Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) as a Tool to Improve the Assessment of Digital Government: The Case of the Mexican State Portals Ranking
Authors: 
G. Puron-Cid, 
J. R. Gil-Garcia, 
D. E. Luna-Reyes, 
L. F. Luna-Reyes, S. Picazo-Vela, R. Sandoval-AlmazanAuthors Info & Claims
Pages 289 - 299
Abstract
There are different measurements and rankings in the literature that evaluate critical factors for a successful adoption of digital government. Each of these frameworks applies diverse variables and approaches to assessing digital government success. However, the nature of digital government success is complex and implies multiple dimensions that make it difficult to evaluate in practice. There is the need to build more robust approaches to improve these assessments to explore the multiple dimensions of digital government success. Some authors have proposed factor analysis techniques as a useful tool for this task. Using a well-known ranking of state government portals in Mexico during the period 2009-2015, this study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the dimensions of this instrument, which includes 132 items. This ranking could be considered a typical tool for measuring and assessing digital government, similar to the ones used in many countries and by some international organizations. The purpose of this study is to extend our understanding of the multiple dimensions of digital government success and to provide guidance for improving and refining existing techniques for measuring and assessing digital government. The results ratify most of the original dimensions, but allows reducing the number of questions and obtain more robust estimations. Based on the analysis, we provide a set of practical recommendations for improving measurement methodologies and for the assessment of digital government.
References
[1]
Accenture. 2002. eGovernment-More Customer Focused than Ever Before.
[2]
A.C. Acock. 2013. Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata. Stata Press.
[3]
H. Barki, S. Rivard and J. Talbot. 1993. Toward an Assessment of Software Development Risk. Journal of Management Information Systems. 10, 2 (Fall 1993), 203--225.
[4]
S. Braman. 2006. Change of State. Information, Policy, and Power. The MIT Press.
[5]
M.M. Brown. 2000. Mitigating the risk of information technology initiatives: Best practices and points of failure for the public sector. In G. D. Garson (Ed.). Handbook of Public Information Systems. New York: Marcel Dekker.
[6]
M.M. Brown and J.L. Brudney. 2003. Learning Organizations in the Public Sector? A Study of Police Agencies Employing Information and Technology to Advance Knowledge. Public Administration Review. 63, 1 (Feb. 2003), 30--43.
[7]
T.A. Brown. 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Press.
[8]
L. Burbridge. 2002. Accountability and Mis. Public Performance & Management Review. 25, 4 (Jun. 2002), 421--423.
[9]
M. Carter and R. Turner. 2001. New Study Assess State Legislative Online Entry Points.
[10]
I. Ceaparu and B. Shneiderman. 2002. Improving Web-based Civic Information Access: A Case Study of the 50 US States.
[11]
Center for Digital Government. 2003. Digital State Survey.
[12]
Congress Online Project. 2003. Congress Online 2003: Turning the Corner on the Information Age.
[13]
A.B. Costello and J.W. Osborne. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis {computer file}. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 10, (Jan. 2005), 1--9.
[14]
S.S. Dawes and T.A. Pardo. 2002. Building Collaborative Digital Government Systems. Systematic Constraints and Effective Practices. Advances in Digital Government. Technology, Human Factors, and Policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 259--273.
[15]
F. Debrí and F. Bannister. 2015. E-government Stage Models: A Contextual Critique. In Proceedings of the 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Washington, DC, USA, 2015), 2222--2231.
[16]
C. Demchak, C. Friis and T.M. La Porte. 2000. Webbing Governance: National Differences in Constructing the Face of Public Organizations. Handbook of Public Information Systems. G. David Garson, ed. Marcel Dekker Publishers.
[17]
B. Detlor and K. Finn. 2002. Towards a Framework for Government Portal Design: The Government, Citizen and Portal Perspectives. Electronic Government: Design, Applications & Management. Å. Grönlund, ed. IDEA Group Publishing.
[18]
A. Dexter and V. Parr. 2002. Government Online: An International Perspective. Taylor Nelson Sofres Consulting Group.
[19]
K.D. Edmiston. 2003. State and Local E-Government: Prospects and Challenges. American Review of Public Administration. 33, (2003), 20--45.
[20]
J.R. Gil-Garcia and I.J. Martinez-Moyano. 2005. Exploring E-Government Evolution: The Influence of Systems of Rules on Organizational Action: 2005. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/digitalcenter/Research/working_papers/gil-garcia_wp05-001.pdf.
[21]
J.C. Fagan and B.D. Fagan. 2001. Citizens' access to on-line state legislative documents. Government Information Quarterly. 18, 2 (Apr. 2001), 105.
[22]
P. Ferber, F. Foltz and R. Pugliese. 2003. The Politics of State Legislature Web Sites: Making E-Government More Participatory, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 23, No. 3, June 2003, 157--167
[23]
P.D. Fletcher. 2002. Policy and Portals. In W.J. McIver and A.K. Elmagarmid (eds.). Advances in Digital Government: Technology, Human Factors, and Policy. Kluwer Academic Press.
[24]
P.D. Fletcher. 2004. Portals and Policy: Implications of Electronic Access to U.S. Federal Government Information and Services. In A. Pavlichev and Garson G. D., (eds.). Digital Government: Principles and Best Practices. IDEA Group Publishing.
[25]
J.E. Fountain. 2001. Building the Virtual State. Information Technology and Institutional Change. Brookings Institution Press.
[26]
J.P. Gant, D.B. Gant and C. Johnson. 2002. State Web Portals: Delivering and Financing E-Service. The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government.
[27]
G.D. Garson. 2003. Toward an IT Research Agenda for Public Administration. Public IT: Policy and Management Issues. Garson G. D., ed. IDEA Group Publishing.
[28]
J.R. Gil-García. 2005. Enacting State Websites: A Mixed Method Study Exploring E-Government Success in Multi-Organizational Settings. University at Albany, State University of New York.
[29]
J.R. Gil-García. (ed.) 2004. Information technology policies and standards: A comparative review of the states. Journal of Government Information. 30, 5/6 (Nov. 2004), 548--560.
[30]
J.R. Gil-García and T.A. Pardo. 2005. E-Government Success Factors: Mapping Practical Tools to Theoretical Foundations. Government Information Quarterly. 22, 2 (2005), 187--216.
[31]
A.T.-K. Ho. 2002. Reinventing Local Governments and the E-Government Initiative. Public Administration Review. 62, 4 (2002), 434--444.
[32]
S.H. Holden, Norris, D.F. and P.D. Fletcher. 2003. Electronic Government at the Local Level: Progress to Date and Future Issues. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(4), 325--344.
[33]
J. Kim, J. Lee, K. Han and M. Lee. 2002. Businesses as Buildings: Metrics for the Architectural Quality of Internet Businesses. Information Systems Research. 13, 3 (Sep. 2002), 239--254.
[34]
J.P. West and E.M. Berman. 2001. The Impact of Revitalized Management Practices on the Adoption of Information Technology: A National Survey of Local Governments. Public Performance & Management Review. 24, 3 (Mar. 2001), 233--253.
[35]
J.B.D. Joshi, A. Ghafoor and W.G. Aref. 2002. Security and Privacy Challenges of a Digital Government. In W.J. McIver and A.K. Elmafarmid(eds.). Advances in Digital Government. Technology, Human Factors, and Policy. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[36]
H.F. Kaiser, S. Hunka and J.C. Bianchini. 1971. Relating Factors Between Studies Based Upon Different Individuals. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 6, 4 (Oct. 1971), 409.
[37]
S. Kim and D. Kim. 2003. South Korean Public Officials' Perceptions of Values, Failure, and Consequences of Failure in E-Government Leadership. Public Performance & Management Review. 26, 4 (Jun. 2003), 360--375.
[38]
T.M. La Porte, C.C. Demchak and M. de Jong. 2002. Democracy and Bureaucracy in the Age of the Web: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Speculations. Administration & Society. 34, 4 (Sep. 2002), 411.
[39]
D.J. Landsbergen and G.J. Wolken. 2001. Realizing the Promise: Government Information Systems and the Fourth Generation of Information Technology. Public Administration Review. 61, 2 (2001), 206--220.
[40]
L.F. Luna-Reyes, J.R. Gil-García and J.S. Rojas-Bandera. 2007. An Exploratory Study of Electronic Government and State Portals in Mexico. In M. Gascó-Hernández (Ed.) Latin America Online: Cases, Successes and Pitfalls. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. 116--156.
[41]
L.F. Luna-Reyes and J.R. Gil-García. 2003. eGovernment & Internet Security: Some Technical and Policy Considerations. In Proceedings of the 2003 Annual National Conference on Digital Government Research (Boston, MA, USA, 2003), 1--4.
[42]
J. Mahler and P.M. Regan. 2002. Learning to Govern Online: Federal Agency Internet Use. American Review of Public Administration. 32, 3 (Sep. 2002), 326.
[43]
C. McClure, F. Eppes, J. Spreheand K. Eschenfelder. 2000. Performance Measures for Federal Agency Websites. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office
[44]
S. Mithas, Narayanasamy Ramasubbu, M. S. Krishnan, C. Fornell. 2006. Designing Web Sites for Customer Loyalty Across Business Domains: A Multilevel Analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems. 23, 3 (Winter2006/2007 2006), 97--127.
[45]
M.J. Moon. 2002. The Evolution of E-Government Among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? Public Administration Review. 62, 4 (2002), 424--433.
[46]
J. Musso, C. Weare and M. Hale. 2000. Designing Web Technologies for Local Governance Reform: Good Management or Good Democracy? Political Communication. 17, 1 (Jan. 2000), 1--19.
[47]
S. Petter, W. Delone and E. Mclean. 2013. Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Independent Variables. Journal of Management Information Systems. 29, 4 (Spring 2013), 7--62.
[48]
G. Premkumar, A.T. Ho and P. Chakraborty. 2006. E-government evolution: an evaluation of local online services. International Journal of Electronic Business. 4, 2 (Jun. 2006), 177--190.
[49]
B. Rocheleau. 2003. Politics, Accountability, and Governmental Information Systems. Public Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. 20--52.
[50]
A. Rorissa, D. Demissie and T.A. Pardo. 2011. Benchmarking e-Government: A comparison of frameworks for computing e357 Government index and ranking. Government Information Quarterly. 28, 3 (2011), 354--362.
[51]
J. Roy. 2003. The Relational Dynamics of E-Governance. Public Performance & Management Review. 26, 4 (Jun. 2003), 391--403.
[52]
R. Sandoval-Almazán and J.R. Gil-García. 2013. E-Government Portals in Mexico. In A.-V. Anttiroiko (Ed.), Electronic government. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
[53]
R. Sandoval-Almazán and J.R. Gil-García. 2012. Government-Citizen Interactions using web 2.0 Tools: The case of Twitter in Mexico. In C.G. Reddick and S.K. Aikins (eds.). Web 2.0 Technologies and Democratic Governance. NY, USA: Springer, 233--248.
[54]
C. Scavo, C. 2003. World Wide Web Site Design and Use in Public Management. Public Information Technology: Policy and Management Issues. Idea Group Publishing.
[55]
UNDESA and American Society for Public Administration. 2002. Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective, May, 2002, Report available online at http://www.unpan.org.
[56]
E.W. Welch, C. Hinnant and J.M. Moon. 2005. Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-Government and Trust in Government. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory. 15, 371--391 (2005).
[57]
D.M. West. 2007. Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance. Princeton University Press.
[58]
A. Whitmore. 2012. A statistical analysis of the construction of the United Nations E-Government Development Index. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 1 (January 2012), 68--75.
- Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) as a Tool to Improve the Assessment of Digital Government: The Case of the Mexican State Portals Ranking
Recommendations
An artificial intelligence method for digital government assessment: An application of neural networks analysis of a ranking of digital government of Mexican states
dg.o '17: Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government ResearchDevelopment of accurate measurement systems to assess digital government advance is a critical topic of digital agenda of academia and governments around the world. There are several quantitative approaches such as rankings and indicators that have ...
Digital Government Initiatives in Balochistan: a case study
ICTD '17: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and DevelopmentThis research study 1 aims to analyse the digital government initiatives in Balochistan. The study finds that there is a lack of e-readiness even if public sector officials are willing to use Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to enhance ...
Financing digital government in municipalities: An economic perspective
dg.o '16: Proceedings of the 17th International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government ResearchThe purpose of local governments is to facilitate the well-being of communities and regions. Through the provision of different public goods and services local governments have the mission to provide security and stable conditions for individuals and ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © 2017 ACM.
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]
In-Cooperation
- IOS Press: IOS Press
- Digital Government Society of North America
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 07 June 2017
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
dg.o '17
dg.o '17: 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research
June 7 - 9, 2017
NY, Staten Island, USA
Acceptance Rates
dg.o '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 66 of 114 submissions, 58%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 271 submissions, 55%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 107Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)4
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 23 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in