[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article

Task-Based Information Interaction Evaluation: The Viewpoint of Program Theory

Published: 17 March 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Evaluation is central in research and development of information retrieval (IR). In addition to designing and implementing new retrieval mechanisms, one must also show through rigorous evaluation that they are effective. A major focus in IR is IR mechanisms’ capability of ranking relevant documents optimally for the users, given a query. Searching for information in practice involves searchers, however, and is highly interactive. When human searchers have been incorporated in evaluation studies, the results have often suggested that better ranking does not necessarily lead to better search task, or work task, performance. Therefore, it is not clear which system or interface features should be developed to improve the effectiveness of human task performance. In the present article, we focus on the evaluation of task-based information interaction (TBII). We give special emphasis to learning tasks to discuss TBII in more concrete terms. Information interaction is here understood as behavioral and cognitive activities related to task planning, searching information items, selecting between them, working with them, and synthesizing and reporting. These five generic activities contribute to task performance and outcome and can be supported by information systems. In an attempt toward task-based evaluation, we introduce program theory as the evaluation framework. Such evaluation can investigate whether a program consisting of TBII activities and tools works and how it works and, further, provides a causal description of program (in)effectiveness. Our goal in the present article is to structure TBII on the basis of the five generic activities and consider the evaluation of each activity using the program theory framework. Finally, we combine these activity-based program theories in an overall evaluation framework for TBII. Such an evaluation is complex due to the large number of factors affecting information interaction. Instead of presenting tested program theories, we illustrate how the evaluation of TBII should be accomplished using the program theory framework in the evaluation of systems and behaviors, and their interactions, comprehensively in context.

References

[1]
A. Adler, A. Gujar, B. L. Harrison, K. O’Hara, and A. Sellen. 1998. A diary study of work-related reading: Design implications for digital reading devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’98). ACM/Addison-Wesley, New York, NY, 241--248.
[2]
T. D. Anderson. 2006. Uncertainty in action: Observing information seeking within the creative processes of scholarly research. Inf. Res. 12, 1 (2006), Article 283.
[3]
P. Arvola and J. Kekäläinen. 2010. Simulating user interaction in result document browsing. In Workshop Proceedings of the 33rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference: Simulation of Interaction, Automated Evaluation of Interactive IR. ACM, New York, NY, 27--28.
[4]
P. Arvola, J. Kekäläinen, and M. Junkkari. 2010. Expected reading effort in focused retrieval evaluation. Inf. Retrieval 13, 5 (2010), 460--484.
[5]
P. Arvola, J. Kekäläinen, and M. Junkkari. 2011. Contextualization models for XML retrieval. Inform. Process. Manage. 47, 5 (2011), 762--776.
[6]
S. Attfield and J. Dowell. 2003. Information seeking and use by newspaper journalists. J. Doc. 59, 2 (2003), 187--204.
[7]
C. L. Barry and L. Schamber. 1998. Users’ criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Inform. Process. Manage. 34, 2/3 (1998), 219--236.
[8]
M. J. Bates. 1989. The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Inform. Rev. 13, 5 (1989), 407--424.
[9]
M. J. Bates. 1990. Where should the person stop and the information search interface start? Inform. Process. Manage. 26, 5 (1990), 575--591.
[10]
M. J. Bates. 2007. What is browsing—really? A model drawing from behavioural science research. Inf. Res. 12, 4 (2007), Article 330.
[11]
N. J. Belkin. 1980. Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Can. J. Inform. Lib. Sci. 5 (1980), 133--143.
[12]
N. J. Belkin. 2010. On the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. In The Janus Faced Scholar. A Festschrift in Honor of Peter Ingwersen. Det Informationsvidenskabelige Akademi (Royal School of Library and Information Science, Copenhagen); ISSI (International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics), Copenhagen, Denmark, 13--22.
[13]
N. J. Belkin, R. Seeger, and G. Wersig. 1983. Distributed expert problem treatment as a model for information system analysis and design. J. Inform. Sci. 5 (1983), 153--167.
[14]
E. S. Berner. 2007. Clinical Decision Support Systems. Springer, New York, NY.
[15]
J. Biggs. 1988. The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Aust. J. Educ. 32, 2 (1988), 127--138.
[16]
A. Blandford and S. Attfield. 2010. Interacting with Information. Morgan and Claypool, San Rafael, CA.
[17]
B. S. Bloom, M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. David McKay, New York, NY.
[18]
A. Bookstein. 1983. Information retrieval: A sequential learning process. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 34, 5 (1983), 331--342.
[19]
C. L. Borgman. 1985. The user's mental model of an information retrieval system. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’85). ACM, New York, NY, 268--273.
[20]
P. Borlund. 2000. Experimental components for the evaluation of interactive information retrieval systems. J. Doc. 50, 1 (2000), 71--90.
[21]
P. Borlund. 2003. The concept of relevance in IR. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 54, 10 (2003), 913--925.
[22]
L. Bowler. 2010. A taxonomy of adolescent metacognitive knowledge during the information search process. Libr. Inform. Sci. Res. 32, 1 (2010), 27--42.
[23]
M. Bron, J. van Gorp, F. Nack, M. de Rijke, A. Vishneuski, and S. de Leeuw. 2012. A subjunctive exploratory search interface to support media studies researchers. In Proceedings of the 35th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’12). ACM, New York, NY, 425--434.
[24]
K. R. Butcher, S. Davies, A. Crockett, A. Dewald, and R. Zheng. 2011. Do graphical search interfaces support effective search for and evaluation of digital library resources? In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL’11). ACM, New York, NY, 315--324.
[25]
K. Byström and P. Hansen. 2005. Conceptual framework for tasks in information studies. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56, 10 (2005), 1050--1061.
[26]
K. Byström and K. Järvelin. 1995. Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Inform. Process. Manage. 31, 2 (1995), 191--213.
[27]
M. Carr, B. E. Kurtz, W. Schneider, L. A. Turner, and J. G. Borkowski. 1989. Strategy acquisition and transfer among German and American children: Environmental influences on metacognitive development. Dev. Psychol. 25, 5 (1989), 765--771.
[28]
P. Checkland and S. Holwell. 1998. Action research: Its nature and validity. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 11, 1 (1998), 9--21.
[29]
C.-M. Chen and S.-T. Lin. 2014. Assessing effects of information architecture of digital libraries on supporting e-learning: A case study on the Digital Library of Nature & Culture. Comput. Educ. 75, 1 (2014), 92--102.
[30]
C. Cool and N. J. Belkin. 2002. A classification of interactions with information. In Emerging Frameworks and Methods, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4). Greenwood Village, CO, Libraries Unlimited, 1--15.
[31]
C. L. S. Coryn, L. A. Noakes, C. D. Westine, and D. C. Schröter. 2011. A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am. J. Eval. 32, 2 (2011), 199--226.
[32]
E. Cosijn and P. Ingwersen. 2000. Dimensions of relevance. Inform. Process. Manage. 36, 4 (2000), 533--550.
[33]
A. Dillon and D. Turnbull. 2005. Information architecture. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (3rd ed.). 1, 1 (2005), 2361--2368.
[34]
J. H. Flavell. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 34, 10 (1979), 906--911.
[35]
L. Flower and J. R. Hayes. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. College Compos. Commun. 32, 4 (1981), 365--387.
[36]
L. Freund, E. G. Toms, and C. L. A. Clarke. 2005. Modeling task-genre relationships for IR in the workplace. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’05). ACM, New York, NY, 441--448.
[37]
S. Goldman, K. Lawless, and F. Manning. 2013. Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In Reading - From Words to Multiple Texts, M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, and J.-F. Rouet (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, 180--199.
[38]
K. Halttunen and K. Järvelin. 2005. Assessing learning outcomes in two information retrieval learning environments. Inform. Process. Manage. 41, 4 (2005), 949--972.
[39]
P. Hansen. 2011. Task-Based Information Seeking and Retrieval in the Patent Domain: Processes and Relationships. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis: 1631, Tampere University Press, Tampere, Finland.
[40]
J. Heinström. 2005. Fast surfing, broad scanning and deep diving: The influence of personality and study approach on students’ information-seeking behavior. J. Doc. 61, 2 (2005), 228--247.
[41]
J. Heinström. 2006. Fast surfing for availability or deep diving into quality—motivation and information seeking among middle and high school students. Inform. Res. 11, 4 (2006), Article 433.
[42]
W. Hersh. 1994. Relevance and retrieval evaluation: Perspectives from medicine. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 45, 1 (1994), 201--206.
[43]
W. Hersh, J. Pentecost, and D. Hickam. 1996. A task-oriented approach to information retrieval. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 47, 1 (1996), 50--56.
[44]
R. Howard, T. Serviss, and T. Rodrigue. 2010. Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing and Pedagogy 2, 2 (2010), 177--192.
[45]
S. Huuskonen and P. Vakkari. 2010. Client information system as an everyday information tool in child protection work. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Information Interaction in Context (IIiX’10). ACM, New York, NY, 3--12.
[46]
P. Ingwersen and K. Järvelin. 2005. The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
[47]
K. Järvelin. 2009. Explaining user performance in information retrieval: Challenges to IR evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Theory of Information Retrieval (ICTIR’09). Springer, Berlin, Germany, 289--296.
[48]
K. Järvelin. 2011. Evaluation. In Interactive Information Seeking, Behaviour and Retrieval, I. Ruthven and D. Kelly (Eds.). Facet Publishing, London, UK, 113--138.
[49]
M. G. Jones, J. D. Farquhar, and D. D. Surry. 1995. Using metacognitive theories to design user interfaces for computer-based learning. Educational Technol. 35, 4 (1995), 12--22.
[50]
J. Kekäläinen, P. Arvola, and S. Kumpulainen. 2014. Browsing patterns in retrieved documents. In Proceedings of the 5th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (IIIX’14). ACM, New York, NY, 299--302.
[51]
J. Kekäläinen and K. Järvelin. 2002. Evaluating information retrieval systems under the challenges of interaction and multi-dimensional dynamic relevance. In Proceedings of the 4th CoLIS Conference. Libraries Unlimited, Greenwood Village, CO, 253--270.
[52]
C. Kiili, L. Laurinen, M. Marttunen, and D. J. Leu. 2012. Working on understanding during collaborative online reading. J. Literacy Res. 44, 4 (2012), 448--483.
[53]
R. Kopak, L. Freund, and H. L. O’Brien. 2010. Supporting semantic navigation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Information Interaction in Context (IIIX’10). ACM, New York, NY, 359--364.
[54]
D. R. Krathwohl. 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Pract. 41, 4 (2002), 212--264.
[55]
C. Kuhlthau. 1991. Inside the search process. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 42, 5 (1991), 361--371.
[56]
C. Kuhlthau. 1993. Seeking Meaning. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
[57]
C. Kuhlthau. 1999. The role of experience in the information search process of an early career information worker: Perceptions of uncertainty, complexity, construction, and sources. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 50, 5 (1999), 399--412.
[58]
C. Kuhlthau and S. L. Tama. 2001. Information search process of lawyers: A call for ‘just for me’ information services. J. Doc. 57, 1 (2001), 25--43.
[59]
S. Kumpulainen. 2013. Task-Based Information Access in Molecular Medicine: Task Performance, Barriers, and Searching Within a Heterogeneous Information Environment. Ph.D. Thesis, Tampere University Press, Acta Universitatis Tamperensis: 1879.
[60]
S. Kumpulainen. 2014. Trails across the heterogeneous information environment: Manual integration patterns of search systems in molecular medicine. J. Doc. 70, 5 (2014), 856--877.
[61]
S. Kumpulainen and K. Järvelin. 2010. Information interaction in molecular medicine: Integrated use of multiple channels. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Information Interaction in Context (IIiX’10). ACM, New York, NY, 95--104.
[62]
S. Kumpulainen and K. Järvelin. 2012. Barriers to task-based information access in molecular medicine. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63, 1 (2012), 86--97.
[63]
Y. Li and N. Belkin. 2008. A faceted approach to conceptualizing tasks in information seeking. Inform. Process. Manage. 44, 6 (2008), 1822--1837.
[64]
Y. Li and N. Belkin. 2010. An exploration of the relationships between work task and interactive information search behavior. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 9 (2010), 1771--1789.
[65]
Y. Li and C. P. Casanave. 2012. Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism? J. Second Lang. Writing 21, 2 (2012), 165--180.
[66]
J. Liu and N. Belkin. 2012. Searching vs. writing: Factors affecting information use task performance. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 49, 1 (2012), 1--10.
[67]
C. Lucchese, S. Orlando, R. Perego, F. Silvestri, and G. Tolomei. 2011. Identifying task-based sessions in search engine query logs. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 277--286.
[68]
G. Marchionini. 2006. Exploratory search: From finding to understanding. Commun. ACM 49, 4 (2006), 41--46.
[69]
M. Markkula and E. Sormunen. 2006. Video needs at the different stages of television program making process. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information Interaction in Context (IIiX’06). ACM, New York, NY, 111--118.
[70]
C. C. Marshall. 2009. Reading and Writing the Electronic Book. Morgan and Claypool, San Rafael, CA.
[71]
M. Mateos and I. Solé. 2009. Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 24, 4 (2009), 435--451.
[72]
C. Monte-Sano and S. De La Paz. 2012. Using writing tasks to elicit adolescents’ historical reasoning. J. Lit. Res. 44, 3 (2012), 273--299.
[73]
A. de Moor and M. Aakhus. 2006. Argumentation support: From technologies to tools. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (2006), 93--98.
[74]
N. Moraveji, D. Russell, J. Bien, and D. Mease. 2011. Measuring improvement in user search performance resulting from optimal search tips. In Proceedings of the 34th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’11). ACM, New York, NY, 355--364.
[75]
D. C. Neale, J. M. Carroll, and M. B. Rosson. 2004. Evaluating computer-supported cooperative work: Models and frameworks. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’04). ACM, New York, NY, 112--121.
[76]
D. W. Oard and J. Kim. 2001. Modeling information content using observable behavior. In Proceedings of the 64th Annual Conference of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIST’01). 481--488.
[77]
J. Pearson, G. Buchanan, and H. Thimbleby. 2013. Designing for Digital Reading. Morgan and Claypool, San Rafael, CA.
[78]
Y. Qu and G. Furnas. 2008. Model-driven evaluation of exploratory search: A study under sensemaking framework. Inf. Process. Manage. 44, 2 (2008), 534--555.
[79]
P. J. Rogers, A. Petrosino, T. A. Huebner, and T. A. Hacsi. 2000. Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. New Directions Eval. 87 (2000), 5--13.
[80]
P. H. Rossi, M. W. Lipsey, and H. Freeman. 2004. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[81]
J.-F. Rouet. 2006. The Skills of Document Use: From Text Comprehension to Web-Based Learning. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
[82]
I. Ruthven. 2008. Interactive information retrieval. Annu. Rev. Inform. Sci. 42, 1 (2008), 43--91.
[83]
I. Ruthven. 2012. Grieving online: The use of search engines in times of grief and bereavement. In Proceedings of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (IIIX’12). ACM, New York, NY, 120--129.
[84]
M. Saastamoinen, S. Kumpulainen, and K. Järvelin. 2012. Task complexity and information searching in administrative tasks revisited. In Proceedings of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (IIIX’12). ACM, New York, NY, 204--213.
[85]
T. Sakai and Z. Dou. 2013. Summaries, ranked retrieval and sessions: A unified framework for information access evaluation. In Proceedings of the 36th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’13). ACM, New York, NY, 473--482.
[86]
M. Sanderson. 2010. Test collection based evaluation of information retrieval systems. Foundations and Trends Inform. Retrieval 4, 4 (2010), 247--375.
[87]
T. Saracevic. 1975. Relevance: A review of and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 26, 6 (1975), 321--343.
[88]
T. Saracevic. 1996a. Modeling interaction in information retrieval (IR): A review and proposal. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science 33 (1996), 3--9.
[89]
T. Saracevic. 1996b. Relevance reconsidered ’96. In Information science: Integration in Perspectives. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science. The Royal School of Librarianship, Copenhagen, DK, 201--218.
[90]
G. Schraw. 1998. Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instruct. Sci. 26, 1--2 (1998), 113--125.
[91]
M. Scriven. 1991. Evaluation Thesaurus (4th ed.). Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
[92]
R. Segev-Miller. 2004. Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students’ processes and products. Educ. Stud. Lang. Lit. 4, 1 (2004), 5--33.
[93]
C. Shah. 2012. Collaborative Information Seeking: The Art and Science of Making the Whole Greater Than the Sum of All. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.
[94]
C. L. Smith and P. B. Kantor. 2008. User adaptation: Good results from poor systems. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’08). ACM, New York, NY, 147--154.
[95]
E. Sormunen and L. Lehtiö. 2011. Authoring Wikipedia articles as an information literacy assignment -- copy-pasting or expressing new understanding in one's own words? Inf. Res. 16, 4 (2011), Article 503.
[96]
E. Sormunen, J. Heinström, L. Romu, and R. Turunen. 2012. A method for the analysis of information use in source-based writing. Inf. Res. 17, 4 (2012), Article 535.
[97]
E. Sormunen, M. Tanni, T. Alamettälä, and J. Heinström. 2014. Students’ group work strategies in source-based writing assignments. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65, 6 (2014), 1217--1231.
[98]
N. N. Spivey 1997. The Constructivist Metaphor. Reading, Writing, and the Making of Meaning. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
[99]
L. Suchman. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, New York.
[100]
D. Swanson. 1977. Information retrieval as a trial-and-error process. Libr. Quart. 47, 2 (1977), 128--148.
[101]
J. Tague and R. Schultz. 1988. Some measures and procedures for evaluation of the user interface in an information retrieval system. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’88). ACM, New York, NY, 371--385.
[102]
M. Tanni and E. Sormunen. 2008. A critical review of research on information behavior in assigned learning tasks. J. Doc. 64, 6 (2008), 893--914.
[103]
R. Todd. 2006. From information to knowledge: Charting and measuring changes in students’ knowledge of a curriculum topic. Inf. Res. 11, 4 (2006), Article 264.
[104]
A. Turpin and F. Scholer. 2006. User performance versus precision measures for simple search tasks. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’06). ACM, New York, NY, 11--18.
[105]
P. Vakkari. 1999. Task complexity, problem structure and information actions: Integrating studies on information seeking and retrieval. Inform. Process. Manage. 35, 6 (1999), 819--837.
[106]
P. Vakkari. 2000. Relevance and contributing information types of searched documents in task performance. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’00). ACM, New York, NY, 2--9.
[107]
P. Vakkari. 2001a. A theory of the task-based information retrieval process: A summary and generalization of a longitudinal study. J. Doc. 57, 1 (2001), 44--60.
[108]
P. Vakkari. 2001b. Changes in search tactics and relevance judgments in preparing a research proposal: A summary of findings of a longitudinal study. Inf. Retrieval 4, 3--4 (2001), 295--310.
[109]
P. Vakkari. 2003. Task based information searching. Annu. Rev. Inform. Sci. 37, 1 (2003). Information Today, Medford, NJ.
[110]
P. Vakkari. 2010. Exploratory searching as conceptual exploration. In Proceedings of 4th Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction and Information Retrieval. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 24--27.
[111]
P. Vakkari and N. Hakala. 2000. Changes in relevance criteria and problem stages in task performance. J. Doc. 56, 5 (2000), 540--562.
[112]
P. Vakkari and S. Huuskonen. 2012. Search effort degrades search output but improves task outcome. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63, 4 (2012), 657--670.
[113]
P. Vakkari, M. Pennanen, and S. Serola. 2003. Changes of search terms and tactics while writing a research proposal. Inform. Process. Manage. 39, 3 (2003), 445--463.
[114]
P. Wang and D. Soergel. 1998. A cognitive model of document use during a research project: Study I: Document selection. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 49, 2 (1998), 115--133.
[115]
B. Wildemuth. 2004. The effects of domain knowledge on search tactic formulation. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 55, 3 (2004), 246--258.
[116]
B. M. Wildemuth, R. de Bliek, C. P. Friedman, and D. D. File. 1995. Medical students’ personal knowledge, searching proficiency, and database use in problem solving. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 46, 8 (1995), 590--607.
[117]
I. C. Wu, D. R. Lu, and P. C. Chang. 2008. Towards incorporating a task-stage identification technique into long-term document support process. Inform. Process. Manage. 44, 5 (2008), 1649--1672.
[118]
I. Xie. 2008. Interactive Information Retrieval in Digital Environments. IGI, New York, NY.
[119]
H. Zaugg, R. E. West, I. Tateishi, and D. L. Randall. 2011. Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. TechTrends 55, 1 (2011), 32--36.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A Blueprint of IR Evaluation Integrating Task and User CharacteristicsACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/367516242:6(1-38)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Images as data – modelling data interactions in social science and humanities researchJournal of Documentation10.1108/JD-08-2024-019580:7(325-345)Online publication date: 31-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Information searching in cultural heritage archives: a user studyJournal of Documentation10.1108/JD-06-2023-012080:4(978-1002)Online publication date: 9-Apr-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Task-Based Information Interaction Evaluation: The Viewpoint of Program Theory

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Transactions on Information Systems
        ACM Transactions on Information Systems  Volume 33, Issue 1
        Special Issue on Contextual Search and Recommendation
        March 2015
        148 pages
        ISSN:1046-8188
        EISSN:1558-2868
        DOI:10.1145/2737806
        Issue’s Table of Contents
        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 17 March 2015
        Accepted: 01 November 2014
        Revised: 01 November 2014
        Received: 01 March 2014
        Published in TOIS Volume 33, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions for this article.

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. Task-based information interaction
        2. evaluation

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

        Funding Sources

        • Academy of Finland

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)91
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
        Reflects downloads up to 12 Dec 2024

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)A Blueprint of IR Evaluation Integrating Task and User CharacteristicsACM Transactions on Information Systems10.1145/367516242:6(1-38)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
        • (2024)Images as data – modelling data interactions in social science and humanities researchJournal of Documentation10.1108/JD-08-2024-019580:7(325-345)Online publication date: 31-Oct-2024
        • (2024)Information searching in cultural heritage archives: a user studyJournal of Documentation10.1108/JD-06-2023-012080:4(978-1002)Online publication date: 9-Apr-2024
        • (2023)Assessing Information Search by Task OutcomeSRELS Journal of Information Management10.17821/srels/2023/v60i1/170893(31-37)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2023
        • (2023)Information Search Patterns in Complex TasksSRELS Journal of Information Management10.17821/srels/2023/v60i1/170892(19-30)Online publication date: 27-Mar-2023
        • (2023)Characterising users’ task completion process in learning-related tasksJournal of Information Science10.1177/0165551521106052749:6(1462-1480)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2023
        • (2023)How do gender, Internet activity and learning beliefs predict sixth-grade students’ self-efficacy beliefs in and attitudes towards online inquiry?Journal of Information Science10.1177/0165551521104370849:5(1246-1261)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2023
        • (2023)Taking Search to TaskProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3576840.3578288(1-13)Online publication date: 19-Mar-2023
        • (2023)A Probabilistic Model Toward How People Search to Build OutcomesIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2023.325236911(22450-22467)Online publication date: 2023
        • (2023)Constructing and meta-evaluating state-aware evaluation metrics for interactive search systemsInformation Retrieval10.1007/s10791-023-09426-126:1-2Online publication date: 31-Oct-2023
        • Show More Cited By

        View Options

        Login options

        Full Access

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media