# Accessibility in Native Mobile Applications for Users with Disabilities: A Scoping Review
## 3 Method Applied for Scoping Review
### Screening of Documents  
The application of the protocol that includes the inclusion and exclusion criteria is necessary to categorize the outcomes. The inclusion and exclusion criteria objective to find significant primary documents to answer the investigation questions posed; the agreement between the evaluators was resolved by applying [22] [PERSON]'s Kappa coefficient = 0.4117 with a percentage of agreement of 83.4%, this value implies a moderate agreement between the evaluators. Inclusion criteria: the preliminary research should be associated with (1) publications in journals, conferences, books, and book chapters on mobile applications and accessibility published between 2000 and 2020; (2) peer-reviewed primary studies; and (3) written in the English language. Exclusion criteria: the preliminary study is related to (1) summarizes the main speech, an introduction to the workshop, or just a summary; (2) duplicate documents of the same research from distinct sources; and (3) secondary studies related to the literature review. This review applying PRISMA-ScR [10] is considered as a tool to enhance quality and clarity in systematic reviews avoiding bias. The examination and selection process is laid out in a flow chart. The process phases include a guide for the literature reviewer; this procedure incorporates the databases accessed, indicating the number of papers found for each database. In addition, the number of duplicate papers is included--the number of papers rejected in the process and the reasons for the elimination. Finally, the number of papers for the study is extracted. Figure 2 illustrates the PRISMA flow chart [23] with the four phases of the article choice method. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \(\mathbf{N}^{\circ}\) & **Quality Assessment Questions** & **Answer** \\ \hline QA1 & Is mobile application accessibility detailed & (+1) Yes/(+0) No \\  & in the paper? & (+1) Yes/(+0) No \\ \hline QA2 & Is the mobile application accessibility & (+1) Yes/(+0) No \\  & evaluation method specified in the paper? & (+1) Yes/(+0) No \\ \hline QA3 & Does the paper discuss any findings of & (+1) Yes/(+0) No \\  & mobile application accessibility evaluation? & (+1) Yes/(+0) No \\ \hline QA4 & Are common mobile application accessibility & (+1) Yes/(+0) No \\  & errors described in the results? & (+1) if it is ranked Q1, (+0.75) if it \\  & Is the journal or the conference where the & is ranked Q2, (+0.50) if it is \\  & paper was published indexed in SJR? & ranked Q3, (+0.25) if it is ranked \\  & & Q4, (+0.0) if it is not ranked. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Document quality evaluation checklist. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Database** & **String Search** & **Studies Number** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ACM Digital Library} & [Publication Title: accessi*] AND [Publication Title: mobile*] AND [Publication Title: application*] AND [Publication Date: (01/01/2000 TO 01/31/2021)] & 35 \\  & (“Document Title”: accessibility) AND (“Document Title”: mobile application) & 8 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Scopus} & Title (accessi*) and (title (mobi*) and title (application*)) and (limit-to (pubyear, 2021) or 111-to (pubyear, 2019) or limit-to (pubyear, 2020) or limit-to (pubyear,  
Phase 1: identification. The authors incorporated the recordings found from the database searches: ACM Digital Library with 35 documents, IEEE Xplore with eight articles, ScienceDirect with 73 articles, Scopus with 84 articles, and WOS with 11; a total of 211 articles were extracted. Phase 2: screening. The authors applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of the 211 articles, 32 papers were rejected because they were duplicated in different databases; 179 articles were incorporated. Then, in the next filter, 32 duplicate documents, and 141 articles, including literature reviews and other accessibility problems, were removed.