Computer user satisfaction: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:19, 6 January 2025

Revision as of 23:38, 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 ''organisationalorganizational 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=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=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==

Line 48:

*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.

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

*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.

*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.

*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.

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

*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.

*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.