IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jamist/v61y2010i5p859-868.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A review of factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval

Author

Listed:
  • Azzah Al‐Maskari
  • Mark Sanderson

Abstract

The authors investigate factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval. It is evident from this study that user satisfaction is a subjective variable, which can be influenced by several factors such as system effectiveness, user effectiveness, user effort, and user characteristics and expectations. Therefore, information retrieval evaluators should consider all these factors in obtaining user satisfaction and in using it as a criterion of system effectiveness. Previous studies have conflicting conclusions on the relationship between user satisfaction and system effectiveness; this study has substantiated these findings and supports using user satisfaction as a criterion of system effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Azzah Al‐Maskari & Mark Sanderson, 2010. "A review of factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(5), pages 859-868, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:61:y:2010:i:5:p:859-868
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.21300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21300
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.21300?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harry Bruce, 1998. "User satisfaction with information seeking on the internet," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 49(6), pages 541-556.
    2. William S. Cooper, 1973. "On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness part II. Implementation of the philosophy," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 24(6), pages 413-424, November.
    3. F. W. Lancaster, 1969. "MEDLARS: report on the evaluation of its operating efficiency," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 119-142, April.
    4. Louise T. Su, 2003. "A comprehensive and systematic model of user evaluation of Web search engines: I. Theory and background," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(13), pages 1175-1192, November.
    5. Tefko Saracevic & Paul Kantor, 1988. "A study of information seeking and retrieving. III. Searchers, searches, and overlap," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 39(3), pages 197-216, May.
    6. William S. Cooper, 1968. "Expected search length: A single measure of retrieval effectiveness based on the weak ordering action of retrieval systems," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 30-41, January.
    7. Louise T. Su, 1994. "The relevance of recall and precision in user evaluation," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 45(3), pages 207-217, April.
    8. William R. Hersh & David H. Hickam, 1995. "An evaluation of interactive Boolean and natural language searching with an online medical textbook," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 46(9), pages 719-719, October.
    9. William R. Hersh & David H. Hickam, 1995. "An evaluation of interactive Boolean and natural language searching with an online medical textbook," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 46(7), pages 478-489, August.
    10. Tefko Saracevic & Paul Kantor, 1988. "A study of information seeking and retrieving. II. Users, questions, and effectiveness," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 39(3), pages 177-196, May.
    11. Ard W. Lazonder & Harm J.A. Biemans & Iwan G.J.H. Wopereis, 2000. "Differences between novice and experienced users in searching information on the World Wide Web," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(6), pages 576-581.
    12. Dagobert Soergel, 1976. "Is user satisfaction a hobgoblin?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 27(4), pages 256-259, July.
    13. Ard W. Lazonder, 2000. "Letter to the Editor: Rejoinder: Differences between novice and experienced users in searching information on the world wide web," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(12), pages 1155-1155.
    14. William S. Cooper, 1973. "On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 24(2), pages 87-100, March.
    15. Louise T. Su, 2003. "A comprehensive and systematic model of user evaluation of Web search engines: II. An evaluation by undergraduates," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(13), pages 1193-1223, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexander V. Yakunin & Svetlana S. Bodrunova, 2022. "Cumulative Impact of Testing Factors in Usability Tests for Human-Centered Web Design," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-26, November.
    2. Frans van der Sluis & Egon L. van den Broek, 2023. "Feedback beyond accuracy: Using eye‐tracking to detect comprehensibility and interest during reading," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 3-16, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Raffaella Nori & Massimiliano Palmiero & Fiorella Giusberti & Elisa Gambetti & Laura Piccardi, 2020. "Web searching and navigation: Age, intelligence, and familiarity," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 902-915, August.
    2. Chen, Sherry Y. & Macredie, Robert, 2010. "Web-based interaction: A review of three important human factors," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 379-387.
    3. Wayne de Fremery & Michael K. Buckland, 2022. "Context, relevance, and labor," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(9), pages 1268-1278, September.
    4. Mikkel Christoffersen, 2004. "Identifying core documents with a multiple evidence relevance filter," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(3), pages 385-394, November.
    5. Soviadan, Mawussi Kossivi & Enete, Anselm Anibueze & Okoye, Chukwuemeka Uzoma & Dossa, Kossivi Fabrice, 2021. "Extensive and Improved Traditional Poultry Farming in Togo: A Comparative Analysis of Socioeconomic Characteristics of Farmers," MPRA Paper 113915, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 31 Oct 2021.
    6. Xiaoli Huang & Dagobert Soergel, 2013. "Relevance: An improved framework for explicating the notion," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 18-35, January.
    7. Vicki McKinney & Kanghyun Yoon & Fatemeh “Mariam” Zahedi, 2002. "The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 296-315, September.
    8. Ho, Chaang-Iuan & Lin, Meng-Hui & Chen, Hui-Mei, 2012. "Web users’ behavioural patterns of tourism information search: From online to offline," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1468-1482.
    9. Yonit Rusho & Daphne R. Raban, 2020. "Hands on: Information Experiences as Sources of Value," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(6), pages 671-684, June.
    10. Aurora González-Teruel & Gregorio González-Alcaide & Maite Barrios & María-Francisca Abad-García, 2015. "Mapping recent information behavior research: an analysis of co-authorship and co-citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 687-705, May.
    11. Jeffrey Roberts & David Wasieleski, 2012. "Moral Reasoning in Computer-Based Task Environments: Exploring the Interplay between Cognitive and Technological Factors on Individuals’ Propensity to Break Rules," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 355-376, October.
    12. Mawussi Kossivi Soviadan & Anselm Anibueze Enete & Chukwuemeka Uzoma Okoye & Kossivi Fabrice Dossa, 2021. "Extensive and Improved Traditional Poultry Farming in Togo: A Comparative Analysis of Socioeconomic Characteristics of Farmers [L'aviculture traditionnelle extensive et l'élevage traditionnel améli," Post-Print hal-03739583, HAL.
    13. Yue Lin & Ningchuan Xiao, 2023. "Assessing the Impact of Differential Privacy on Population Uniques in Geographically Aggregated Data: The Case of the 2020 U.S. Census," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(5), pages 1-20, October.
    14. Kevin W Boyack & David Newman & Russell J Duhon & Richard Klavans & Michael Patek & Joseph R Biberstine & Bob Schijvenaars & André Skupin & Nianli Ma & Katy Börner, 2011. "Clustering More than Two Million Biomedical Publications: Comparing the Accuracies of Nine Text-Based Similarity Approaches," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-11, March.
    15. Hou, Jianwei & Elliott, Kevin, 2014. "How do online bidders differ from non-bidders?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 18-25.
    16. Elena Ageeva & Pantea Foroudi & T. C. Melewar & Bang Nguyen & Charles Dennis, 2020. "A Holistic Framework of Corporate Website Favourability," Corporate Reputation Review, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(3), pages 201-214, August.
    17. Ageeva, Elena & Melewar, T.C. & Foroudi, Pantea & Dennis, Charles, 2019. "Cues adopted by consumers in examining corporate website favorability: An empirical study of financial institutions in the UK and Russia," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 15-32.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jamist:v:61:y:2010:i:5:p:859-868. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.