Computer user satisfaction: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:11, 8 January 2025

Revision as of 04:03, 8 January 2025

Line 5:

{{technical|date=January 2025}}

}}

'''Computer user satisfaction''' is the systematic [[measurement]] and [[evaluation]] of how well a [[computer system]] or [[Computercomputer application|application]] fulfills the needs and expectations of individual users. While sometimes referred to as '''System Satisfaction'''—especially when examining broader user groups or entire [[customer]] bases—it is also known simply as '''User Satisfaction''' in other contexts. These related terms can vary in scope, survey depth, [[anonymity]], and in how the findings are applied or translated to value.

Evaluating [[user satisfaction]] helps gauge product stability, track industry trends, and measure overall user contentment. These insights are valuable for [[Strategic management|business strategy]], [[market research]], and [[sales forecasting]], as they enable [[Organization|organizations]] to preempt dissatisfaction and protect their [[market share]] and revenue by addressing issues before they escalate.

Line 12:

== User Compliance ==

Using findings, [[Product design|product designers]], [[Business analysis|business analysts]], and [[Software engineering|software engineers]] anticipate change, and prevent user loss by identifying missing features, shifts in requirements, general improvements, or corrections. ''[[End user]] computing satisfaction'' is also [[Psychology|psychological]], in that the findings can sometimes represent objective views, rather than subjective truths. For example, previous success or failure impacts next-generation products. [[Organization|Organizations]] emphasize value in how products and opinions thereof manifest, preserving what is valued and caring how this is perceived.

This often creates a [[Positive feedback|positive feedback loop]] and creates a sense of agency for the user. These surveys assist in steering the system towards stable product sector positions. This is important because the effects of satisfied or dissatisfied users could be difficult to change as time goes on. Real-world examples are [[End user|end-user]] loyalty in the premium [[mobile device]] segment, opinion and perception of dependable [[Automotive industry|automotive]] brands, or lower-quality products that originate from certain nationalities based on [[Stereotype|stereotypes]]. In such cases, the [[Corrective and preventive action|corrective action]] is not made on a product level; rather, it is handled in another business process via [[change management]], which aims to educate, inform, and promote the system with the users, swaying opinions that could not be other altered amending products.

The satisfaction measurements are often used in industry, [[manufacturing]], or other large [[Organization|organizations]] to obtain internal user satisfaction. This could be used to motivate internal changes to improve or correct existing [[Business process|business processes]]. This could be by discontinuing use of systems or prompt adopting to more applicable solutions. It could also be based on [[Job satisfaction|employee satisfaction]] which is important to promote productive [[Work environment|work environments]].

Doll and Torkzadeh's (1988) definition of user satisfaction is, ''the opinion of the user about a specific computer application, which they use''.<ref name="DollTorkzadeh1988">{{cite journal

Doll and Torkzadeh's (1988) definition of user satisfaction is ''the opinion of the user about a specific [[Application software|computer application]], which they use''. In a broader sense, the definition of user satisfaction can be extended to user satisfaction with any computer-based [[Electronics|electronic]] appliance. The term user can further be removed from objective and individual contexts, as "user" refers to the collective, from [[Individual|individuals]], groups, and across [[Organization|organizations]]. The term "user" is sometimes used to refer to the account or profile of an operator, and this is not excluded from the context, as can be seen when reference is made to "users" of a [[Network topology|network]], the system, by the owner of the system, and by the [[Distribution (marketing)|distributor]] or [[Developer (software)|developer]] of the system.  

|last1 = Doll

|first1 = William J.

|last2 = Torkzadeh

|first2 = Gholamreza

|date = June 1988

|title = The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction

|journal = MIS Quarterly

|volume = 12

|issue = 2

|pages = 259-274

|doi = 10.2307/248851

}}</ref> In a broader sense, the definition of user satisfaction can be extended to user satisfaction with any computer-based [[electronics|electronic]] appliance. The term user can further be removed from objective and individual contexts, as "user" refers to the collective, from [[Individual|individuals]], groups and across [[Organization|organizations]]. The term "user" is sometimes used to refer to the account or profile of an operator, and this is not excluded from the context, as can be seen when reference is made to "users" of a [[Network topology|network]], the system, by the owner of the system, and by the [[Distribution (marketing)|distributor]] or [[Developer (software)|developer]] of the system.

== The CUS and the UIS ==

Bailey and Pearson's (1983) 39-Factor39‑Factor ''Computer'' ''User Satisfaction (CUS) questionnaire'' and its de''rivativederivative, the ''User Information Satisfaction (UIS)'' short-form of Baroudi, Olson, and Ives, are typical of instruments that 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 and precision|accuracy]]'', ''[[Reliability (statistics)|reliability]]'', ''[[Modernity|timeliness]]'', ''[[Relevance|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 ''organizational position of [[Electronic data processing|EDP]]'' (the electronic data processing or computing department). However, the CUS requires 39 x 5 = 195 individual seven-pointseven‑point scale responses.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bailey |first1=James E. |last2=Pearson |first2=Sammy W. |date=May 1983 |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=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 (research)|attrition]].<ref name="IvesOlsonBaroudi1983">{{cite journal |last1=Ives |first1=Blake |last2=Olson |first2=Margrethe H. |last3=Baroudi |first3=Jack J. |date=1 October 1983 |title=The measurement of user information satisfaction |journal=Commun. ACM |volume=26 |issue=10 |pages=785–793 |doi=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 out 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 [[Trait theory|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.

|last1 = Ives

|first1 = Blake

|last2 = Olson

|first2 = Margrethe H.

|last3 = Baroudi

|first3 = Jack J.

|date = October 1983

|title = The measurement of user information satisfaction

|journal = Communications of the ACM

|volume = 26

|issue = 10

|pages = 785-793

|doi = 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 [[Trait theory|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.<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Islam

|first1 = A.K.M. Najmul

|last2 = Koivulahti-Ojala

|first2 = Mervi

|last3 = Käkölä

|first3 = Timo

|date = August 2010

|title = A lightweight, industrially-validated instrument to measure user satisfaction and service quality experienced by the users of a UML modeling tool

|journal = AMCIS 2010 Proceedings

|url = https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/287

}}</ref> 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]]."<ref name="DollTorkzadeh1988"/> 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” |date=September 2002 |title=The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach |journal=Information Systems Research |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=296–315 |doi=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.

|last1 = McKinney

|first1 = Vicki

|last2 = Yoon

|first2 = Kanghyun

|last3 = Zahedi

|first3 = Fatemeh "Mariam"

|date = September 2002

|title = The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach

|journal = Information Systems Research

|volume = 13

|issue = 3

|pages = 296-315

|doi = 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.<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Cheung

|first1 = C.M.K.

|last2 = Lee

|first2 = M.K.O.

|date = January 2005

|title = The Asymmetric Effect of Website Attribute Performance on Satisfaction: An Empirical Study

|journal = Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

|pages = 175-184

|doi = 10.1109/HICSS.2005.585

}}</ref>

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

As none of the [[instruments]] in common use rigorously define their construct of user satisfaction, some scholars, such as Cheyney, Mann, and Amoroso (1986), have called for more research on the factors that influence the success of end-user [[computing]].<ref>{{cite Alljournal
|last1 factor-based instruments run the risk of including= factorsCheney
|first1 irrelevant to the respondent while omitting= somePaul thatH.
|last2 may be highly significant to him/her. = Mann

|first2 = Robert I.

|last3 = Amoroso

|first3 = Donald L.

|date = 1986

|title = Organizational Factors Affecting the Success of End-User Computing

|journal = Journal of Management Information Systems

|volume = 3

|issue = 1

|pages = 65-80

|doi = 10.1080/07421222.1986.11517755

}}</ref> Little subsequent effort which sheds new light on the matter exists, however. All factor-based instruments run the risk of including factors irrelevant to the respondent, while omitting some that may be highly significant to him/her. Needless to say, this is further exacerbated by the ongoing changes in [[information technology]].

In the literature, there are two terms for user satisfaction: "user satisfaction" and "user information satisfaction" (UIS), which are used interchangeably. According to Doll and Torkzadeh (1988), user satisfaction is defined as the opinion of the user about a specific [[computer application]] that they use.<ref name="DollTorkzadeh1988"/> Ives et al. (1983)<ref name="IvesOlsonBaroudi1983"/> defined "user information satisfaction" as "the extent to which users believe the information system available to them meets their information requirements." Other terms for user information satisfaction are "system acceptance" (Igersheim, 1976),<ref>{{cite "perceived usefulness" (Larcker and Lessig, 1980), "MIS appreciation" (Swanson, 1974), and "feelings about information system's (Maish, 1979). Ang and Koh (1997) have described user information satisfaction as "a perceptual or subjective measure of system success." This means that user information satisfaction may differ in meaning and significance dependent on the author's definition. In other words, users who are satisfied with a system according to one definition and measure may not be satisfied according to another, and vice versa.journal

|last1 = Igersheim

|first1 = Roy H.

|date = June 1976

|title = Managerial response to an information system

|journal = Proceedings of the June 7-10, 1976, National Computer Conference and Exposition

|pages = 877-882

|doi = 10.1145/1499799.1499918

}}</ref> "perceived usefulness" (Larcker and Lessig, 1980),<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Larcker

|first1 = David F.

|last2 = Lessig

|first2 = V. Parker

|date = January 1980

|title = Perceived usefulness of information: a psychometric examination

|journal = Decision Sciences

|volume = 11

|issue = 1

|pages = 121-134

|doi = 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1980.tb01130.x

}}</ref> "MIS appreciation" (Swanson, 1974)<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Swanson

|first1 = E. Burton

|date = October 1974

|title = Management Information Systems: Appreciation and Involvement

|journal = Management Science

|volume = 21

|issue = 2

|pages = 178-188

|doi = 10.1287/mnsc.21.2.178

}}</ref> and "feelings about information system" (Maish, 1979).<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Maish

|first1 = Alexander M.

|date = March 1979

|title = A User's Behavior toward His MIS

|journal = MIS Quarterly

|volume = 3

|issue = 1

|pages = 39-52

|doi = 10.2307/249147

}}</ref> Ang and Koh (1997) have described user information satisfaction (UIS) as "a perceptual or subjective measure of system success."<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Ang

|first1 = James

|last2 = Koh

|first2 = Stella

|date = June 1997

|title = Exploring the relationships between user information satisfaction and job satisfaction

|journal = International Journal of Information Management

|volume = 17

|issue = 3

|pages = 169-177

|doi = 10.1016/S0268-4012(96)00059-X

}}</ref> This means that user information satisfaction will differ in meaning and significance from person to person. In other words, users who are equally satisfied with the same system according to one definition and measure may not be similarly satisfied according to another.

Several studies have investigated whether or not certain factors influence the UIS. Yaverbaum's (1988) study found that people who use their computers irregularly tend to be more satisfied than regular users.<ref>{{cite Angjournal
|last1 and Soh's (1997) research, on the other= hand,Yaverbaum
|first1 could find no evidence that computer= useageGayle frequency affects UISJ.

|date = March 1988

|title = Critical Factors in the User Environment: An Experimental Study of Users, Organizations and Tasks

|journal = MIS Quarterly

|volume = 12

|issue = 1

|pages = 75-88

|doi = 10.2307/248807

}}</ref> Ang and Soh's (1997) research, on the other hand, could find no evidence that computer useage frequency affects UIS.<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Ang

|first1 = James

|last2 = Soh

|first2 = Pekhooi

|date = October 1997

|title = User information satisfaction, job satisfaction and computer background: An exploratory study

|journal = Information & Management

|volume = 32

|issue = 5

|pages = 255-266

|doi = 10.1016/S0378-7206(97)00030-X

}}</ref>

Mullany, Tan, and Gallupe (2006) claim that user satisfaction is chiefly influenced by prior experience with the system or an analogue. Conversely, motivation, they suggest, is based on beliefs about the future use of the system.<ref (Mullanyname="MullanyTanGallupe2006">{{cite et al., 2006).journal

|last1 = Mullany

|first1 = Michael J.

|last2 = Tan

|first2 = Felix B.

|last3 = Gallupe

|first3 = R. Brent

|date = August 2006

|title = The S-Statistic: a measure of user satisfaction based on Herzberg’s theory of motivation

|journal = ACIS 2006 Proceeding

|url = https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2006/86

}}</ref>

The large number of studies over the past few decades, as cited in this article, shows that user information satisfaction remains an important topic in research studies despite somewhat [[Contradiction|contradictory]] results.

==A lack of theoretical underpinning==

Another difficulty with most of these instruments is their lack of theoretical underpinning by [[Psychology|psychological]] or managerial theory. Exceptions to this were the model of web site design success developed by Zhang and von Dran (2000) and the measure of user satisfaction with e-portals developed by Cheung and Lee (2005). Both of these models drew upon Herzberg's two-factor theory of [[motivation]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herzberg |first1=Frederick |title=Work and the nature of man |date=1972 |publisher=Staples Press |isbn=978-0286620734 |edition=reprint |___location=London}}</ref> Consequently, their factors were designed to measure both 'satisfiers' and 'hygiene factors'. However, Herzberg's theory itself is criticized for failing to distinguish adequately between the terms ''motivation'', ''job motivation'', ''job satisfaction'', and so on. Islam (2011), in a recent study, found that the sources of dissatisfaction differ from the sources of satisfaction. He found that the environmental factors (e.g., system quality) were more critical to cause dissatisfaction, while outcome-specific factors (e.g., perceived usefulness) were more critical to cause satisfaction.journal

|last1 = Zhang

|first1 = Ping

|last2 = von Dran

|first2 = Gisela M.

|date = October 2000

|title = Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: A two-factor model for website design and evaluation

|journal = Journal of the American Society for Information Science

|volume = 51

|issue = 14

|pages = 1253-1268

|doi = 10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999%3C::AID-ASI1039%3E3.0.CO;2-O

}}</ref> and the measure of user satisfaction with e-portals developed by Cheung and Lee (2005). Both of these models drew upon Herzberg's two-factor theory of [[motivation]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herzberg |first1=Frederick |title=Work and the nature of man |date=1972 |publisher=Staples Press |___location=London |isbn=978-0286620734 |edition=reprint |author-link=Frederick Herzberg}}</ref> Consequently, their factors were designed to measure both 'satisfiers' and 'hygiene factors'. However, Herzberg's theory itself is criticized for failing to distinguish adequately between the terms ''motivation'', ''job motivation'', ''job satisfaction'', and so on. Islam (2011) in a recent study found that the sources of dissatisfaction differs from the sources of satisfaction. He found that the environmental factors (e.g., system quality) were more critical to cause dissatisfaction while outcome specific factors (e.g., perceived usefulness) were more critical to cause satisfaction.<ref>{{cite journal

|last1 = Islam

|first1 = A.K.M. Najmul

|date = July 2011

|title = Information Systems Post-Adoption Satisfaction And Dissatisfaction: A Study In The E-Learning Context

|journal = PACIS 2011 Proceedings

|url = https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/83

}}</ref>

==Cognitive style==

A study by Mullany (2006) showed that during the life of a [[system]], satisfaction from users will on average increase in time as the users' experiences with the system increase. Whilst the overall findings of the studies showed only a weak link between the gap in the users' and analysts' [[cognitive style]] (measured using the KAI scales) and user satisfaction, a more significant link was found in the regions of 85 and 652 days into the systems' usage. This link shows that a large absolute gap between user and analyst cognitive styles often yields a higher rate of user dissatisfaction than a smaller gap. Furthermore, an analyst with a more adaptive cognitive style than the user at the early and late stages (approximately days 85 and 652) of system usage tends to reduce user dissatisfaction.<ref>{{cite thesis

|last = Mullany

|first = Michael John

|date = 2006

|title = The Use of Analyst-User Cognitive Style Differentials to Predict Aspects of User Satisfaction with Information Systems

|url = https://hdl.handle.net/10292/338

|degree = PhD

|publisher = Auckland University of Technology

}}</ref>

Mullany, Tan, and Gallupe (2006) devised an instrument (the System Satisfaction Schedule (SSS)), which utilizes user-generated factors (that is, almost exclusively), and so avoids the problem of the dating of factors.<ref name="MullanyTanGallupe2006"/> Also aligning themselves to Herzberg, these authors argue that the perceived usefulness (or otherwise) of tools of the trade are contextually related, and so are special cases of hygiene factors. They consequently define [[user satisfaction]] as the absence of user dissatisfaction and complaint, as assessed by users who have had at least some experience of using the system. In other words, satisfaction is based on memories of the past use of a system. Motivation, conversely, is based on beliefs about the future use of the system.<ref>{{cite (Mullany et al., 2007, p. 464)journal

|last1 = Mullany

|first1 = Miachael J.

|last2 = Tan

|first2 = Felix B.

|last3 = Gallupe

|first3 = R. Brent

|date = July 2007

|title = The Impact Of Analyst-User Cognitive Style Differences On User Satisfaction

|journal = PACIS 2007 Proceedings

|pages = 462-476

|url = https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2007/42

}}</ref>{{Rp|464}}

==Future developments==

Line 47 ⟶ 248:

==References==

{{Reflist}}

*Ang, J. and Koh, S. "Exploring the relationships between user information satisfaction and job satisfaction", ''International Journal of Information Management'' (17:3), 1997, pp 169-177.

*Ang, J. and Soh, P. H. "User information satisfaction, job satisfaction and computer background: An exploratory study", ''Information & Management'' (32:5), 1997, pp 255-266.

==Further Reading==

*Bailey, J.E., and Pearson, S.W. "Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction", ''Management Science'' (29:5), May 1983, pp 530-545.

*{{cite journal

*Bargas-Avila, J., Loetscher, J., Orsini, S. and Opwis, K. "Intranet Satisfaction Questionnaire: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Measure User Satisfaction with the Intranet" Paper submitted to Information & Management. 2008.

|last1 = Bargas-Avila

*Baroudi, J.J., and Orlikowski, W.J. "A Short-Form Measure of User Information Satisfaction: A Psychometric Evaluation and Notes on Use", ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (4:2), Spring 1988, pp 44-58.

|first1 = Javier A.

*Cheung, C.M.K., and Lee, M.K.O. "The Asymmetric Effect of Website Attribute Performance on Satisfaction: An Empirical Study", ''38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press'', Hawaii, 2005, pp. 175-184.

|last2 = Lötscher

*Cheyney, P. H., Mann, R.L., and Amoroso, D.L. "Organizational factors affecting the success of end-user computing", ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' 3(1) 1986, pp 65-80.

|first2 = Jonas

*DeLone, W.H., and Mclean, E.R. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable", ''Information Systems Research'' (3:1), March 1992, pp 60-95.

|last3 = Orsini

*DeLone, W.H., Mclean, and R, E. "Information Systems Success Revisited", ''35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press'', Los Alamitos, CA, 2002, pp. 238-248.

|first3 = Sébastien

*DeLone, W.H., and Mclean, E.R. "The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update", ''Journal of Management Information Systems'' (19:4), Spring 2003, pp 9-30.

|last4 = Opwis

*Doll, W.J., and Torkzadeh, G. "The Measurement of End User Computing Satisfaction", ''MIS Quarterly'' (12:2), June 1988, pp 258-274.

|first4 = Klaus

*Doll, W.J., and Torkzadeh, G. "The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction: theoretical considerations", ''MIS Quarterly'' (15:1), March 1991, pp 5-10.

|date = November 2009

*Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. ''The motivation to work''. Wiley, New York, 1959, p. 257.

|title = Intranet satisfaction questionnaire: Development and validationof a questionnaire to measure user satisfaction with the Intranet

*Herzberg, F. ''Work and the nature of man'' World Publishing, Cleveland, 1966, p. 203.

|journal = Computers in Human Behavior

*Herzberg, F. "One more time: How do you motivate employees?", ''Harvard Business Review'' (46:1), January-February 1968, pp 53-62.

|volume = 25

*Igersheim, R.H. "Management response to an information system", ''Proceedings AFIPS National Computer Conference'', 1976, pp 877-882.

|issue = 6

*Islam, A.K.M. Najmul, Koivulahti-Ojala, M., and Käkölä, T. "A lightweight, industrially-validated instrument to measure user satisfaction and service quality experienced by the users of a UML modeling tool", ''Proceedings AMCIS'' 2010.

|pages = 1241-1250

*Islam, A.K.M. Najmul, "Information Systems Post-adoption Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction: A Study in the E-Learning Context", ''Proceedings PACIS'' 2011.

|doi = 10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.014

*Ives, B., Olson, M.H., and Baroudi, J.J. "The measurement of user information satisfaction", ''Communications of the ACM'' (26:10), October 1983, pp 785-793.

}}

*Larcker, D.F. and Lessig, V.P. "Perceived usefulness of information: a psychometric examination", ''Decision Science'' (11:1), 1980, pp 121-134.

*{{cite journal

*Maish, A.M. "A user's behavior towards his MIS", ''MIS Quarterly'' (3:1), 1979, pp 37-52.

|last1 = Baroudi

*McKinney, V., Yoon, K., and Zahedi, F.M. "The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach", ''Information Systems Research'' (13:3), September 2002, pp 296-315.

|first1 = Jack J.

*Mullany, Michael John, and Auckland University of Technology. "The use of Analyst-User Cognitive Style Differentials to Predict Aspects of User Satisfaction with Information Systems" 2006. Print.

|last2 = Orlikowski

*Mullany, M. J., Tan, F. B. and Gallupe, R. B., 2006, "The S-Statistic: a measure of user satisfaction based on Herzberg's theory of motivation", Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Adelaide.

|first2 = Wanda J.

*Mullany, M. J., Tan, F. B. and Gallupe, R. B., 2007, "The Impact Of Analyst-User Cognitive Style Differences On User Satisfaction", Proceedings of the 11th Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Auckland.

|date = Spring 1988

*Swanson, E.B. "Management and information systems: an appreciation and involvement", ''Management Science'' (21:2), 1974, pp 178-188.

|title = A Short-Form Measure of User Information Satisfaction: A Psychometric Evaluation and Notes on Use

*Zhang, P., and Von Dran, G.M. "Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: a two-factor model for Website design and evaluation.", ''Journal of the American Society for Information Science'' (51:14), December 2000, pp 1253-1268.

|journal = Journal of Management Information Systems

*Yaverbaum, G. J. "Critical factors in the user environment - an experimental study of users, organizations and tasks", ''MIS Quarterly'' (12:1), 1988, pp 75-88.

|volume = 4

|issue = 4

|pages = 44-59

|doi = 10.1080/07421222.1988.11517807

}}

*{{cite journal

|last1 = Delone

|first1 = William H.

|last2 = McLean

|first2 = Ephraim R.

|date = March 1992

|title = Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable

|journal = Information Systems Research

|volume = 3

|issue = 1

|pages = 60-95

|doi = 10.1287/isre.3.1.60

}}

*{{cite book

|last1 = Delone

|first1 = William H.

|last2 = McLean

|first2 = Ephraim R.

|date = January 2002

|article = Information systems success revisited

|title = Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

|publisher = IEEE Computer Society Press

|___location = Los Alamitos, CA

|pages = 238-248

|doi = 10.1109/HICSS.2002.994345

}}

*{{cite journal

|last1 = Delone

|first1 = William H.

|last2 = McLean

|first2 = Ephraim R.

|date = Spring 2003

|title = The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update

|journal = Journal of Management Information Systems

|volume = 19

|issue = 4

|pages = 9-30

|doi = 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748

}}

*{{cite journal

|last1 = Doll

|first1 = William J.

|last2 = Torkzadeh

|first2 = Gholamreza

|date = March 1991

|title = The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction: Theoretical and Methodological Issues

|journal = MIS Quarterly

|volume = 15

|issue = 1

|pages = 5-10

|doi = 10.2307/249429

}}

*{{cite book

|title=The Motivation to Work

|publisher=John Wiley and Sons

|___location=New York

|first1=Frederick

|last1=Herzberg

|author-link1=Frederick Herzberg

|first2=Bernard

|last2=Mausner

|first3=Barbara B.

|last3=Snyderman

|edition=2nd

|year=1959

|page=257

|isbn=0-471-37389-3

}}

*{{cite journal

|last1 = Herzberg

|first1 = Frederick

|date = January-February 1968

|title = One more time: How do you motivate employees?

|journal = Harvard Business Review

|volume = 46

|issue = 1

|pages = 53-62

|url = https://hbr.org/2003/01/one-more-time-how-do-you-motivate-employees

|author-link = Frederick Herzberg

}}

[[Category:Human–computer interaction]]