs before the platform is compared with a clinician-administered reference battery.