Computer user satisfaction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Manoomin (talk | contribs)
Removed the "needs inline citations" and "underlink" templates in light of recent edits.
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Alter: pages, title, template type, doi, date. Add: url, isbn, chapter, jstor. Removed parameters. Formatted dashes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Jay8g | Category:CS1 maint: date format | #UCB_Category 2/6
Line 24:
|volume = 12
|issue = 2
|pages = 259-274259–274
|doi = 10.2307/248851
|jstor = 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.
 
Line 41 ⟶ 42:
|volume = 26
|issue = 10
|pages = 785-793785–793
|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
Line 69 ⟶ 70:
|volume = 13
|issue = 3
|pages = 296-315296–315
|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 journalbook
|last1 = Cheung
|first1 = C.M.K.
|last2 = Lee
|first2 = M.K.O.
|title chapter = The Asymmetric Effect of Website Attribute Performance on Satisfaction: An Empirical Study
|date = January 2005
|journaltitle = Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
|title = The Asymmetric Effect of Website Attribute Performance on Satisfaction: An Empirical Study
|pages = 175-184175–184
|journal = Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
|pages = 175-184
|doi = 10.1109/HICSS.2005.585
|isbn = 0-7695-2268-8
}}</ref>
 
Line 96 ⟶ 98:
|volume = 3
|issue = 1
|pages = 65-8065–80
|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 journalbook
|last1 = Igersheim
|first1 = Roy H.
|title chapter = Managerial response to an information system
|date = June 1976
|journaltitle = Proceedings of the June 7-10, 1976, Nationalnational Computercomputer Conferenceconference and Expositionexposition on - AFIPS '76
|title = Managerial response to an information system
|pages = 877-882877–882
|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
Line 118 ⟶ 120:
|volume = 11
|issue = 1
|pages = 121-134121–134
|doi = 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1980.tb01130.x
}}</ref> "MIS appreciation" (Swanson, 1974)<ref>{{cite journal
Line 128 ⟶ 130:
|volume = 21
|issue = 2
|pages = 178-188178–188
|doi = 10.1287/mnsc.21.2.178
}}</ref> and "feelings about information system" (Maish, 1979).<ref>{{cite journal
Line 138 ⟶ 140:
|volume = 3
|issue = 1
|pages = 39-5239–52
|doi = 10.2307/249147
|jstor = 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
Line 150 ⟶ 153:
|volume = 17
|issue = 3
|pages = 169-177169–177
|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.
Line 162 ⟶ 165:
|volume = 12
|issue = 1
|pages = 75-8875–88
|doi = 10.2307/248807
|jstor = 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
Line 174 ⟶ 178:
|volume = 32
|issue = 5
|pages = 255-266255–266
|doi = 10.1016/S0378-7206(97)00030-X
}}</ref>
Line 186 ⟶ 190:
|first3 = R. Brent
|date = August 2006
|title = The S-Statistic: a measure of user satisfaction based on Herzberg’sHerzberg's theory of motivation
|journal = ACIS 2006 Proceeding
|url = https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2006/86
Line 204 ⟶ 208:
|volume = 51
|issue = 14
|pages = 1253-12681253–1268
|doi = 10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999%3C<::AID-ASI1039%3E3>3.0.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
Line 236 ⟶ 240:
|title = The Impact Of Analyst-User Cognitive Style Differences On User Satisfaction
|journal = PACIS 2007 Proceedings
|pages = 462-476462–476
|url = https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2007/42
}}</ref>{{Rp|464}}
Line 261 ⟶ 265:
|volume = 25
|issue = 6
|pages = 1241-12501241–1250
|doi = 10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.014
}}
Line 274 ⟶ 278:
|volume = 4
|issue = 4
|pages = 44-5944–59
|doi = 10.1080/07421222.1988.11517807
|url = http://archive.nyu.edu/handle/2451/14483
}}
*{{cite journal
Line 287 ⟶ 292:
|volume = 3
|issue = 1
|pages = 60-9560–95
|doi = 10.1287/isre.3.1.60
}}
Line 300 ⟶ 305:
|publisher = IEEE Computer Society Press
|___location = Los Alamitos, CA
|pages = 238-248238–248
|doi = 10.1109/HICSS.2002.994345
|url = https://figshare.com/articles/conference_contribution/Information_Systems_Success_Revisited/23888820
}}
*{{cite journal
Line 313 ⟶ 319:
|volume = 19
|issue = 4
|pages = 9-309–30
|doi = 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
}}
Line 326 ⟶ 332:
|volume = 15
|issue = 1
|pages = 5-105–10
|doi = 10.2307/249429
|jstor = 249429
}}
*{{cite book
Line 348 ⟶ 355:
|last1 = Herzberg
|first1 = Frederick
|date = January-FebruaryJanuary–February 1968
|title = One more time: How do you motivate employees?
|journal = Harvard Business Review
|volume = 46
|issue = 1
|pages = 53-6253–62
|url = https://hbr.org/2003/01/one-more-time-how-do-you-motivate-employees
|author-link = Frederick Herzberg