## 5 Result Analysis  
### Implementation of Pairwise Criteria Using the FAHP  
Ten (10) major criteria and their twenty-nine (29) sub-criteria were determined for evaluating the usability aspect of mHealth applications by considering experts' judgments and the literature review. Crisp information about each criterion and sub-criteria was gathered, based on feedback from experts. By adopting a well-defined fuzzy linguistic Wang scale, the gathered crisp information for all the criteria was translated into TFN by following the scale mentioned in Table 2.  
The fuzzy-based comparison decision matrix in relation to the criteria developed with TFN is shown in Table 4. The fuzzy comparison matrices in relation to all the associated sub-criteria are depicted in Tables 5-14 [38]. \(CI\) and \(CR\) were calculated using Step 4 of the FAHP to measure the consistency ratio. The \(CR\) values obtained for all criteria matrices are given in Table 15 [38]. Since, the \(CR\) value is found to be less than 0.1 for each criterion; it suggests that the pairwise comparison matrix created using expert feedback is consistent and suitable for further investigation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{42.7 pt}|p{28.5 pt} p{28.5 pt} p{28.5 pt} p{28.5 pt} p{28.5 pt} p{28.5 pt} p{28.5 pt} p{28.5 pt} p{28.5 pt} p{28.5 pt} p{28.5 pt}} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{3}{*}{**Learnibility**}} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Learnability**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Efficiency**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Memora-**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Aesthetic**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Error**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Navigation**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Readability**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Cognitive**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Consitive**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Consitive**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Consitive**} \\  & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Efficiency(A2)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **No. of** \\ **Taps(A21)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Task** \\ **Completion** \\ **Rate(A22)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Response** \\ **Time(A23)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Ease of** \\ **Use(A24)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Connection** \\ **(A25)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**No. of Taps(A21)** & (1,1,1) & (1/3,1/2,1/1) & (1/4,1/3,1/2) & (1/6,1/5,1/4) & (1,2,3) \\
**Task Completion** & (1,2,3) & (1,1,1) & (1,2,3) & (1/4,1/3,1/2) & (2,3,4) \\
**Rate(A22)** & (2,3,4) & (1/3,1/2,1/1) & (1,1,1) & (1/3,1/2,1/1) & (1,2,3) \\
**Ease of Use(A24)** & (4,5,6) & (2,3,4) & (1,2,3) & (1,1,1) & (4,5,6) \\
**Connection(A25)** & (1/3,1/2,1/1) & (1/4,1/3,1/2) & (1/3,1/2,1/1) & (1/6,1/5,1/4) & (1,1,1) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Fuzzy-based comparison matrix associated with the sub-criteria in relation to the efficiency (A2) criteria. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Aesthetic(A4)** & **Attractive(A41)** & **Appeal(A42)** & **Organized(A43)** \\ \hline
**Attractive(A41)** & (1,1,1) & (2,3,4) & (1/3) \\
**Appeal(A42)** & (1/4,1/3,1/2) & (1,1,1) & (1/5,1/4,1/3) \\
**Organized(A43)** & (2,3,4) & (3,4,5) & (1/4,1/3,1/2) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Fuzzy-based comparison matrix associated with the sub-criteria in relation to the aesthetic (A4) criteria. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
**Error(A5)** & **Presence of Error(A51)** \\ \hline
**Presence of Error(A51)** & (1,1,1) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Fuzzy-based comparison matrix associated with the sub-criteria in relation to the navigation (A6) criteria. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Learability(A1)** & **Familiarity(A11)** & **Learning Time(A12)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Minimal** \\ **Action(A13)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Familiarity(A11) & (1,1,1) & (2,3,4) & (1,2,3) \\ Learning time(A12) & (1/4,1/3,1/2) & (1,1,1) & (1/3,1/2,1/1) \\ Minimal Action(A13) & (1/3,1/2,1/1) & (1,2,3) & (1,1,1) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}