• ISSN 2321-2853 (Print)
  • Monthly since 2013
  • Open access
  • Double blind peer review
editor@ijrsml.org
IJRSML International Journal of Research in All Subjects in Multi Languages Published by Resagate Global
Submit manuscript

Influence of Script Type (Devanagari vs. Romanized Hindi) on Health App Readability

Research articleOpen accessVol. 14, Issue 4, March 2026

  • Dr Amit Kumar Jain
Published
31 March 2026
Licence
CC BY 4.0
Download PDFHow to citeDownload citation (RIS)BibTeX

Abstract

Mobile health (mHealth) applications are increasingly localized for Indian users, yet the choice of script—native Devanagari or Romanized Hindi (often called “Hinglish”)—remains contested for readability and comprehension. This study investigates whether script choice influences reading speed, comprehension, perceived usability, and cognitive load when interacting with a Hindi health information app. In a within-subjects, counterbalanced experiment (N = 240 adult Hindi speakers), participants completed two comparable health-education tasks: one presented in Devanagari and the other in Romanized Hindi. Outcome measures included words-per-minute (WPM) reading speed, comprehension quiz accuracy, System Usability Scale (SUS) score, and NASA-TLX mental demand. Paired comparisons showed Devanagari yielded higher reading speed (M = 172.4 vs. 147.8 WPM), better comprehension (84.1% vs. 78.3%), lower mental demand (37.2 vs. 45.9), and slightly higher SUS (78.6 vs. 74.2), all p < .01. Mixed-effects models suggested script familiarity moderated effects: participants with higher habitual use of Romanized Hindi showed attenuated differences in speed and SUS. Findings indicate Devanagari is, on average, more readable for Hindi-dominant adults in health apps, though audience segmentation by script familiarity can reduce penalties for Romanized content. Designers should default to Devanagari for core content, optionally offering a toggle to Romanized Hindi for users who prefer it.

Keywords: mHealth, Readability, Hindi, Devanagari, Romanized Hindi, Usability, Cognitive Load, Health Literacy, Localization, India

Dr Amit Kumar Jain
DCSE, Roorkee Institute of Technology, Roorkee,
Uttarakhand, India
amitkumarjain.cse@ritrroorkee.com

References

  • Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594.
  • Bernard, M. (2001). Criteria for optimal line length for reading on screen. CHI Extended Abstracts, 55–56.
  • Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan et al. (Eds.), Usability Evaluation in Industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis.
  • Eysenbach, G. (2005). The law of attrition. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(1), e11.
  • Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233.
  • ISO 9241-11:2018. (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. International Organization for Standardization.
  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.
  • Lewis, J. R. (2018). The System Usability Scale: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(7), 577–590.
  • Liu, Y., & Tan, T. (2007). Effects of romanization on reading Chinese on mobile phones. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 17(1), 103–113.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  • McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading—A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.
  • Nielsen, J. (1995). 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen Norman Group.
  • Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006). eHealth literacy: Essential skills for consumer health. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(2), e9.
  • Nutbeam, D. (2000). Health literacy as a public health goal. Health Promotion International, 15(3), 259–267.
  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.
  • Rello, L., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2013). Good fonts for dyslexia. ASSETS ’13, 14:1–14:8.
  • Saito, H. (1992). Effects of romanization on reading Japanese. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75(1), 243–253.
  • Sitaram, S., Choudhury, M., Bali, K., & Sridhar, V. (2019). A survey of code-switching. Computer Speech & Language, 50, 1–35.
  • Vyas, Y., Gella, S., Sharma, J., Bali, K., & Choudhury, M. (2014). POS tagging of code-mixed social media text. EMNLP 2014, 974–979.
  • Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. (2017). National Health Policy 2017. Government of India.

How to cite

Dr Amit Kumar Jain (2026). Influence of Script Type (Devanagari vs. Romanized Hindi) on Health App Readability. International Journal of Research in All Subjects in Multi Languages, 14(4).

Licence

This article is open access, published under the CC BY 4.0 licence. Copyright remains with the authors.