Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user perceptions

Data and Knowledge Engineering

Volumn 63, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 701-724

  Maes, Ann ^a   Poels, Geert ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Conceptual modelling; IS success models; Measurement instrument; Model user; Quality model

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; USER INTERFACES;

CONCEPTUAL MODELING; MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS; MODEL USERS; QUALITY MODELS;

KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING;

EID: 34548680297     PISSN: 0169023X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.datak.2007.04.008     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 2 (1991) 179-211
2. Bailey J.E., and Pearson S.W. Development of a tool measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science 29 5 (1983) 530-544
3. Basili V., Shull F., and Lanubile F. Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25 4 (1999) 456-473
4. Bodart F., Patel A., Sim M., and Weber R. Should optional properties be used in conceptual modelling? A theory and three empirical tests. Information Systems Research 12 4 (2001) 384-405
5. Bollen K. Multiple indicators: internal consistency of no necessary relationship?. Quality and Quantity 18 (1984) 377-385
6. Bollen K. Structural Equations with Latent Variables (1989), John Wiley & Sons, New York
7. Burton-Jones A., and Meso P.N. Conceptualizing systems for understanding: an empirical test of decomposition principles in object-oriented analysis. Information Systems Research 17 (2006) 38-60
8. A. Burton-Jones, R. Weber, Understanding relationships with attributes in entity-relationship diagrams, in: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems, 1999, pp. 214-228.
9. A. Burton-Jones, R. Weber, Properties do not have properties: investigating a questionable conceptual modeling practice, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on Research in Systems Analysis and Design, Miami, FL, 2003.
10. Chin W. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides G.A., and Mahwah N.J. (Eds). Modern Methods for Business Research (1998), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 295-336
11. Davies I., Green P., Rosemann M., Indulska M., and Gallo S. How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice?. Data & Knowledge Engineering 58 (2006) 358-380
12. F. Davis, A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, 1986.
13. Davis F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13 3 (1989) 319-339
14. DeLone W.H., and McLean E.R. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Journal 3 1 (1992) 60-95
15. 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 (2003) 9-30
16. Diamantopoulos A., and Winklhofer H.M. Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research 38 2 (2001) 269-277
17. Dunn C.L., and Gerard G.J. Auditor efficiency and effectiveness with diagrammatic and linguistic conceptual model representations. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 2 4 (2001) 223-248
18. Dunn C.L., and Grabski S.V. Perceived semantic expressiveness of accounting systems and task accuracy effects. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 1 2 (2000) 79-87
19. Dunn C.L., and Grabski S.V. An investigation of localization as an element of cognitive fit in accounting model representations. Decision Science 32 1 (2001) 55-94
20. Enders A., and Rombach H.D. A Handbook of Software and Systems Engineering: Empirical Observations, Laws and Theories (2003), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
21. Fishbein M., and Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research (1975), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
22. Fornell C., and Larcker D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 1 (1981) 39-50
23. Gelderman M. The relation between user satisfaction usage of information systems and performance. Information and Management 34 1 (1998) 11-18
24. A. Gemino, Y. Wand, Foundations for empirical comparisons of conceptual modeling techniques, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on Research in Systems Analysis and Design, Miami, FL, 2003.
25. Gemino A., and Wand Y. Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55 3 (2005) 301-328
26. Ginzberg M.J. A study of the implementation process. In: Doktor R., Schultz R.L., and Slevin D.P. (Eds). TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences vol. 13 (1979), North-Holland Pub. Co., New York 85-102
27. Goodhue D.L., Klein B.D., and March S.T. User evaluations of IS as surrogates for objective performance. Information & Management 38 (2000) 87-101
28. Halpin T.A. Comparing metamodels for ER, ORM and UML data models. Advanced Topics in Database Research 3 (2004) 23-44
29. Hulland J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal 20 2 (1999) 195-204
30. Ives B., Olson M.H., and Baroudi J.J. The measurement of user information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM 26 10 (1983) 785-793
31. Kesh S. Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. Information and Software Technology 37 12 (1995) 681-689
32. Kim Y.-G., and March S.T. Comparing data modeling formalisms. Communications of the ACM 38 6 (1995) 103-115
33. Krogstie J., and Jørgensen H.D. Quality of interactive models. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2784 (2003) 351-363
34. J. Krogstie, O.I. Lindland, G. Sindre, Defining quality aspects for conceptual models, in: Proceedings of the 3rd IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on Information Systems, Marburg, Germany, 1995, pp. 216-231.
35. Krogstie J., Sindre G., and Jørgensen H. Process models representing knowledge for action: a revised quality framework. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (2006) 91-102
36. Lindland O.I., Sindre G., and Sølvberg A. Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software 11 2 (1994) 42-49
37. McCarthy W.E. The REA accounting model: a generalized framework for accounting systems in a shared data environment. The Accounting Review 57 3 (1982) 554-578
38. D.L. Moody, Dealing with complexity: a practical method for representing large entity relationship models, Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne, 2001.
39. Moody D.L. Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: current state and future directions. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55 3 (2005) 243-276
40. Moody D.L., and Shanks G. Improving the quality of data models: empirical validation of a quality management framework. Information Systems 28 6 (2003) 619-650
41. Moody D.L., Sindre G., Brasethvik T., and Sølvberg A. Evaluating the quality of process models: empirical testing of a quality framework. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2503 (2002) 380-396
42. Moody D.L., Sindre G., Brasethvik T., and Sølvberg A. Evaluating the quality of information models: empirical testing of a conceptual model quality framework. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (2003), IEEE Computer Society
43. Moore G.C., and Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting and information technology innovation. Information Systems Research 2 3 (1991) 192-222
44. Nelson R.R., Todd P.A., and Wixom B.H. Antecedents of information and system quality: an empirical examination within the context of data warehousing. Journal of Management Information Systems 21 4 (2005) 199-235
45. Olivé A. Conceptual schema-centric development: a grand challenge for information systems research. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3520 (2005) 1-15
46. Parsons J., and Cole L. What do the pictures mean? Guidelines for the experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques. Data & Knowledge Engineering 55 3 (2005) 327-342
47. Patig S. Zur Ausdrucksstärke der Stammdaten des advanced planning and scheduling. Wirtschaftsinformatik 46 2 (2004) 97-106
48. Poels G., Nelson J., Genero M., and Piattini M. Quality in conceptual modeling. New research directions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2784 (2003) 243-250
49. Poels G., Maes A., Gailly F., and Paemeleire R. Measuring the perceived semantic quality of information models. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3770 (2005) 376-385
50. Rai A., Lang S.S., and Welker R.B. Assessing the validity of IS success models: an empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information Systems Research 13 1 (2002) 50-69
51. Schütte R., and Rotthowe T. The guidelines of modeling - an approach to enhance the quality in information models. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1507 (1998) 240-254
52. Seddon P. A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Research 8 3 (1997) 240-253
53. P. Seddon, M.-Y. Kiew, A partial test and development of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success, in: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Information Systems, 1994, pp. 99-110.
54. Seddon P., and Yip S.-K. An empirical evaluation of user information satisfaction (UIS) measures for use with general ledger accounting software. Journal of Information Systems 6 1 (1992) 75-92
55. Seddon P., Staples S., Patnayakuni R., and Bowtell M. Dimensions of information systems success. Communications of the AIS 2 20 (1999)
56. W. Sedera, M. Rosemann, G. Gable, Measuring process modeling success, in: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Information Systems, 2002, pp. 331-341.
57. Shanks G., Tansley E., and Weber R. Using ontology to validate conceptual models. Communications of the ACM 46 10 (2003) 85-89
58. Shannon C.E., and Weaver W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication (1949), University of Illinois Press, Urbana, USA
59. Siau K. Informational and computational equivalence in comparing information modeling methods. Journal of Database Management 15 1 (2004) 73-86
60. Siau K., Wand Y., and Benbasat I. The relative importance of structural constraints and surface semantics in information modeling. Information Systems 22 2/3 (1997) 155-170
61. Si-Saïd Cherfi S., Akoka J., and Comyn-Wattiau I. Conceptual model quality - from EER to UML schemas evaluation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2503 (2002) 414-428
62. Topi H., and Ramesh V. Human factors research on data modeling: a review of prior research, an extended framework and future research directions. Journal of Database Management 13 2 (2002) 3-19
63. Wand Y., and Weber R. An ontological model of an information system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16 11 (1990) 1282-1292
64. Wand Y., and Weber R. On the ontological expressiveness of information systems analysis and design grammars. Journal of Information Systems (now called Information Systems Journal) 3 (1993) 217-237
65. Wand Y., and Weber R. On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal 5 (1995) 203-223
66. Wand Y., and Weber R. Information systems and conceptual modeling - a research agenda. Information Systems Research 13 4 (2002) 363-376
67. Wang R.Y., and Strong D.M. Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems 12 4 (1996) 5-34
68. Zand D.E., and Sorenson R.E. Theory of change and the effective use of management science. Administrative Science Quarterly 20 4 (1975) 532-545