Value of search results as a whole as a measure of information retrieval performance

Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting

Volumn 33, Issue , 1996, Pages 226-237

  Su, Louise T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346397238     PISSN: 00447870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Belkin, N. J. & Vickery, A. (1985). Evaluation and user satisfaction. In Interaction in information system: R review of research from document retrieval to knowledge-based system: Chapter 9. London: The British Library.
2. Cleverdon, C.W. (1972). On the inverse relationship of recall and precision. Journal of Documentation, 28, 195-201.
3. Cooper, W.S. (1973a). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 1, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 87-100.
4. Cooper, W.S. (1973b). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 2, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24. 413-424.
5. Hitchingham, E.E. (1979). A study of the relationship between the search interview of the intermediary searcher and the online system user, and the assessment of search results as judged by the user. Final report (Project No.475 AH 70111. Grant No. G00 7702309). Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
6. Orr, R.M. (1973). Measuring the goodness of library services: A general framework for considering quantitative measures. Journal of Documentation, 29, 315-32.
7. Regazzi, J. (1982). A study of critical factors affecting the development of performance measures in evaluating bibliographic information retrieval systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
8. Saracevic, T. (1975). Relevance: A review of and a framework for the thinking on the notion in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 26, 321-343.
9. Saracevic, T. (1985-86). Experiments on the cognitive aspects of information seeking and information retrieving. (NSF Research Project IST-850 5411). Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University, Matthew A. Baxter School of information and Library Science.
10. Su, L.T. (1991). An investigation to find appropriate measures for evaluating interactive information retrieval. Doctoral Dissertation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, the State University. of New Jersey.
11. Su, L.T. (1992). Evaluation measures for interactive information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 28(4), 503-516.
12. Su, L.T. (1993). Is relevance an adequate criterion for retrieval system evaluation: An empirical inquiry into the user's evaluation. Proceedings of the 56th American Society for Information Science Annual Meeting, Columbus, Ohio, October 2-28, 93-103.
13. Su, L.T. (1994). The relevance of recall and precision in user evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 207-217.
14. Tagliacozzo, R. (1977). Estimating the satisfaction of information users. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 65, 243-248.
15. Tessier, J. (1981). Satisfaction measures in presearch interviews. A report to the Presearch Interview Project. (NLM Grant No. 1 RO1 LM03074-01. Syracuse, NY: School of Information Studies, Syracuse University.