Generalizability of information systems research using student subjects A reflection on our practices and recommendations for future research

Information Systems Research

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 1093-1109

  Compeau, Deborah ^a   Marcolin, Barbara ^a   Kelley, Helen ^b   Higgins, Chris ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE   (Canada)

Author keywords

External validity; Review process; Student samples

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK; INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EMPIRICAL STUDIES; EXTERNAL VALIDITIES; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; REVIEW PROCESS;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84871534437     PISSN: 10477047     EISSN: 15265536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/isre.1120.0423     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Agarwal R, Karahanna E (2000) Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quart. 24(4):665-694.
2. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 50(2):179-211.
3. Benbasat I (1989) Laboratory experiments in information systems with a focus on individuals: A critical appraisal. Benb ed., Harvard Business School Research Colloquium: Information Systems Research Challenge-Experimental Research Methods (Harvard Business School Press, Boston), 33-47.
4. Benbasat I, Barki H (2007) Quo vadis, TAM. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 8(4):211-218.
5. Berthon P, Pitt L, Ewing M, Carr CL (2002) Potential research space in MIS: A framework for envisioning and evaluating research replication, extension, and generation. Inform. Systems Res. 13(4):416-427.
6. Burnett JJ, Dunne PM (1986) An appraisal of the use of student subjects in marketing research. J. Bus. Res. 14(4):329-343.
7. Campbell DT (1957) Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol. Bull. 54(4):297-312.
8. Campbell DT (1986) Relabeling internal and external validity for applied social scientists. New Directions for Program Evaluation 1986(31):67-77.
9. Cook T, Campbell D (1979) Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (Houghton-Mifflin, Boston)
10. Cronbach LJ (1982) Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco)
11. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Sci. 35(8):982-1003.
12. Dennis A, Aronson J, Heninger W, Walker E (1999) Structuring time and task in electronic brainstorming. MIS Quart. 23(1):95-108.
13. Fuller RM, Dennis AR (2009) Does fit matter? The impact of task-technology fit and appropriation on team performance in repeated tasks. Inform. Systems Res. 20(1):2-17.
14. Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quart. 27(1):51-90.
15. Gordon ME, Slade LA, Schmitt N (1986) The "science of the sophomore" revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. Acad. Management Rev. 11(1):191-207.
16. Gordon M, Slade L, Schmitt N (1987) Student guinea pigs: Porcine predictors and particularistic phenomena. Acad. Management Rev. 12(1):160-163.
17. Greenberg J (1987) The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Acad. Management Rev. 12(1):157-159.
18. Griffith T, Northcraft G (1996) Cognitive elements in the implementation of new technology: Can less information provide more benefits? MIS Quart. 20(1):99-110.
19. Hughes CT, Gibson ML (1991) Students as surrogates for managers in a decision-making environment: An experimental study. J. Management Inform. Systems 8(2):153-166.
20. King W, He J. (2005) External validity in IS survey research. Comm. Assoc. Inform. 880(894):894.
21. Kumar N, Benbasat I (2006) The influence of recommendations and consumer reviews on evaluations of websites. Inform. Systems Res. 17(4):425-439.
22. Lee AS, Baskerville RL (2003) Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Inform. Systems Res. 14(3):221-243.
23. Lincoln Y, Guba E (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks)
24. Locke E (1986) Generalizing from laboratory to field: Ecological validity or abstraction of essential elements. Locke, AE, ed. Generalizing From Laboratory to Field Settings: Research Findings From Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Organizational Behavior, and Human Resource Management (Lexington Books, Toronto).
25. Matt GE (2003) Will it work in Munster? Meta analysis and the empirical generalization of causal relationships. Schulze R, Holling H, Böhning D, eds. Meta Analysis: New Developments and Applications in Medical and Social Sciences (Springer, Berlin), 113-139.
26. Mook DG (1983) In defense of external invalidity. Amer. Psychol. 38(4):379-387.
27. Nadkarni S, Gupta R (2007) A task-based model of perceived Website complexity. MIS Quart. 31(3):501-524.
28. Park CW, Lessig VP (1977) Students and housewives: Differences in susceptibility to reference group influences. J. Consumer Res. 4(2):102-110.
29. Piccoli G, Ahmad R, Ives B (2001) Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quart. 25(4):401-426.
30. Riemenschneider CK, Harrison DA, Mykytyn PP (2003) Understanding IT adoption decisions in small business: Integrating current theories. Inform. Management 40(4):269-285.
31. Rosenthal R, Rosnow R (2008) Essentials of Behavioural Research. (McGraw Hill, New York).
32. Schultz DP (1969) The human subject in psychological research. Psychol. Bull. 72(3):214-228.
33. Sears DO (1986) College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 51(3):515-530.
34. Seddon PB, Scheepers R (2006) Other-settings generalization in IS research. Staub D, Klein S, eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, WI, 1141-1158.
35. Smart R (1966) Subject selection bias in psychological research. Canadian Psychologist 7a(2):115-121.
36. Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D (2002) Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized casual inference. 2nd ed. (Houghton-Mifflin, Boston).
37. Straub D (1989) Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quart. 13(2):147-169.
38. Swieringa RJ, Weick KE (1982) An assessment of laboratory experiments in accounting. J. Accounting Res. 20(Supplement): 56-101.
39. Taylor S, Todd P (1995) Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Inform. Systems Res. 6(2): 144-176.
40. Tiwana A, Konsynski B (2010) Complementarities between organizational IT architecture and governance structure. Inform. Systems Res. 21(2):288-304.
41. Tolman E (1959) Performance vectors: An attack on emphasis, effect, and repression. Amer. Psychologist 14(1):1-7.
42. Venkatesh V (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inform. Systems Res. 11(4):342-365.
43. Venkatesh V, Brown S (2001) A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quart. 25(1):71-102.
44. Venkatesh V, Davis F (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Sci. 46(2):186-204.
45. Vessey I, Ramesh V, Glass R (2002) Research in information systems: An empirical study of diversity in the discipline and its journals. J. Management Inform. Systems 19(2):129-174.
46. Wheeler BC, Valacich JS (1996) Facilitation, GSS, and training as sources of process restrictiveness and guidance for structured group decision making: An empirical assessment. Inform. Systems Res. 7(4):429-450.
47. Yin RK (2002) Case Study Research, Design and Methods. 3rd ed. (Sage Publications, Newbuy Park).