Computer user satisfaction: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:31, 6 January 2025

Revision as of 21:29, 6 January 2025

Line 18:

==The CUS and the UIS==

Bailey and Pearson's (1983) 39‑Factor ''Computer'' ''User Satisfaction (CUS) questionnaire and its de''rivative, the ''User Information Satisfaction (UIS)'' short-form of Baroudi, Olson and Ives are typical of instruments which one might term as 'factor-based'. They consist of lists of factors, each of which the respondent is asked to rate on one or more multiple point scales. Bailey and Pearson's CUS asked for five ratings for each of 39 factors. The first four scales were for quality ratings and the fifth was an importance rating. From the fifth rating of each factor, they found that their [[Sampling (statistics)|sample]] of users rated as most important: ''accuracy'', ''reliability'', ''timeliness'', ''relevancy'' and ''confidence in the system''. The factors of least importance were found to be ''feelings of control'', ''volume of output'', ''vendor support'', ''degree of training'', and ''organisational position of EDP'' (the electronic data processing, or computing department). However, the CUS requires 39 x 5 = 195 individual seven‑point scale responses.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bailey |first1=James E. |last2=Pearson |first2=Sammy W. |title=Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction |journal=Management Science |date=May 1983 |volume=29 |issue=5 |pages=530–545 |doi=https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.5.530 }}</ref> Ives, Olson and Baroudi (1983), amongst others, thought that so many responses could result in errors of attrition.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ives |first1=Blake |last2=Olson |first2=Margrethe H. |last3=Baroudi |first3=Jack J. |title=The measurement of user information satisfaction |journal=Commun. ACM |date=1 October 1983 |volume=26 |issue=10 |pages=785–793 |doi=https://doi.org/10.1145/358413.358430 }}</ref> This means, the respondent's failure to return the questionnaire or the increasing carelessness of the respondent as they fill in a long form. In [[psychometrics]], such errors not only result in reduced sample sizes but can also distort the results, as those who return long questionnaires, properly completed, may have differing psychological traits from those who do not. Ives, et al. thus developed the UIS. This only requires the respondent to rate 13 factors that remain in significant use. Two seven‑point scales are provided per factor (each for a quality), requiring 26 individual responses. However, in a recent article, Islam, Mervi, and Käköla (2010) argued that measuring user satisfaction in industry settings is difficult as the response rate often remains low. Thus, a simpler version of the user satisfaction measurement instrument is necessary.

==The problem with the dating of factors==

An early [[criticism]] of these measures was that the factors date as [[computer technology]] evolves and changes. This suggested the need for updates and led to a sequence of other factor-based instruments. Doll and Torkzadeh (1988), for example, produced a factor-based instrument for a new type of user emerging at the time, called an [[end user]]. They identified end-users as users who tend to interact with a [[Interface (computing)|computer interface]] only, while previously users interacted with developers and operational staff as well. McKinney, Yoon and Zahedi (2002) developed a model and instruments for measuring web-customer satisfaction during the information phase.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McKinney |first1=Vicki |last2=Yoon |first2=Kanghyun |last3=Zahedi |first3=Fatemeh “Mariam” |title=The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach |journal=Information Systems Research |date=September 2002 |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=296–315 |doi=https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.296.76 }}</ref> Cheung and Lee (2005) in their development of an instrument to measure user satisfaction with e-portals, based their instrument on that of McKinney, Yoon and Zahedi (2002), which in turn was based primarily on instruments from prior studies.

==The problem of defining ''user satisfaction''==