COGEVAL: Applying cognitive theories to evaluate conceptual models

Advanced Topics in Database Research

Volumn 4, Issue , 2005, Pages 255-282

  Rockwell, Stephen ^a   Bajaj, Akhilesh ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TULSA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 50549092863     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-471-2.ch012     Document Type: Chapter

References (69)

1. Amberg, M. A. (1996). A pattern oriented approach to a methodical evaluation of modeling methods. Australian Journal Of Information Systems, 4(1), 3-10.
2. Anderson, J. R. (1978). Arguments concerning representations for mental imagery. Psychological Review, 85, 249-277.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.
4. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short term memory. Scientific American, 225, 82-90.
5. Bajaj, A. (2000). SMMM: A metric based framework to evaluate the scalability of multiple model methodologies. Proceedings of the the 5th Caise/IFIP 8.1 International Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD 2000), Stockholm, Sweden.
6. Bajaj, A. (2002). Measuring the effect of number of concepts on the readability of conceptual models. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design (EMMSAD), in conjunction with CAiSE, Toronto, Canada.
7. Bajaj, A. (2004). The effect of the number of concepts on the readability of schemas: An empirical study with data models (Working Paper). University of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
8. Bajaj, A., & Ram, S. (1996). A content specification for business process models. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 4(1), 22-31.
9. Baron, J. (1978). The word superiority effect: Perceptual learning from reading. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Batra, D., Hoffer, J. A., & Bostrom, R. P. (1990, February). Comparing representations of relational and EER models. Communications of the ACM, 33, 126-139.
11. Bock, D., & Ryan, T. (1993). Accuracy in modeling with extended entity relationship and O-O data models. Journal of Database Management, 4(4), 30-39.
12. Booch, G. (1994). Object oriented analysis and design with applications. Redwood City: Benjamin/Cummings.
13. Brosey, M., & Schneiderman, B. (1978). Two experimental comparisons of relational and hierarchical database models. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 10, 625-637.
14. Caillies, S., & Denhiere, G. (2002). The effect of prior knowledge on understanding from text: evidence from primed recognition. Eurpoean Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 267-286.
15. Carl, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Castellini, X. (1998). Evaluation of models defined with charts of concepts: Application to the UML model. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, in concjunction with CAiSE., Pisa, Italy.
17. Chan, H., Siau, K., & Wei, K.-K. (1998). The effect of data model, system and task characteristics on user query performance: An empirical study. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 29(1), 31-49.
18. Chen, P. P. (1976). The entity-relationship model: Towards a unified model of data. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1(1), 9-36.
19. Clowes, M. (1969). Transformational grammars and the organization of pictures. In A. Graselli (Ed.), Automatic interpretation and the organization of pictures. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
20. Collins, A. M., & Luftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of activation processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
21. Collins, A. M., & Quinlan, M. R. (1970). Facilitating retrieval from semantic memory: The effect of repeating part of an inference. Acta Psychologica, 33, 304-314.
22. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
23. deMarco, T. (1978). Structured analysis and system specification. Yourdon.
24. Fletcher, C. R. (1986). Strategies for the allocation of short-term memory during comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 43-58.
25. Fromkin, H. L., & Streufert, S. (1976). Laboratory experimentation. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial psychology (pp. 415-465). Chicago: Rand-Mcnally.
26. Gane, S., & Sarson, T. (1982). Structured system analysis. McDonnell- Douglas.
27. Gemino, A., & Wand, Y. (2001). Towards common dimensions in empirical comparisons of conceptual modeling techniques. Proceedings of the 7th CAiSE/IFIP-WG8.1 Intenrational Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, Toronto, Canada.
28. Gemino, A., & Wand, Y. (2003). Evaluating modeling techniques based on models of learning. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 79-84.
29. Hahn, J., & Kim, J. (1999). Why are some diagrams easier to work with? Effects of diagrammatic representation on the cognitive integration process of systems analysis and design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 6(3), 181-213.
30. Hardgrave, B. C., & Dalal, N. (1995). Comparing object oriented and extended entity relationship models. Journal of Database Management, 6(3), 15-21.
31. Jayaratna, N. (1994). Understanding and evaluating methodologies, NIMSAD: A systemic framework. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.
32. Juhn, S., & Naumann, J. D. (1985). The effectiveness of data representation characteristics on user validation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Indianopolis, Indiana.
33. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Kim, Y.-G., & March, S. E. (1995). Comparing data modeling formalisms. Communications of the ACM, 38(6), 103-113.
35. Kintsch, W. (1979). On modeling comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 14, 3-14.
36. Kintsch, W., & Vipond, D. (1979). Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In L. G. Nilsson (Ed.), Perspectives on memory research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Kramer, B., & Luqi. (1991). Towards former models of software engineering processes. Journal of Systems and Software, 15, 63-74.
38. Lesgold, A. M., Roth, S. F., & Curtis, M. E. (1979). Foregrounding effects in discourse comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 291-308.
39. Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G., & Sølvberg, A. (1994). Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software, 11(2), 42-49.
40. Mantha, R. W. (1987, December). Data flow and data structure modeling for database requirements determination: A comparative study. MIS Quarterly, 11(4), 531-545.
41. Mayer, R. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43-64.
42. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43.
43. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
44. Moody, D. L., Sindre, G., Brasethvik, T., & Sølvberg, A. (2003, May 3-10). Evaluating the quality of information models: Empirical testing of a conceptual model quality framework. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, Portland, Oregon.
45. Moynihan, A. (1996). An attempt to compare OO and functional decomposition in communicating information system functionality to users. Proceedings of the Workshop on Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design.
46. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Academic Press.
47. Ogden, W. C. (1985). Implications of a cognitive model of database query: Comparison of a natural language, a formal language and a direct manipulation interface. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 18(2), 51-54.
48. Olle, T. W. (Ed.). (1986). Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1 Working Conference on the Comparative Review of ISD Methodologies: Improving the Practice. Borth Holland.
49. Palvia, P. C., Liao, C., & To, P.-L. (1992). The impact of conceptual models on end-user performance. Journal of Database Management, 3(4), 4-15.
50. Paulson, E. J., & Goodman., K. S. (1999). Influential studies in eye-movement research. Retrieved November 29, 2004, from http://www.readingonline.org/research/eyemove.html
51. Peleg, M., & Dori, D. (2000). The model multiplicity problem: Experimenting with real time specification methods. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(6), 1-18.
52. Reed, S. K. (1988). Cognition: Theory and applications. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole.
53. Reeves, W. W. (1996). Cognition and complexity: The cognitive science of managing complexity. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
54. Sanderson, P. (1998, November 29-December 12). Cognitive work analysis and the analysis, design, and evaluation of human-computer interactive systems. Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Human Interaction Conference, Adelaide, South Australia.
55. Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface (3rd ed.). Addison- Wesley Longman.
56. Shoval, P. (1996). Experimental comparisons of entity-relationship and objectoriented data models. Proceedings of the the 1st Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design, Crete, Greece.
57. Shoval, P., & Even-Chaime, M. (1987). Database schema design: An experimental comparison between normalization and information analysis. Database, 18(3), 30-39.
58. Shoval, P., & Frummerman, I. (1994). OO and EER schemas: A comparison of user comprehension. Journal of Database Management, 5(4), 28-38.
59. Siau, K. (1997). Using GOMS for evaluation of information modeling techniques. Proceedings of the 2nd CAiSE/IFIP8.1 Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods for Systems Analysis and Design, Barcelona, Spain.
60. Siau, K., & Cao, Q. (2001, January-March). Unified modeling language (UML): A complexity analysis. Journal of Database Management, 26-34.
61. Siau, K., Wand, Y., & Benbasat, I. (1996). Evaluating information modeling methods: A cognitive perspective. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design with CAiSE '96, Crete, Greece.
62. Simon, H. A. (1978). On the forms of mental representation. In C. W. Savage (Ed.), The philosophy of science (Vol. IX). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
63. Storey, V. C. (1993). Understanding semantic relationships. VLDB Journal, 2, 455-488.
64. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: Reconsideration of some context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.
65. Wand, Y., Gemino, A., & Woo, C. (1997). An empirical comparison of objectoriented and data flow modeling. Proceedings of the 2nd CaiSE/IFIP 8.1 International Workshop on the Evaluation of Modeling Methods in Systems Analysis and Design, Barcelona, Spain.
66. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1995). On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal, 5, 203-223.
67. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (2002). Information systems and conceptual modeling: A research agenda. Information Systems Research, 13(4), 363-376.
68. Weber, R. (1997). Ontological foundations of information systems. Melbourne: Coopers and Lybrand.
69. Wonnacott, T. H., & Wonnacott, R. J. (1984). Introductory statistics for business & economics (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.