Relevance judgment: What do information users consider beyond topicality?

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 57, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 961-973

  Xu, Yunjie ^a   Chen, Zhiwei ^b  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b Data Security Systems Solutions Pte Ltd   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS; DATA ACQUISITION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RELIABILITY;

FIVE-FACTOR MODEL; GRICE'S THEORY OF COMMUNICATION; PSYCHOMETRIC PROCEDURE;

INFORMATION USE;

EID: 33646711220     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20361     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1998). Structure equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
2. Barry, C.L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria: An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 149-159.
3. Barry, C., & Schamber, L. (1998). Users' criteria for relevance evaluation: A cross-situational comparison. Information Processing & Management, 34, 219-236.
4. Bateman, J. (1998). Changes in relevance criteria: A longitudinal study. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 35, 23-32.
5. Bookstein, A. (1979). Relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 30(5), 269-273.
6. Borlund, P. (2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 913-925.
7. Boyce, B. (1982). Beyond topicality: A two stage view of relevance and the retrieval process. Information Processing & Management, 18(3), 105-109.
8. Brown, R.D., Braskamp, L.A., & Newman, D.L. (1978). Evaluator credibility and acceptance as a function of report styles: Do jargon and data make a difference? Evaluation Quarterly, 2(2), 331-341.
9. Cattell, R.B. (1975). Personality and motivation: Structure and measurement, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
10. Choi, Y., & Rasmussen, E.M. (2002). Users' relevance criteria in image retrieval in American history. Information Processing & Management, 38, 695-726.
11. Cool, C., Belkin, N.J., & Kantor, P.B. (1993). Characteristics of texts affecting relevance judgments. In M.E. Williams (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting (pp. 77-84). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
12. Cosijn, E., & Ingwersen, P. (2000). Dimensions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 36(4), 533-550.
13. Cuadra, C.A., & Katter, R.V. (1967). Opening the black box of "relevance." Journal of Documentation, 23(4), 291-303.
14. Dwyer, J. (1999). Communication in business: Strategies and skills. Sydney: Prentice Hall.
15. Elsbach, K.D., & Elofson, G. (2000). How the packaging of decision explanations affects perceptions of trustworthiness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 83-89.
16. Fitzgerald, M.A., & Galloway, C. (2001). Relevance judging, evaluation, and decision making in virtual library: A descriptive study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(12), 989-1010.
17. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382-388.
18. Froehlich, T.J. (1994). Relevance reconsidered: Towards an agenda for the 21st century: Introduction to special topic issue on relevance research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 124-134.
19. Greisdorf, H. (2003). Relevance thresholds: A multi-stage predictive model of how users evaluate information. Information Processing & Management, 39, 403-423.
20. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
21. Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with reading (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.
23. Harter, S.P. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 43(9), 602-615.
24. Hersh, W. (1994). Relevance and retrieval evaluation: Perspective from medicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 201-206.
25. Hirsh, S.G. (1999). Children's relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(14), 1265-1283.
26. Hjørland, B., & Christensen, F.S. (2002). Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance: A specific example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(11), 960-965.
27. Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
28. Levitin, A., & Redman, T. (1995). Quality dimensions of a conceptual view. Information Processing & Management, 31(1), 81-88.
29. Maglaughlin, K.L., & Sonnewald, H. (2002). User perspective on relevance criteria: A comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(5), 327-342.
30. Maron, M.E. (1977). On indexing, retrieval and the meaning of about. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 28(1), 38-43.
31. Mizzaro, S. (1997). Relevance: The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(9), 810-832.
32. Neuman, W.L., & Kreuger, L.W. (2002). Social work research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
33. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
34. Park, H. (1997). Relevance of science information: Origins and dimensions of relevance and their implications to information retrieval. Information Processing & Management, 33(3), 339-352.
35. Park, T.K. (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval: An empirical study. Library Quarterly, 63, 318-351.
36. Park, T.K. (1994). Toward a theory of user-based relevance: A call for new paradigm of inquiry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 135-141.
37. Petty, R., Priester, J., & Wegender, D. (1994). Cognitive processes in attitude change. In R. Wyer & T. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 69-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Rees, A.M., & Schultz, D.G. (1967). A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching: I. Final report (NSF Contract No. C-423). Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University.
39. Salton, G., & McGill, M. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40. Saracevic, T. (1970). The concept of "relevance" in information science: A historical review. In Saracevic, T. (Ed.), Introduction to information science (pp. 111-151). New York: R.R. Bowker.
41. 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(6), 321-343.
42. Saracevic, T. (1996). Relevance reconsidered '96. In P. Ingwersen & N.O. Pots (Eds.), Second International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS2) (pp. 201-218). Copenhagen: Royal School of Librarianship.
43. Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia environment. In J.M. Griffiths (Ed.), Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science (Vol. 28, pp. 126-133), Medford, NJ: Information Today.
44. Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 29, 33-48.
45. Schamber, L., & Bateman, J. (1996). User criteria in relevance evaluation: Toward development of a measurement scale. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science (33, 218-225). Medford, NJ: Information Today.
46. Schamber, L., Eisenberg, M.B., & Nilan, M.S. (1990). A re-examination of relevance: Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management, 26(6), 755-776.
47. Sperber, D., & Wilson, T.D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48. Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., & Bateman, J. (1998). From highly relevant to not relevant: Examining different regions of relevance. Information Processing & Management, 34, 599-621.
49. Tang, R., & Solomon, P. (1998). Towards an understanding of the dynamics of relevance judgments: An analysis of one person's search behavior. Information Processing & Management, 34, 237-256.
50. Tang, R., Shaw Jr., W.M., & Vevea, J.L. (1999). Towards the identification of the optimal number of relevance categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 254-264.
51. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Wang, P., & Soergel, D. (1998). A cognitive model of document use during a research project: Study I. Document selection. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(2), 115-133.
53. Wang, P., & White, M.D. (1999). A cognitive model of document use during a research project: Study II. Decisions at the reading and citing stages. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(2), 98-144.
54. Wilson, P. (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9(8), 457-471.