信息检索相关性判据及应用研究
|
摘要
相关性是情报学基本问题的观点得到了国内外图书情报学界的普遍认同。国外的相关性研究无论在理论还是实证方面都取得了丰硕的成果,相关成果可参见Saracevic(1975)、Mizzaro (1997)、Schamber(1994)以及Saracevic (2007)等完成的综述。相关性研究虽然也得到了国内学界的重视,但是只能检索到为数不多的国外研究成果的综述与介绍。鉴于此,本文开展了基于本土的面向用户的相关性判据研究以及相关性判据应用研究。本研究的主要成果与结论有：
(1)相关性判据集。本文以南京大学信息管理系4个年级以及南京大学教育科学系1个年级的相关性判据文本数据为信息源,采用内容分析法解析出了包括传播特征,内容,情境,使用,系统特征,愉悦,质量,总体以及文献特征等9类相关性判据。通过频次分析发现,文献特征、质量判据以及内容判据、总体和使用占据了相关性判据的主要位置,而愉悦、情境、传播特征以及系统特征则相对没有那么重要。与Schamber(1991)以及Barry(1993)等前人研究相比,本研究拓展了面向用户的相关性判据集,提炼出了包括文献总体、文献使用以及传播特征等三个新的相关性判据类别。
(2)影响信息用户相关性判断的文献特征。通过对相关性判据文本数据的内容分析,解析出了包括参考文献、出版单位、出版时间、关键词、基金、篇幅、全文、题名、文献格式、文摘、语种、文献类型、来源期刊、作者以及机构等在内的15个影响信息用户相关性判断的文献特征。
(3)任务复杂性以及性别影响相关性判据的选择。研究结果显示,用户在面对不同复杂性的任务时,在文献内容、文献使用、文献特征、作者以及文献类型等相关性判据的选择方面存在差异；而性别维度仅影响作者、文献类型以及文献总体层面的相关性判据选择。由于数据量的原因,本文没能证实任务复杂性以及性别对信息用户在选择来源期刊、机构、系统特征、传播特征以及愉悦感知等5个类别相关性判据时的影响。
(4)基于相关性判据、价值增值模型、TEDS模型以及信息系统成功模型构建了面向相关性判据的学术信息检索系统成功模型,并证实了模型的有效性。根据模型设计了问卷,问卷共发放1114份,回收1054份,其中有效问卷929份。通过对数据的结构方程分析证实：①系统因子1和系统因子2对选择性存在正负不同方向的影响,路径系数分别为0.59和-0.39。②系统因子2、系统因子3以及选择性对系统效能存在正性的影响,路径系数分别是0.11、0.15和0.50。③系统因子1和灵活性对自适应性存在正性的影响,路径系数分别达到0.14和0.70。④系统因子5、灵活性、时间认知以及可靠性对系统性能存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.20,0.29,0.10以及0.38。⑤美感和娱乐体验对情感认知存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.54,0.27。⑥系统因子4和系统因子6对易用认知存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.23,0.21。⑦完整性、实时性、权威性、有效性对于信息质量存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.26,0.26,0.38以及0.25。⑧系统因子1、灵活性、隐私以及自适应性对服务质量存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.10,0.15,0.10,0.52。⑨效能认知、性能认知、选择性、易用认知、情感认知以及自适应性对系统质量存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.21,0.30,0.29,0.08,0.32,0.23。⑩系统质量、信息质量对满意度存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.56,0.29。最后,结构方程分析的结果表明,信息质量、系统质量以及满意度对使用意图存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.35,0.55以及0.11,而服务质量对于使用意图存在负性的影响,路径系数为-0.16。
It has been widely recognized that relevance is one of the basic problem in library and information science. Foreign studies have made abundant achievements theoretically and practically, for more information please consult Saracevic(1975), Mizzaro(1997),Schamber(1994) and Saracevic (2007),et al. Though more and more native scholars are paying attention to Relevance, only some introductions and overviews of foreign research progress can be retrieved from CNKI. In view of these, a serial of user-oriented research on relevance criteria and their application in a native atmosphere are carried on in this article. Primary results and conclusions are listed as follows:
(1) Provision of a set of relevance criteria. The paper selected 4 grades in the information management department and 1 grade in education science of Nanjing University as data resources, and provided 9 kinds of relevance criteria including broadcasting features, content, context, use, system features, pleasure, quality, collection and document feature. By analyzing the frequencies of these relevance criteria, it has been found that document feature, quality, content, collection and use accounted for the main location, while pleasure, context, broadcasting feature are not so important. Compared to Schamber's (1991) and Barry's(1993), the paper extends the set of relevance criteria, and parse out three new relevance criteria including document collection, document use and broadcasting feature.
(2) Document features which affect the user's relevance judge. By the content analysis to the relevance criteria text, the author parse out 15 document features including references, publishers, publishing time, keyword, funds, space, text, title, document format, abstracts, language, document type, source journals, authors and institutions, which have impacts on user's relevance judge.
(3) Impact of task complexity and gender on relevance criteria's selection. Research show that different user have differences in the selection of relevance criteria including document content, document use, document features, author, and document type when are faced to tasks with different complexion.
(4) Construction of academic information retrieval system success model oriented to relevance criteria based on relevance criteria, value added model, TEDS model and ISSM as well as validation of its validity. A questionnaire is design based on the model,1114 questionnaires were distributed and 1054 were returned of which 929 questionnaires were valid. By SEM method, we prove that:①System fact 1 and system fact 2 have positive and negative impact on selection, with the path coefficient 0.59 and-0.39 each.②System fact 2, system fact 3 and selection have positive impact on self-adaption, with the path coefficient 0.11,0.15 and0.50 each.③System fact 1 and flexility have positive impact on self-adaption, with the path coefficient 0.14 and 0.70 each.④System fact 5, flexility, perceived time and reliability have positive impact on system performance, with the path coefficient 0.20,0.29,0.10 and 0.70 each.⑤Beauty and play experience have positive impact on perceived emotion, with the path coefficient 0.54 and 0.27 each.⑥System fact 4 and system fact 6 have positive impact on perceived ease of use, with the path coefficient 0.23 and 0.21 each.⑦Completeness, timeliness, authority, effectiveness have positive impact on the quality of information, with the path coefficient 0.26,0.26,0.38 and 0.25 each.⑧system fact 1, flexility, privacy and self-adaptation have positive impact on the service quality. with the path coefficient 0.10,0.15,0.10, and 0.52 each.⑨Perceived efficiency, perceived performance, selectivity, perceived ease of use, perceived emotion, and self-adaptability have positive impact on the system quality, with the path coefficient 0.21,0.30,0.29,0.08,0.32 and 0.23 each.⑩System quality and information quality have positive impact on satisfaction, with the path coefficient 0.11,0.15 and 0.50 each. Finally, the SEM shows that information quality, system quality and satisfaction have positive impact on intention to use with the path coefficient 0.35, 0.55 and 0.11 each, while the service quality has negative impact on intention to use with the path coefficient-0.16
(1)相关性判据集。本文以南京大学信息管理系4个年级以及南京大学教育科学系1个年级的相关性判据文本数据为信息源,采用内容分析法解析出了包括传播特征,内容,情境,使用,系统特征,愉悦,质量,总体以及文献特征等9类相关性判据。通过频次分析发现,文献特征、质量判据以及内容判据、总体和使用占据了相关性判据的主要位置,而愉悦、情境、传播特征以及系统特征则相对没有那么重要。与Schamber(1991)以及Barry(1993)等前人研究相比,本研究拓展了面向用户的相关性判据集,提炼出了包括文献总体、文献使用以及传播特征等三个新的相关性判据类别。
(2)影响信息用户相关性判断的文献特征。通过对相关性判据文本数据的内容分析,解析出了包括参考文献、出版单位、出版时间、关键词、基金、篇幅、全文、题名、文献格式、文摘、语种、文献类型、来源期刊、作者以及机构等在内的15个影响信息用户相关性判断的文献特征。
(3)任务复杂性以及性别影响相关性判据的选择。研究结果显示,用户在面对不同复杂性的任务时,在文献内容、文献使用、文献特征、作者以及文献类型等相关性判据的选择方面存在差异；而性别维度仅影响作者、文献类型以及文献总体层面的相关性判据选择。由于数据量的原因,本文没能证实任务复杂性以及性别对信息用户在选择来源期刊、机构、系统特征、传播特征以及愉悦感知等5个类别相关性判据时的影响。
(4)基于相关性判据、价值增值模型、TEDS模型以及信息系统成功模型构建了面向相关性判据的学术信息检索系统成功模型,并证实了模型的有效性。根据模型设计了问卷,问卷共发放1114份,回收1054份,其中有效问卷929份。通过对数据的结构方程分析证实：①系统因子1和系统因子2对选择性存在正负不同方向的影响,路径系数分别为0.59和-0.39。②系统因子2、系统因子3以及选择性对系统效能存在正性的影响,路径系数分别是0.11、0.15和0.50。③系统因子1和灵活性对自适应性存在正性的影响,路径系数分别达到0.14和0.70。④系统因子5、灵活性、时间认知以及可靠性对系统性能存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.20,0.29,0.10以及0.38。⑤美感和娱乐体验对情感认知存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.54,0.27。⑥系统因子4和系统因子6对易用认知存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.23,0.21。⑦完整性、实时性、权威性、有效性对于信息质量存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.26,0.26,0.38以及0.25。⑧系统因子1、灵活性、隐私以及自适应性对服务质量存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.10,0.15,0.10,0.52。⑨效能认知、性能认知、选择性、易用认知、情感认知以及自适应性对系统质量存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.21,0.30,0.29,0.08,0.32,0.23。⑩系统质量、信息质量对满意度存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.56,0.29。最后,结构方程分析的结果表明,信息质量、系统质量以及满意度对使用意图存在正性的影响,路径系数分别为0.35,0.55以及0.11,而服务质量对于使用意图存在负性的影响,路径系数为-0.16。
It has been widely recognized that relevance is one of the basic problem in library and information science. Foreign studies have made abundant achievements theoretically and practically, for more information please consult Saracevic(1975), Mizzaro(1997),Schamber(1994) and Saracevic (2007),et al. Though more and more native scholars are paying attention to Relevance, only some introductions and overviews of foreign research progress can be retrieved from CNKI. In view of these, a serial of user-oriented research on relevance criteria and their application in a native atmosphere are carried on in this article. Primary results and conclusions are listed as follows:
(1) Provision of a set of relevance criteria. The paper selected 4 grades in the information management department and 1 grade in education science of Nanjing University as data resources, and provided 9 kinds of relevance criteria including broadcasting features, content, context, use, system features, pleasure, quality, collection and document feature. By analyzing the frequencies of these relevance criteria, it has been found that document feature, quality, content, collection and use accounted for the main location, while pleasure, context, broadcasting feature are not so important. Compared to Schamber's (1991) and Barry's(1993), the paper extends the set of relevance criteria, and parse out three new relevance criteria including document collection, document use and broadcasting feature.
(2) Document features which affect the user's relevance judge. By the content analysis to the relevance criteria text, the author parse out 15 document features including references, publishers, publishing time, keyword, funds, space, text, title, document format, abstracts, language, document type, source journals, authors and institutions, which have impacts on user's relevance judge.
(3) Impact of task complexity and gender on relevance criteria's selection. Research show that different user have differences in the selection of relevance criteria including document content, document use, document features, author, and document type when are faced to tasks with different complexion.
(4) Construction of academic information retrieval system success model oriented to relevance criteria based on relevance criteria, value added model, TEDS model and ISSM as well as validation of its validity. A questionnaire is design based on the model,1114 questionnaires were distributed and 1054 were returned of which 929 questionnaires were valid. By SEM method, we prove that:①System fact 1 and system fact 2 have positive and negative impact on selection, with the path coefficient 0.59 and-0.39 each.②System fact 2, system fact 3 and selection have positive impact on self-adaption, with the path coefficient 0.11,0.15 and0.50 each.③System fact 1 and flexility have positive impact on self-adaption, with the path coefficient 0.14 and 0.70 each.④System fact 5, flexility, perceived time and reliability have positive impact on system performance, with the path coefficient 0.20,0.29,0.10 and 0.70 each.⑤Beauty and play experience have positive impact on perceived emotion, with the path coefficient 0.54 and 0.27 each.⑥System fact 4 and system fact 6 have positive impact on perceived ease of use, with the path coefficient 0.23 and 0.21 each.⑦Completeness, timeliness, authority, effectiveness have positive impact on the quality of information, with the path coefficient 0.26,0.26,0.38 and 0.25 each.⑧system fact 1, flexility, privacy and self-adaptation have positive impact on the service quality. with the path coefficient 0.10,0.15,0.10, and 0.52 each.⑨Perceived efficiency, perceived performance, selectivity, perceived ease of use, perceived emotion, and self-adaptability have positive impact on the system quality, with the path coefficient 0.21,0.30,0.29,0.08,0.32 and 0.23 each.⑩System quality and information quality have positive impact on satisfaction, with the path coefficient 0.11,0.15 and 0.50 each. Finally, the SEM shows that information quality, system quality and satisfaction have positive impact on intention to use with the path coefficient 0.35, 0.55 and 0.11 each, while the service quality has negative impact on intention to use with the path coefficient-0.16
引文
1马费成.论情报学的基本原理及理论体系构建.情报学报,2007,26(1)：3-13
2梁战平.我国科技情报研究的探索与发展.情报探索,2007,(7)：3-7
3张新民等.相关性研究探析.情报学报,2008,27(5)：691-697
4屈鹏等.国际情报学研究主题的聚类分析——基于1996-2003年的LISA数据库.情报学报,2007,26(6)：909-917
5 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.
6 Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part Ⅱ:nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(3),1915-1933.
7 Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part Ⅲ:Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(13),2126-2144.
8 Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48
9 Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria:An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3):149-159.
10 Salton G Automatic Text Processing:The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Addison-Wesley,1989
11 Cuadra, C.A.,& Katter, R.V. (1967). Experimental studies of relevance judgments final report, volume 1: Project summary. Cleveland, OH:Case Western Reserve University, School of Library Science, Center for Documentation and Communication Research
12 Rees, A.M.,& Schultz, D.G.(1967). A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching:Final report:Volume 1. Cleveland, OH:Case Western Reserve University, School of Library Science, Center for Documentation and Communication Research
1 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.
2 Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48.
3 Eisenberg, M.,& Barry, C. (1988). Order effects:A study of the possible influences of presentation order on user judgment of document relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,39:293-300.
4 Janes, J.W., McKinney, R. (1992). Relevance judgments of actual users and secondary judgers:a comparative study. Library quarterly,62(2):153
5 Janes, J. W. (1994). Other people's judgments:A comparison of user's and other's judgments of document relevance, topicality, and utility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3):160-171
6 Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., Bateman, J. (1998). Examining different regions of relevance:From highly relevant to not relevant. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Columbus, OH,3-12. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
7 Zhang X.M. (2002). Collaborative Relevance Judgment:A Group Consensus Method for Evaluating User Search Performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53(3):220-231
8 Mizzaro, S. Relevance:The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1997,48(9):810～832
9 Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II:nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(3),1915-1933.
10成颖，孙建军,巢乃鹏.信息检索中的相关性模型.图书情报工作,2004(12)：46-50
11成颖，孙建军.信息检索中的相关性研究.情报学报,2004(6)：689-6965
1孙绍荣.美国的文献相关性试验评介.情报业务研究,1989,(2)：137-140
2孙绍荣 论试验方法在情报学理论建设中的作用：美国的相关性试验的启示 情报理论与实践.1989,(2)：9-10
3康耀红.相关性及排序原则.情报理论与实践,1990,(4)：7-9
4李国秋,吕斌.检索相关性研究的发展.情报理论与实践,1996,(2)：56-59
5王家钺.信息检索中相关性概念的研究.现代外语,2001(2)：181-191
6张新民等.相关性研究探析.情报学报,2008,27(5)：691-697
7成颖,孙建军,宋玲丽.相关性标准研究.中国图书馆学报,2005,31(3)：55-60
8 Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
9 Scholl,H. et al(2011). The TEDS framework for assessing information systems from a human actors' perspective: Extending and repurposing Taylor's Value-Added Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(4):789-804
1转引自李本乾.描述传播内容特征检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下).当代传播,2000(1)：47-49
2 Fleiss, JL, Gross, AJ (1991). Meta-analysis in epidemiology, with special reference to studies of the association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer:a critique. J Clin Epidemiol 2:127-139
3侯杰泰等.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004,p12
4吴明隆.结构方程模型AMOS的操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,第1版,2009,p1-2
1风笑天.现代社会调查方法.武汉：华中科技大学出版社,2005
1Saracevic, 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
2Markey, K(1984). Interindexer consistency tests:A literature review and report of a test of consistency in indexing visual materials. Library and information science research, (6):155～177
3Leonard, L.E(1975). Inter-indexer consistency and retrieval effectiveness:Measurement and relationship. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Illinois, IL
4Metzler,P.et. al(1990). Conjunction,ellipsis, and other discontinuous constituents in the Constituent Object Parser. Information Processing & Management,26(1):53-71
5Salton, G. Buckley, C., Smith, M(1990). On the application of syntactic methodologies in automatic text analysis. Information Processing & management,26(1):73～92
6Liddy, E.D. Anaphora in natural language processing and information retrieval. Information Processing & Management,1990,26(1):39～52
7Schamber, L(1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48
1转引自Harter,S.P.,Hert,C.A.(1997). Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems:Approaches, Issues, and Methods. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST),32, ed. Martha E. Williams,New York: Interscience Publishers,8-13
2 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
3 Cooper, W.S(1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 1:The subjective philosophy of evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(2):87-100
4 Cooper, W. S(1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness,part 2:Implementation of the philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(6):413-424
1 Ingwersen, P. Information retrieval interaction. London:Tayler Graham Publishing,1992
2 Salton G. Automatic Text Processing:The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Addison-Wesley,1989
3 Lancaster, F. W. Information retrieval systems:Characteristics,testing and evaluation. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1979
4 Wilson, P(1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval,9:457～469
1 Harter, P(1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science,43(9):602-615
2 Sperber, D., Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001,Second Edition
1 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
2 Schamber, L(1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48
1 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
2 Schamber. L..et. Al(1990). A re-examination of relevance:Toward a dynamic. situational definition.Information Processing & Management.26(6):755-775
3 Schamber, L (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48
4 Mizzaro, S (1997). Relevance:The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,48(9):810-832
1 Bush,V. As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly,1945, July:101-108.
2 Taube M. et al(1952). Unit Terms in Coordinate Indexing. American Documentation,3(4):213-218
3转引自黄慕萱.资讯检索中“相关”概念之研究。台湾：学生书局,1996
4 Maron, M.E., Kuhns, J.L (1960). On relevance, probabilistic indexing, and information retrieval. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery,7(3),216-244.
1 Goffman, W(1964). On relevance as a measure. Information Storage and Retrieval,2(3),201-203.
2 Goffman, W., Newill, V. A (1966). Methodology for test and evaluation of information retrieval systems. Information Storage and Retrieval,3(1),19-25.
3 Cooper, W.S (1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 1:The subjective philosophy of evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(2):87-100
1 Cooper, W. S(1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness,part 2:Implementation of the philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(6):413-424
2 Schamber, L.,et. Al (1990). A re-examination of relevance:Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management,26(6):755-775
3 Schamber, L (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48
4 Kinnucan, M.T.(1992). The size of retrieval sets. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,43: 29-72.
5 Su, L.T. (1993). Is relevance an adequate criterion for retrieval system evaluation:An empirical inquiry into user's evaluation. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science,93-103. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
6 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(3):124-133
2 Ingwersen, P. Information retrieval interaction. London:Tayler Graham Publishing,1992
3 Belkin, N.J., et al(1996). Using relevance feedback and ranking in interactive searching. In D. Harman, ed. TREC-4. Proceedings of the Fourth Text Retrieval Conference (pp.181-209) Washington, D. C.:GPO.
1 Saracevic, T. Relevance Reconsidered'96. In P. Ingwersen,& N.O. Pors, Proceedings of CoLIS
2, second international conference on conceptions of library and information science:Integration in perspective, Copenhagen,1996,201-218. Copenhagen:Royal School of Librarianship
1 Mizzaro, S. How many relevances in information retrieval. Interacting with Computers,1998, (10):303-320
2 Lancaster, F. W. Information retrieval systems:Characteristics,testing and evaluation. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1979
1 Bor lund P.The concept of relevance in IR.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2003,54(10):913-925
1转引自Harter,S.P.,Hert,C.A.(1997). Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems:Approaches, Issues, and Methods. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST),32, ed. Martha E. Williams,New York: Interscience Publishers,8-13.
1 Cuadra, C. A.,& Katter, R. V. (1967). Opening the black box of relevance. Journal of Documentation,23(4), 291-303.
2 Rees, A. M.,& Schulz, D. G. (1967). A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching (2 vols., NSF Contract No. C-423). Center for Documentation and Communication Research, School of Library Science, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
1 Nilan, M.S., Peek, R.P., Snyder, H.W. (1988). A methodology for tapping user evaluation behaviors:An exploration of users' strategy, source and information evaluating. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science,152-159. Medford, NJ:Learned Information.
2 Eisenberg, M.,& Barry, C. (1988). Order effects:A study of the possible influences of presentation order on user judgment of document relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,39:293-300.
1 Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia information seeking and use situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
1 Park, T.K (1992). The nature of relevance in information retrieval:An empirical study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington,IN
2 Park, T. K (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval:An empirical study. Library Quarterly,63(3):318-351
1 Mellon, C.A.(1990).Naturalistic Inquiry for Library Science:Methods and Applications for Research, Evaluation, and Teaching. New York:Greenwood Press,1990
2 Janes, J. W.,& McKinney, R. (1992). Relevance judgments of actual users and secondary judges. Library Quarterly,62,150-168.
3 Janes, J. W. (1991). The binary nature of continuous relevance judgments:A case study of users' perceptions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,42(10),754-756.
4 Janes, J. W. (1991). Relevance judgments and the incremental presentation of document representations. Information Processing & Management,27(6),629-646.
1 Janes, J. W. (1994). Other people's judgments:A comparison of user's and other's judgments of document relevance, topicality, and utility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3),160-171.
2 Cool, C., Belkin, N. J.,& Kantor, P. B. (1993). Characteristics of texts affecting relevance judgments. In M. E. Williams, Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting,77-84. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc
1 Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria:An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3):149-159.
1 Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia information seeking and use situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
2 Schamber, L.,& Bateman, J. (1996.) User criteria in relevance evaluation; Toward development of a measurement scale. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Baltimore, MD 218-225. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
3 Su, L.T. (1993). Is relevance an adequate criterion for retrieval system evaluation:An empirical inquiry into user's evaluation. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science,93-103. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
1 Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria:An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3):149-159.
1 Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., Bateman, J. (1998). Examining different regions of relevance:From highly relevant to not relevant. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Columbus, OH,3-12. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
2 Tang, R.,& Solomon, P. (1998). Toward an understanding of the dynamics of relevance judgment:An analysis of one person's search behavior. Information Processing & Management,34(2/3):237-256.
1 Tang,R. Solomon,P. (2001). Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation:On the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies. JASIST 52(8):676-685
1 Wang, P. (1994). A cognitive model of document selection of real users of information retrieval systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
2 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,1998,49(2):115-133
3 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):98-114
1 Bateman, J. (1998). Modeling changes in end-user relevance criteria:An information seeking study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas
1 Howard, D. L. (1994). Pertinence as reflected in personal constructs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45,172-185.
2黄雪玲.信息检索中“相关”概念与“相关”判断.美国信息科学学会台北学生分会会讯,6(6)：84-106
3黄慕萱.资讯检索中“相关”概念之研究。台湾：学生书局,1996
4 Maglaughlin, K. L. and Sonnenwald, D. H. (2002), User perspectives on relevance criteria:A comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant judgments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53:327-342.
1 Reijo Savolainen, Jarkko Kari, (2006).User-defined relevance criteria in web searching. Journal of Documentation,62(6):685-707
1 Sedghia, S., Sandersona, M., Clougha,P(2008). A study on the relevance criteria for medical images.Pattern Recognition Letters,29(15):2046-2057
1 Meng,Y.(2005).An exploration of users' video relevance criteria. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
1 Kim, S., Oh, J.& Oh, S. (2007) Best-Answer Selection Criteria in a Social Q&A site from the User Oriented Relevance Perspective. Proceeding of the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,44 (1):1-15
2 Vakkari, P.& Hakala, N (2000). Changes in Relevance Criteria and problem Stages in Task Performance. Journal of Documentation 56 (5),540-562
3 Kuhlthau, C. C. Seeking meaning:a process approach to library and information services. Norwood, NJ:Ablex Publishing,1993.
1 Hirsh, S. G. (1999), Children's relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,50:1265-1283
1 Inskip,C., MacFarlane, A., Rafferty,P. (2010). Creative professional users' musical relevance criteria. J. Information Science 36(4):517-529
2 Taylor, A.R., Zhang, X.,& Amadio, W.J. (2009). Examination of Relevance Criteria Choices and the Information Search Process. Journal of Documentation.
1 Taylor, A. R., Cool, C., Belkin, N. J.,& Amadio, W. J. (2007). Relationships between Categories of Relevance Criteria and Stage in Task Completion. Information Processing and Management,43 (4),1071-1084.
1 Westbrook, L.(2001).Faculty Relevance Criteria:Internalized User Needs. Library Trends,50(2):197-206
2 BURTON V.T.,CHADWICK,S.A. (2000).Investigating the Practices of Student Researchers:Patterns of Use and Criteria for Use of Internet and Library Sources Computers and Composition 17,309-328
1 BARNES,M.D., et al.(2003). Measuring the Relevance of Evaluation Criteria among Health Information Seekers on the Internet. Journal of Health Psychology,8(1):71-82
2 Goodrum, A., Pope, R., Godo, E. and Thom, J. (2010), Newsblog relevance:Applying relevance criteria to news-related blogs. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,47:1-2
1 Crystal, A., Jane Greenberg. (2006) Relevance Criteria Identified by Health Information Users During Web Searches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(10):1368-1382
2 Lawley, K. N., Soergel, D. and Huang, X. (2005), Relevance criteria used by teachers in selecting oral history materials. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,42
1 Papaeconomou, C., Zijlema, A.F., Ingwersen, P(2008). Searchers' relevance judgments and criteria in evaluating web pages in a learning style perspective. In Proceedings of IIiX.123-132.
1 Tombros,A., Ruthven,J. Jose,J.M.(2003). Searchers' Criteria For Assessing Web Pages.SIGIR'03 Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in informaion retrieval,385-386
1 Zhang X.M. (2002). Collaborative Relevance Judgment:A Group Consensus Method for Evaluating User Search Performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53(3):220-231
1 Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia information seeking and use situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
2 Barry, C. L(1993). The identification of user relevance criteria and document characteristics:Beyond the topical approach to information retrieval. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
1 Wang, P (1994). A cognitive model of document selection of real users of information retrieval systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Maryland, College of Library and Information Science, College Park, MD
2 Tang, R.,& Solomon, P. (1998). Toward an understanding of the dynamics of relevance judgment:An analysis of one person's search behavior. Information Processing & Management,34(2/3):237-256.
3转引自朱滢.实验心理学.北京：北京大学出版社,2000
1转引自李本乾.描述传播内容特征 检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下).当代传播,2000(1)：47-49
1李本乾.描述传播内容特征 检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下).当代传播,2000(1)：47-49
1贾俊平.统计学.北京：清华大学出版社,2006,第二版
1 Perez-Mira,B(2010). Validity of DeLone and McLean's model of information systems success at the web site level of analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.
2 Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29,3-48
3 Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ:Ablex Publishing.
1 Peiling Wang (2010) Contextualizing User Relevance Criteria:A Meta-ethnographic Approach to User-centered Relevance Studies. Poster Paper IIiX 2010:Information Interaction in Context (New Brunswick, NJ, August 18-22)
1 Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
2 Scholl,H. et al(2011). The TEDS framework for assessing information systems from a human actors' perspective: Extending and repurposing Taylor's Value-Added Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(4):789-804
1 Davis, F.D. (1989). "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology". MIS Quarterly,13 (3), pp.318-340
2 DeLone, W. and McLean, E.(1992). Information System Success:The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information System Research,3(1):60-95
3 Seddon, P.B. (1997). A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success. Information Systems Research,8(3),240-253.
4 Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T., and Kavan, C.B. (1995). Service Quality:A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness. MIS Quarterly,19(2),173-188.
5 DeLone, W. and McLean, E.(2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success:A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems (19:4):9-30
1 Seddon, P.B. (1997). A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success. Information Systems Research,8(3),240-253.
2 DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems,19(4),9-30.
3 Sedera, D. and G. Gable (2004). A Factor and Structural Equation Analysis of the Enterprise Systems Success Measurement Model. International Conference of Information Systems, Washington, D.C.
4 Petter, S., DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.(,2008). Measuring information systems success:models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information System:236～263
1 Petter, S., DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.(,2008). Measuring information systems success:models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information System:236～263
2 Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T., and Kavan, C.B. (1995). Service Quality:A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness. MIS Quarterly,19(2),173-188.
3 DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems,19(4),9-30.
1 Bailey, J.E. and Pearson, S.W(1983). Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction. Management Science,29(5):530-545.
2 Xie, H. (2008). Users' Evaluation of Digital Libraries:Their uses, their criteria, and their assessment. Information Processing & Management,44(3),1346-1373.
3 Wixom, B. H.,& Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research,16(1),85-102.
1 McKinney, V., Yoon, K.,& Zahedi, F. (2002). The measurement of Web-customer satisfaction:An expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research,13(3),296-309
2 Kim,B., Hanb,I.(2011).The role of utilitarian and hedonic values and their antecedents in a mobile data service environment. Expert Systems with Applications,38(3):2311-2318
1 Eyono, S.D.O.(2010).An Information and System Quality Evaluation Framework for Tribal Portals:the Case of Selected Tribal Portals from Cameroon.2010 2nd International Conference on Computer Technology and Development (ICCTD 2010):115-120
2 DAVIS, F.; BAGOZZI, R.; and WARSHAW, R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology:A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science,35:982-1003
3 Venkatesh,V.(2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology:Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3):425-478
4 Hernon, P.,& Calvert, P. J. (2005). E-service quality in libraries:Exploring its features and dimensions. Library & Information Science Research,27,377-404.
5 Tsakonas, G.,& Papatheodorou, C. (2007). Critical constructs of digital library interaction. In Proceedings of 11th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics 1,57-67
1 Moore, G. C., Benbasat I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research,2 (3):173-191.
2 Eyono, S.D.O.(2010).An Information and System Quality Evaluation Framework for Tribal Portals:the Case of Selected Tribal Portals from Cameroon.2010 2nd International Conference on Computer Technology and Development (ICCTD 2010):115-120
3 Compeau, D. R.,& Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy:Development of a measure and initial Test. MIS Quarterly,19(2),189-211.
4 Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A.,& Huff,S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology:A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly,23(2),145-158.
1 Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A.,& Berry, L.L. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing,67(4),420-450.
1吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2000
1侯杰泰等.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004
2吴明隆.结构方程模型:AMOS的操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,第1版,2009
3吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2001,p28-46
1吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2001,p54
1侯杰泰等.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004,p45
2吴明隆.结构方程模型:AMOS的操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,第1版,2009,p44
1 Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B.,& Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly,27(3),425-478.
1甘怡群.心理与行为科学统计.北京：北京大学出版社,2005
1 Ivari, J. (2005). An Empirical Test of the DeLone-McLean Model of Information System Success. The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems,36(2):8-27.
2 Gelderman, M. (2002). Task difficulty, task variability and satisfaction with management support systems. Information & Management 39(7),593-604.
1 Kim J, et al. (2002) Business as buildings:metrics for the architectural quality of internet businesses. Information Systems Research 13(3),239-254.
2 Petter, S., DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.(,2008). Measuring information systems success:models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information System:236～263
3 Kulkarni, U.R., Raviindran, S., Freeze, R. (2006). A knowledge management success model:theoretical development and empirical validation. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(3),309-347
4 Halawi, L.A., Mccarthy, R.V., Aronson, J.E. (2007). An empirical investigation of knowledge-management systems' success. The Journal of Computer Information Systems 48(2),121-135.
5 Kim J, et al. (2002). Business as buildings:metrics for the architectural quality of internet businesses. Information Systems Research 13(3),239-254.
6 Choe, J.M. (1996). The relationships among performance of accounting information systems, influence factors, and evolution level of information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems 12(4):215-239
1 Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46(2),186-204.
2 Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technologyacceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly 24(1),115-149.
3 Straub, D.W., et al. (1995). Measuring system usage:implications for IS theory testing. Management Science 41(8),1328-1342.
4 Goodhue, D.L., Thompson, R. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly 19(2), 213-236.
5 Agarwal, R., Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences 28(3),557-582.
6 Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R., TODD, P.A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology:a replication. MIS Quarterly 16(2),227-247.
7 Rai, A., Lang, S.S., Welker, R.B. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models:an empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information SystemsResearch 13(1),5-69.
8 Halawi, L.A., Mccarthy, R.V., Aronson, J.E. (2007) An empirical investigation of knowledge-management systems' success. The Journal of Computer Information Systems 48(2):121-135.
[1]Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R., Todd, P.A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology:a replication. MIS Quarterly 16(2),227-247.
[2]Agarwal, R., Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences 28(3),557-582.
[3]Bailey, J.E. and Pearson, S.W(1983). Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction. Management Science,29(5):530-545.
[4]Barnes,M.D., et al.(2003). Measuring the Relevance of Evaluation Criteria among Health Information Seekers on the Internet. Journal of Health Psychology,8(1):71-82
[5]Barry, C. L(1993). The identification of user relevance criteria and document characteristics: Beyond the topical approach to information retrieval. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
[6]Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria:An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3):149-159.
[7]Bateman, J. (1998). Modeling changes in end-user relevance criteria:An information seeking study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas
[8]Belkin, N.J., et al(1996). Using relevance feedback and ranking in interactive searching. In D.Harman, ed. TREC-4. Proceedings of the Fourth Text Retrieval Conference (pp.181-209) Washington, D.C.:GPO.
[9]Borlund P(2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,54(10):913-925
[10]Burton V.T.,Chadwick,S.A. (2000).Investigating the Practices of Student Researchers: Patterns of Use and Criteria for Use of Internet and Library Sources Computers and Composition 17,309-328
[11]Bush,V(1945). As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly,1945, July:101-108.
[12]Choe, J.M. (1996). The relationships among performance of accounting information systems, influence factors, and evolution level of information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems 12(4):215-239
[13]Compeau, D. R.,& Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy:Development of a measure and initial Test. MIS Quarterly,19(2),189-211.
[14]Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A.,& Huff,S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology:A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly,23(2),145-158.
[15]Cool, C., Belkin, N. J.,& Kantor, P. B. (1993). Characteristics of texts affecting relevance judgments. In M. E. Williams, Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting,77-84 Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc
[16]Cooper, W. S(1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness,part 2:Implementation of the philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(6):413-424
[17]Cooper, W.S (1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 1:The subjective philosophy of evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(2):87-100
[18]Crystal, A., Jane Greenberg. (2006) Relevance Criteria Identified by Health Information Users During Web Searches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(10):1368-1382
[19]Cuadra, C. A.,& Katter, R. V. (1967). Opening the black box of relevance. Journal of Documentation,23(4),291-303.
[20]Cuadra, C.A.,& Katter, R.V. (1967). Experimental studies of relevance judgments final report, volume 1:Project summary. Cleveland, OH:Case Western Reserve University, School of Library Science, Center for Documentation and Communication Research
[21]DAVIS, R; BAGOZZI, R.; and WARSHAW, R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology:A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science,35:982-1003
[22]Davis, F.D. (1989). "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology". MIS Quarterly,13 (3), pp.318-340
[23]DeLone, W. and McLean, E.(1992). Information System Success:The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information System Research,3(1):60-95
[24]DeLone, W. and McLean, E.(2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success:A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems (19:4):9-30
[25]Eisenberg, M.,& Barry, C. (1988). Order effects:A study of the possible influences of presentation order on user judgment of document relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,39:293-300.
[26]Eyono, S.D.O.(2010).An Information and System Quality Evaluation Framework for Tribal Portals:the Case of Selected Tribal Portals from Cameroon.2010 2nd International Conference on Computer Technology and Development (ICCTD 2010):115-120
[27]Fleiss, JL, Gross, AJ (1991). Meta-analysis in epidemiology, with special reference to studies of the association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer:a critique. J Clin Epidemiol 2:127-139
[28]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(3):124-133
[29]Gelderman, M. (2002). Task difficulty, task variability and satisfaction with management support systems. Information & Management 39(7),593-604.
[30]Goffman, W (1964). On relevance as a measure. Information Storage and Retrieval,2(3), 201-203.
[31]Goffman, W., Newill, V.A (1966). Methodology for test and evaluation of information retrieval systems. Information Storage and Retrieval,3(1),19-25.
[32]Goodhue, D.L., Thompson, R. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly 19(2),213-236.
[33]Goodrum, A., Pope, R., Godo, E. and Thom, J. (2010), Newsblog relevance:Applying relevance criteria to news-related blogs. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,47:1-2
[34]Halawi, L.A., Mccarthy, R.V., Aronson, J.E. (2007) An empirical investigation of knowledge-management systems'success. The Journalof Computer Information Systems 48(2): 121-135.
[35]Harter, P(1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science,43(9):602-615
[36]Harter,S.P.,Hert,C.A.(1997). Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems:Approaches, Issues, and Methods. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST),32, ed. Martha E. Williams,New York:Interscience Publishers,8-13
[37]Hernon, P.,& Calvert, P. J. (2005). E-service quality in libraries:Exploring its features and dimensions. Library & Information Science Research,27,377-404.
[38]Hirsh, S. G. (1999), Children's relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,50:1265-1283
[39]Howard, D. L. (1994). Pertinence as reflected in personal constructs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45,172-185.
[40]Ingwersen, P. Information retrieval interaction. London:Tayler Graham Publishing,1992
[41]Inskip,C., MacFarlane, A., Rafferty,P. (2010). Creative professional users' musical relevance criteria. J. Information Science 36(4):517-529
[42]Ivari, J. (2005). An Empirical Test of the DeLone-McLean Model of Information System Success. The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems,36(2):8-27.
[43]Janes, J. W. (1991). Relevance judgments and the incremental presentation of document representations. Information Processing & Management,27(6),629-646.
[44]Janes, J. W. (1991). The binary nature of continuous relevance judgments:A case study of users'perceptions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,42(10),754-756.
[45]Janes, J. W. (1994). Other people's judgments:A comparison of user's and other's judgments of document relevance, topicality, and utility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3),160-171.
[46]Janes, J.W., McKinney, R. (1992). Relevance judgments of actual users and secondary judgers:a comparative study. Library quarterly,62(2):150-168
[47]Kim J, et al. (2002) Business as buildings:metrics for the architectural quality of internet businesses. Information Systems Research 13(3),239-254.
[48]Kim, S., Oh, J.& Oh, S. (2007) Best-Answer Selection Criteria in a Social Q&A site from the User Oriented Relevance Perspective. Proceeding of the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,44 (1):1-15
[49]Kim,B., Hanb,I.(2011).The role of utilitarian and hedonic values and their antecedents in a mobile data service environment. Expert Systems with Applications,38(3):2311-2318
[50]Kinnucan, M.T.(1992). The size of retrieval sets. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,43:29-72.
[51]Kuhlthau, C. C(1993). Seeking meaning:a process approach to library and information services. Norwood, NJ:Ablex Publishing
[52]Kulkarni, U.R., Raviindran, S., Freeze, R. (2006). A knowledge management success model: theoretical development and empirical validation. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(3),309-347
[53]Lancaster, F. W(1979). Information retrieval systems:Characteristics,testing and evaluation. New York:John Wiley & Sons
[54]Lawley, K. N., Soergel, D. and Huang, X. (2005), Relevance criteria used by teachers in selecting oral history materials. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,42
[55]Leonard, L.E(1975). Inter-indexer consistency and retrieval effectiveness:Measurement and relationship. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Illinois, IL
[56]Liddy, E.D(1990). Anaphora in natural language processing and information retrieval. Information Processing & Management,26(1):39--52
[57]Maglaughlin, K. L. and Sonnenwald, D. H. (2002), User perspectives on relevance criteria:A comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant judgments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53:327-342.
[58]Markey, K(1984). Interindexer consistency tests:A literature review and report of a test of consistency in indexing visual materials. Library and information science research, (6):155～177
[59]Maron, M.E., Kuhns, J.L (1960). On relevance, probabilistic indexing, and information retrieval. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery,7(3),216-244.
[60]McKinney, V., Yoon, K.,& Zahedi, F. (2002). The measurement of Web-customer satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research,13(3),296-309
[61]Mellon, C.A.(1990).Naturalistic Inquiry for Library Science:Methods and Applications for Research, Evaluation, and Teaching. New York:Greenwood Press,1990
[62]Meng,Y.(2005).An exploration of users' video relevance criteria. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
[63]Metzler,P.et. al(1990). Conjunction,ellipsis, and other discontinuous constituents in the Constituent Object Parser. Information Processing & Management,26(1):53-71
[64]Mizzaro, S (1997). Relevance:The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,48(9):810-832
[65]Mizzaro, S(1998). How many relevances in information retrieval.Interacting with Computers,(10):303-320
[66]Moore, G. C., Benbasat I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research,2 (3):173-191.
[67]Nilan, M.S., Peek, R.P., Snyder, H.W. (1988). A methodology for tapping user evaluation behaviors:An exploration of users'strategy, source and information evaluating. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science,152-159. Medford, NJ:Learned Information.
[68]Papaeconomou, C., Zijlema, A.F., Ingwersen, P (2008). Searchers' relevance judgments and criteria in evaluating web pages in a learning style perspective. In Proceedings of IIiX.123-132.
[69]Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A.,& Berry, L.L. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing,67(4),420-450.
[70]Park, T. K (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval:An empirical study. Library Quarterly,63(3):318-351
[71]Park, T.K (1992). The nature of relevance in information retrieval:An empirical study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington,IN
[72]Perez-Mira,B(2010). Validity of DeLone and McLean's model of information systems success at the web site level of analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.
[73]Petter, S., DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.(,2008). Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information System: 236-263
[74]Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T., and Kavan, C.B. (1995). Service Quality:A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness. MIS Quarterly,19(2),173-188.
[75]Rai, A., Lang, S.S., Welker, R.B. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models:an empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information SystemsResearch 13(1),5-69.
[76]Rees, A. M.,& Schulz, D. G. (1967). A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching (2 vols., NSF Contract No. C-423). Center for Documentation and Communication Research, School of Library Science, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
[77]Rees, A.M.,& Schultz, D.G. (1967). A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching:Final report:Volume 1. Cleveland, OH:Case Western Reserve University, School of Library Science, Center for Documentation and Communication Research
[78]Reijo Savolainen, Jarkko Kari, (2006).User-defined relevance criteria in web searching. Journal of Documentation,62(6):685-707
[79]Salton G(1989). Automatic Text Processing:The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Addison-Wesley
[80]Salton, G. Buckley, C., Smith, M(1990). On the application of syntactic methodologies in automatic text analysis. Information Processing & management,26(1):73～92
[81]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
[82]Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part Ⅱ:nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(3),1915-1933.
[83]Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part Ⅲ:Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(13),2126-2144.
[84]Saracevic, T. Relevance Reconsidered'96. In P. Ingwersen,& N.O. Pors, Proceedings of CoLIS 2, second international conference on conceptions of library and information science: Integration in perspective, Copenhagen,1996.201-218. Copenhagen:Royal School of Librarianship
[85]Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia information seeking and use situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
[86]Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29,3-48
[87]Schamber, L.,& Bateman, J. (1996.) User criteria in relevance evaluation; Toward development of a measurement scale. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Baltimore, MD 218-225. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
[88]Schamber, L.,et. Al (1990). A re-examination of relevance:Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management,26(6):755-775
[89]Scholl,H. et al(2011). The TEDS framework for assessing information systems from a human actors' perspective:Extending and repurposing Taylor's Value-Added Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(4):789-804
[90]Seddon, P.B. (1997). A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success. Information Systems Research,8(3),240-253.
[91]Sedera, D. and G. Gable (2004). A Factor and Structural Equation Analysis of the Enterprise Systems Success Measurement Model. International Conference of Information Systems, Washington, D.C.
[92]Sedghia, S., Sandersona, M., Clougha,P(2008). A study on the relevance criteria for medical images.Pattern Recognition Letters,29(15):2046-2057
[93]Sperber, D., Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001, Second Edition
[94]Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., Bateman, J. (1998). Examining different regions of relevance:From highly relevant to not relevant. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Columbus, OH,3-12. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
[95]Straub, D.W., et al. (1995). Measuring system usage:implications for IS theory testing. Management Science 41(8),1328-1342.
[96]Su, L.T. (1993). Is relevance an adequate criterion for retrieval system evaluation:An empirical inquiry into user's evaluation. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science,93-103. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
[97]Tang, R.,& Solomon, P. (1998). Toward an understanding of the dynamics of relevance judgment:An analysis of one person's search behavior. Information Processing & Management, 34(2/3):237-256.
[98]Tang,R. Solomon,P. (2001). Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation: On the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies. JASIST 52(8):676-685
[99]Taube M. et al(1952). Unit Terms in Coordinate Indexing. American Documentation,3(4): 213-218
[100]Taylor, A. R., Cool, C., Belkin, N. J.,& Amadio, W. J. (2007). Relationships between Categories of Relevance Criteria and Stage in Task Completion. Information Processing and Management,43 (4),1071-1084.
[101]Taylor, A.R., Zhang, X.,& Amadio, W.J. (2009). Examination of Relevance Criteria Choices and the Information Search Process. Journal of Documentation.
[102]Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ:Ablex Publishing.
[103]Tombros,A., Ruthven,I. Jose,J.M.(2003). Searchers' Criteria For Assessing Web Pages.SIGIR'03 Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in informaion retrieval,385-386
[104]Tsakonas, G.,& Papatheodorou, C. (2007). Critical constructs of digital library interaction. In Proceedings of 11th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics 1,57-67
[105]Vakkari, P.& Hakala, N (2000). Changes in Relevance Criteria and problem Stages in Task Performance. Journal of Documentation 56 (5),540-562
[106]Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46(2),186-204.
[107]Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B.,& Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology:Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly,27(3),425-478.
[108]Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technologyacceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly 24(1), 115-149.
[109]Wang, P (1994). A cognitive model of document selection of real users of information retrieval systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Maryland, College of Library and Information Science, College Park, MD
[110]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):98-114
[111]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,1998,49(2):115-133
[112]Wang, P.L.(2010) Contextualizing User Relevance Criteria:A Meta-ethnographic Approach to User-centered Relevance Studies. Poster Paper IIiX 2010:Information Interaction in Context (New Brunswick, NJ, August 18-22)
[113]Westbrook, L.(2001).Faculty Relevance Criteria:Internalized User Needs. Library Trends, 50(2):197-206
[114]Wilson, P(1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval,9:457-469
[115]Wilson, T. D. (1997). Information behaviour:an inter-disciplinary perspective. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen and B. Dervin (Eds.). Information seeking in context:proceedings of an international conference on research in information needs, seeking and use in different contexts. Tampere, Finland:14 August 1996-16 August 1996. (pp.39-50). London:Taylor Graham
[116]Wixom, B. H.,& Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research,16(1),85-102.
[117]Xie, H. (2008). Users' Evaluation of Digital Libraries:Their uses, their criteria, and their assessment. Information Processing & Management,44(3),1346-1373.
[118]Zhang X.M. (2002). Collaborative Relevance Judgment:A Group Consensus Method for Evaluating User Search Performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53(3):220-231
[119]成颖,孙建军,巢乃鹏.信息检索中的相关性模型.图书情报工作,2004(12)：46-50
[120]成颖,孙建军,宋玲丽.相关性判据研究.中国图书馆学报,2005,31(3)：55-60
[121]成颖,孙建军.信息检索中的相关性研究.情报学报,2004(6)：689-6965
[122]风笑天.现代社会调查方法.武汉：华中科技大学出版社,2005
[123]甘怡群.心理与行为科学统计.北京：北京大学出版社,2005
[124]侯杰泰等.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004
[125]黄慕萱.资讯检索中“相关”概念之研究。台湾：学生书局,1996
[126]黄雪玲.信息检索中“相关”概念与“相关”判断.美国信息科学学会台北学生分会会讯,6(6)：84-106
[127]贾俊平.统计学.北京：清华大学出版社,2006,第二版
[128]康耀红.相关性及排序原则.情报理论与实践,1990,(4)：7-9
[129]李本乾.描述传播内容特征检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下).当代传播,2000(1)：47-49
[130]李国秋,吕斌.检索相关性研究的发展.情报理论与实践,1996,(2)：56-59
[131]梁战平.我国科技情报研究的探索与发展.情报探索,2007,(7)：3-7
[132]马费成.论情报学的基本原理及理论体系构建.情报学报,2007,26(1)：3-13
[133]屈鹏等.国际情报学研究主题的聚类分析——基于1996-2003年的LISA数据库.情报学报,2007,26(6)：909-917
[134]孙绍荣论试验方法在情报学理论建设中的作用：美国的相关性试验的启示情报理论与实践.1989,(2)：9-10
[135]孙绍荣.美国的文献相关性试验评介.情报业务研究,1989,(2)：137-140
[136]王家钺.信息检索中相关性概念的研究.现代外语,2001(2)：181-191
[137]吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2000
[138]吴明隆.结构方程模型:AMOS的操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,第1版,2009
[139]张新民等.相关性研究探析.情报学报,2008,27(5)：691-697
[140]朱滢.实验心理学.北京：北京大学出版社,2000
2梁战平.我国科技情报研究的探索与发展.情报探索,2007,(7)：3-7
3张新民等.相关性研究探析.情报学报,2008,27(5)：691-697
4屈鹏等.国际情报学研究主题的聚类分析——基于1996-2003年的LISA数据库.情报学报,2007,26(6)：909-917
5 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.
6 Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part Ⅱ:nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(3),1915-1933.
7 Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part Ⅲ:Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(13),2126-2144.
8 Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48
9 Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria:An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3):149-159.
10 Salton G Automatic Text Processing:The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Addison-Wesley,1989
11 Cuadra, C.A.,& Katter, R.V. (1967). Experimental studies of relevance judgments final report, volume 1: Project summary. Cleveland, OH:Case Western Reserve University, School of Library Science, Center for Documentation and Communication Research
12 Rees, A.M.,& Schultz, D.G.(1967). A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching:Final report:Volume 1. Cleveland, OH:Case Western Reserve University, School of Library Science, Center for Documentation and Communication Research
1 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.
2 Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48.
3 Eisenberg, M.,& Barry, C. (1988). Order effects:A study of the possible influences of presentation order on user judgment of document relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,39:293-300.
4 Janes, J.W., McKinney, R. (1992). Relevance judgments of actual users and secondary judgers:a comparative study. Library quarterly,62(2):153
5 Janes, J. W. (1994). Other people's judgments:A comparison of user's and other's judgments of document relevance, topicality, and utility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3):160-171
6 Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., Bateman, J. (1998). Examining different regions of relevance:From highly relevant to not relevant. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Columbus, OH,3-12. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
7 Zhang X.M. (2002). Collaborative Relevance Judgment:A Group Consensus Method for Evaluating User Search Performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53(3):220-231
8 Mizzaro, S. Relevance:The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,1997,48(9):810～832
9 Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II:nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(3),1915-1933.
10成颖，孙建军,巢乃鹏.信息检索中的相关性模型.图书情报工作,2004(12)：46-50
11成颖，孙建军.信息检索中的相关性研究.情报学报,2004(6)：689-6965
1孙绍荣.美国的文献相关性试验评介.情报业务研究,1989,(2)：137-140
2孙绍荣 论试验方法在情报学理论建设中的作用：美国的相关性试验的启示 情报理论与实践.1989,(2)：9-10
3康耀红.相关性及排序原则.情报理论与实践,1990,(4)：7-9
4李国秋,吕斌.检索相关性研究的发展.情报理论与实践,1996,(2)：56-59
5王家钺.信息检索中相关性概念的研究.现代外语,2001(2)：181-191
6张新民等.相关性研究探析.情报学报,2008,27(5)：691-697
7成颖,孙建军,宋玲丽.相关性标准研究.中国图书馆学报,2005,31(3)：55-60
8 Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
9 Scholl,H. et al(2011). The TEDS framework for assessing information systems from a human actors' perspective: Extending and repurposing Taylor's Value-Added Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(4):789-804
1转引自李本乾.描述传播内容特征检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下).当代传播,2000(1)：47-49
2 Fleiss, JL, Gross, AJ (1991). Meta-analysis in epidemiology, with special reference to studies of the association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer:a critique. J Clin Epidemiol 2:127-139
3侯杰泰等.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004,p12
4吴明隆.结构方程模型AMOS的操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,第1版,2009,p1-2
1风笑天.现代社会调查方法.武汉：华中科技大学出版社,2005
1Saracevic, 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
2Markey, K(1984). Interindexer consistency tests:A literature review and report of a test of consistency in indexing visual materials. Library and information science research, (6):155～177
3Leonard, L.E(1975). Inter-indexer consistency and retrieval effectiveness:Measurement and relationship. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Illinois, IL
4Metzler,P.et. al(1990). Conjunction,ellipsis, and other discontinuous constituents in the Constituent Object Parser. Information Processing & Management,26(1):53-71
5Salton, G. Buckley, C., Smith, M(1990). On the application of syntactic methodologies in automatic text analysis. Information Processing & management,26(1):73～92
6Liddy, E.D. Anaphora in natural language processing and information retrieval. Information Processing & Management,1990,26(1):39～52
7Schamber, L(1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48
1转引自Harter,S.P.,Hert,C.A.(1997). Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems:Approaches, Issues, and Methods. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST),32, ed. Martha E. Williams,New York: Interscience Publishers,8-13
2 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
3 Cooper, W.S(1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 1:The subjective philosophy of evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(2):87-100
4 Cooper, W. S(1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness,part 2:Implementation of the philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(6):413-424
1 Ingwersen, P. Information retrieval interaction. London:Tayler Graham Publishing,1992
2 Salton G. Automatic Text Processing:The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Addison-Wesley,1989
3 Lancaster, F. W. Information retrieval systems:Characteristics,testing and evaluation. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1979
4 Wilson, P(1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval,9:457～469
1 Harter, P(1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science,43(9):602-615
2 Sperber, D., Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001,Second Edition
1 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
2 Schamber, L(1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48
1 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
2 Schamber. L..et. Al(1990). A re-examination of relevance:Toward a dynamic. situational definition.Information Processing & Management.26(6):755-775
3 Schamber, L (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48
4 Mizzaro, S (1997). Relevance:The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,48(9):810-832
1 Bush,V. As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly,1945, July:101-108.
2 Taube M. et al(1952). Unit Terms in Coordinate Indexing. American Documentation,3(4):213-218
3转引自黄慕萱.资讯检索中“相关”概念之研究。台湾：学生书局,1996
4 Maron, M.E., Kuhns, J.L (1960). On relevance, probabilistic indexing, and information retrieval. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery,7(3),216-244.
1 Goffman, W(1964). On relevance as a measure. Information Storage and Retrieval,2(3),201-203.
2 Goffman, W., Newill, V. A (1966). Methodology for test and evaluation of information retrieval systems. Information Storage and Retrieval,3(1),19-25.
3 Cooper, W.S (1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 1:The subjective philosophy of evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(2):87-100
1 Cooper, W. S(1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness,part 2:Implementation of the philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(6):413-424
2 Schamber, L.,et. Al (1990). A re-examination of relevance:Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management,26(6):755-775
3 Schamber, L (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29:3-48
4 Kinnucan, M.T.(1992). The size of retrieval sets. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,43: 29-72.
5 Su, L.T. (1993). Is relevance an adequate criterion for retrieval system evaluation:An empirical inquiry into user's evaluation. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science,93-103. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
6 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(3):124-133
2 Ingwersen, P. Information retrieval interaction. London:Tayler Graham Publishing,1992
3 Belkin, N.J., et al(1996). Using relevance feedback and ranking in interactive searching. In D. Harman, ed. TREC-4. Proceedings of the Fourth Text Retrieval Conference (pp.181-209) Washington, D. C.:GPO.
1 Saracevic, T. Relevance Reconsidered'96. In P. Ingwersen,& N.O. Pors, Proceedings of CoLIS
2, second international conference on conceptions of library and information science:Integration in perspective, Copenhagen,1996,201-218. Copenhagen:Royal School of Librarianship
1 Mizzaro, S. How many relevances in information retrieval. Interacting with Computers,1998, (10):303-320
2 Lancaster, F. W. Information retrieval systems:Characteristics,testing and evaluation. New York:John Wiley & Sons,1979
1 Bor lund P.The concept of relevance in IR.Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2003,54(10):913-925
1转引自Harter,S.P.,Hert,C.A.(1997). Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems:Approaches, Issues, and Methods. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST),32, ed. Martha E. Williams,New York: Interscience Publishers,8-13.
1 Cuadra, C. A.,& Katter, R. V. (1967). Opening the black box of relevance. Journal of Documentation,23(4), 291-303.
2 Rees, A. M.,& Schulz, D. G. (1967). A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching (2 vols., NSF Contract No. C-423). Center for Documentation and Communication Research, School of Library Science, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
1 Nilan, M.S., Peek, R.P., Snyder, H.W. (1988). A methodology for tapping user evaluation behaviors:An exploration of users' strategy, source and information evaluating. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science,152-159. Medford, NJ:Learned Information.
2 Eisenberg, M.,& Barry, C. (1988). Order effects:A study of the possible influences of presentation order on user judgment of document relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,39:293-300.
1 Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia information seeking and use situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
1 Park, T.K (1992). The nature of relevance in information retrieval:An empirical study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington,IN
2 Park, T. K (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval:An empirical study. Library Quarterly,63(3):318-351
1 Mellon, C.A.(1990).Naturalistic Inquiry for Library Science:Methods and Applications for Research, Evaluation, and Teaching. New York:Greenwood Press,1990
2 Janes, J. W.,& McKinney, R. (1992). Relevance judgments of actual users and secondary judges. Library Quarterly,62,150-168.
3 Janes, J. W. (1991). The binary nature of continuous relevance judgments:A case study of users' perceptions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,42(10),754-756.
4 Janes, J. W. (1991). Relevance judgments and the incremental presentation of document representations. Information Processing & Management,27(6),629-646.
1 Janes, J. W. (1994). Other people's judgments:A comparison of user's and other's judgments of document relevance, topicality, and utility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3),160-171.
2 Cool, C., Belkin, N. J.,& Kantor, P. B. (1993). Characteristics of texts affecting relevance judgments. In M. E. Williams, Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting,77-84. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc
1 Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria:An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3):149-159.
1 Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia information seeking and use situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
2 Schamber, L.,& Bateman, J. (1996.) User criteria in relevance evaluation; Toward development of a measurement scale. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Baltimore, MD 218-225. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
3 Su, L.T. (1993). Is relevance an adequate criterion for retrieval system evaluation:An empirical inquiry into user's evaluation. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science,93-103. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
1 Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria:An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3):149-159.
1 Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., Bateman, J. (1998). Examining different regions of relevance:From highly relevant to not relevant. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Columbus, OH,3-12. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, Inc.
2 Tang, R.,& Solomon, P. (1998). Toward an understanding of the dynamics of relevance judgment:An analysis of one person's search behavior. Information Processing & Management,34(2/3):237-256.
1 Tang,R. Solomon,P. (2001). Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation:On the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies. JASIST 52(8):676-685
1 Wang, P. (1994). A cognitive model of document selection of real users of information retrieval systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
2 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,1998,49(2):115-133
3 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):98-114
1 Bateman, J. (1998). Modeling changes in end-user relevance criteria:An information seeking study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas
1 Howard, D. L. (1994). Pertinence as reflected in personal constructs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45,172-185.
2黄雪玲.信息检索中“相关”概念与“相关”判断.美国信息科学学会台北学生分会会讯,6(6)：84-106
3黄慕萱.资讯检索中“相关”概念之研究。台湾：学生书局,1996
4 Maglaughlin, K. L. and Sonnenwald, D. H. (2002), User perspectives on relevance criteria:A comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant judgments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53:327-342.
1 Reijo Savolainen, Jarkko Kari, (2006).User-defined relevance criteria in web searching. Journal of Documentation,62(6):685-707
1 Sedghia, S., Sandersona, M., Clougha,P(2008). A study on the relevance criteria for medical images.Pattern Recognition Letters,29(15):2046-2057
1 Meng,Y.(2005).An exploration of users' video relevance criteria. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
1 Kim, S., Oh, J.& Oh, S. (2007) Best-Answer Selection Criteria in a Social Q&A site from the User Oriented Relevance Perspective. Proceeding of the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,44 (1):1-15
2 Vakkari, P.& Hakala, N (2000). Changes in Relevance Criteria and problem Stages in Task Performance. Journal of Documentation 56 (5),540-562
3 Kuhlthau, C. C. Seeking meaning:a process approach to library and information services. Norwood, NJ:Ablex Publishing,1993.
1 Hirsh, S. G. (1999), Children's relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,50:1265-1283
1 Inskip,C., MacFarlane, A., Rafferty,P. (2010). Creative professional users' musical relevance criteria. J. Information Science 36(4):517-529
2 Taylor, A.R., Zhang, X.,& Amadio, W.J. (2009). Examination of Relevance Criteria Choices and the Information Search Process. Journal of Documentation.
1 Taylor, A. R., Cool, C., Belkin, N. J.,& Amadio, W. J. (2007). Relationships between Categories of Relevance Criteria and Stage in Task Completion. Information Processing and Management,43 (4),1071-1084.
1 Westbrook, L.(2001).Faculty Relevance Criteria:Internalized User Needs. Library Trends,50(2):197-206
2 BURTON V.T.,CHADWICK,S.A. (2000).Investigating the Practices of Student Researchers:Patterns of Use and Criteria for Use of Internet and Library Sources Computers and Composition 17,309-328
1 BARNES,M.D., et al.(2003). Measuring the Relevance of Evaluation Criteria among Health Information Seekers on the Internet. Journal of Health Psychology,8(1):71-82
2 Goodrum, A., Pope, R., Godo, E. and Thom, J. (2010), Newsblog relevance:Applying relevance criteria to news-related blogs. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,47:1-2
1 Crystal, A., Jane Greenberg. (2006) Relevance Criteria Identified by Health Information Users During Web Searches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(10):1368-1382
2 Lawley, K. N., Soergel, D. and Huang, X. (2005), Relevance criteria used by teachers in selecting oral history materials. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,42
1 Papaeconomou, C., Zijlema, A.F., Ingwersen, P(2008). Searchers' relevance judgments and criteria in evaluating web pages in a learning style perspective. In Proceedings of IIiX.123-132.
1 Tombros,A., Ruthven,J. Jose,J.M.(2003). Searchers' Criteria For Assessing Web Pages.SIGIR'03 Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in informaion retrieval,385-386
1 Zhang X.M. (2002). Collaborative Relevance Judgment:A Group Consensus Method for Evaluating User Search Performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53(3):220-231
1 Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia information seeking and use situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
2 Barry, C. L(1993). The identification of user relevance criteria and document characteristics:Beyond the topical approach to information retrieval. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
1 Wang, P (1994). A cognitive model of document selection of real users of information retrieval systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Maryland, College of Library and Information Science, College Park, MD
2 Tang, R.,& Solomon, P. (1998). Toward an understanding of the dynamics of relevance judgment:An analysis of one person's search behavior. Information Processing & Management,34(2/3):237-256.
3转引自朱滢.实验心理学.北京：北京大学出版社,2000
1转引自李本乾.描述传播内容特征 检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下).当代传播,2000(1)：47-49
1李本乾.描述传播内容特征 检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下).当代传播,2000(1)：47-49
1贾俊平.统计学.北京：清华大学出版社,2006,第二版
1 Perez-Mira,B(2010). Validity of DeLone and McLean's model of information systems success at the web site level of analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.
2 Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29,3-48
3 Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ:Ablex Publishing.
1 Peiling Wang (2010) Contextualizing User Relevance Criteria:A Meta-ethnographic Approach to User-centered Relevance Studies. Poster Paper IIiX 2010:Information Interaction in Context (New Brunswick, NJ, August 18-22)
1 Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
2 Scholl,H. et al(2011). The TEDS framework for assessing information systems from a human actors' perspective: Extending and repurposing Taylor's Value-Added Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(4):789-804
1 Davis, F.D. (1989). "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology". MIS Quarterly,13 (3), pp.318-340
2 DeLone, W. and McLean, E.(1992). Information System Success:The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information System Research,3(1):60-95
3 Seddon, P.B. (1997). A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success. Information Systems Research,8(3),240-253.
4 Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T., and Kavan, C.B. (1995). Service Quality:A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness. MIS Quarterly,19(2),173-188.
5 DeLone, W. and McLean, E.(2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success:A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems (19:4):9-30
1 Seddon, P.B. (1997). A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success. Information Systems Research,8(3),240-253.
2 DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems,19(4),9-30.
3 Sedera, D. and G. Gable (2004). A Factor and Structural Equation Analysis of the Enterprise Systems Success Measurement Model. International Conference of Information Systems, Washington, D.C.
4 Petter, S., DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.(,2008). Measuring information systems success:models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information System:236～263
1 Petter, S., DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.(,2008). Measuring information systems success:models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information System:236～263
2 Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T., and Kavan, C.B. (1995). Service Quality:A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness. MIS Quarterly,19(2),173-188.
3 DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems,19(4),9-30.
1 Bailey, J.E. and Pearson, S.W(1983). Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction. Management Science,29(5):530-545.
2 Xie, H. (2008). Users' Evaluation of Digital Libraries:Their uses, their criteria, and their assessment. Information Processing & Management,44(3),1346-1373.
3 Wixom, B. H.,& Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research,16(1),85-102.
1 McKinney, V., Yoon, K.,& Zahedi, F. (2002). The measurement of Web-customer satisfaction:An expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research,13(3),296-309
2 Kim,B., Hanb,I.(2011).The role of utilitarian and hedonic values and their antecedents in a mobile data service environment. Expert Systems with Applications,38(3):2311-2318
1 Eyono, S.D.O.(2010).An Information and System Quality Evaluation Framework for Tribal Portals:the Case of Selected Tribal Portals from Cameroon.2010 2nd International Conference on Computer Technology and Development (ICCTD 2010):115-120
2 DAVIS, F.; BAGOZZI, R.; and WARSHAW, R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology:A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science,35:982-1003
3 Venkatesh,V.(2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology:Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3):425-478
4 Hernon, P.,& Calvert, P. J. (2005). E-service quality in libraries:Exploring its features and dimensions. Library & Information Science Research,27,377-404.
5 Tsakonas, G.,& Papatheodorou, C. (2007). Critical constructs of digital library interaction. In Proceedings of 11th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics 1,57-67
1 Moore, G. C., Benbasat I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research,2 (3):173-191.
2 Eyono, S.D.O.(2010).An Information and System Quality Evaluation Framework for Tribal Portals:the Case of Selected Tribal Portals from Cameroon.2010 2nd International Conference on Computer Technology and Development (ICCTD 2010):115-120
3 Compeau, D. R.,& Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy:Development of a measure and initial Test. MIS Quarterly,19(2),189-211.
4 Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A.,& Huff,S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology:A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly,23(2),145-158.
1 Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A.,& Berry, L.L. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing,67(4),420-450.
1吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2000
1侯杰泰等.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004
2吴明隆.结构方程模型:AMOS的操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,第1版,2009
3吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2001,p28-46
1吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2001,p54
1侯杰泰等.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004,p45
2吴明隆.结构方程模型:AMOS的操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,第1版,2009,p44
1 Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B.,& Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly,27(3),425-478.
1甘怡群.心理与行为科学统计.北京：北京大学出版社,2005
1 Ivari, J. (2005). An Empirical Test of the DeLone-McLean Model of Information System Success. The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems,36(2):8-27.
2 Gelderman, M. (2002). Task difficulty, task variability and satisfaction with management support systems. Information & Management 39(7),593-604.
1 Kim J, et al. (2002) Business as buildings:metrics for the architectural quality of internet businesses. Information Systems Research 13(3),239-254.
2 Petter, S., DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.(,2008). Measuring information systems success:models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information System:236～263
3 Kulkarni, U.R., Raviindran, S., Freeze, R. (2006). A knowledge management success model:theoretical development and empirical validation. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(3),309-347
4 Halawi, L.A., Mccarthy, R.V., Aronson, J.E. (2007). An empirical investigation of knowledge-management systems' success. The Journal of Computer Information Systems 48(2),121-135.
5 Kim J, et al. (2002). Business as buildings:metrics for the architectural quality of internet businesses. Information Systems Research 13(3),239-254.
6 Choe, J.M. (1996). The relationships among performance of accounting information systems, influence factors, and evolution level of information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems 12(4):215-239
1 Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46(2),186-204.
2 Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technologyacceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly 24(1),115-149.
3 Straub, D.W., et al. (1995). Measuring system usage:implications for IS theory testing. Management Science 41(8),1328-1342.
4 Goodhue, D.L., Thompson, R. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly 19(2), 213-236.
5 Agarwal, R., Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences 28(3),557-582.
6 Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R., TODD, P.A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology:a replication. MIS Quarterly 16(2),227-247.
7 Rai, A., Lang, S.S., Welker, R.B. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models:an empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information SystemsResearch 13(1),5-69.
8 Halawi, L.A., Mccarthy, R.V., Aronson, J.E. (2007) An empirical investigation of knowledge-management systems' success. The Journal of Computer Information Systems 48(2):121-135.
[1]Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R., Todd, P.A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology:a replication. MIS Quarterly 16(2),227-247.
[2]Agarwal, R., Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences 28(3),557-582.
[3]Bailey, J.E. and Pearson, S.W(1983). Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction. Management Science,29(5):530-545.
[4]Barnes,M.D., et al.(2003). Measuring the Relevance of Evaluation Criteria among Health Information Seekers on the Internet. Journal of Health Psychology,8(1):71-82
[5]Barry, C. L(1993). The identification of user relevance criteria and document characteristics: Beyond the topical approach to information retrieval. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
[6]Barry, C. L. (1994). User-defined relevance criteria:An exploratory study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3):149-159.
[7]Bateman, J. (1998). Modeling changes in end-user relevance criteria:An information seeking study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas
[8]Belkin, N.J., et al(1996). Using relevance feedback and ranking in interactive searching. In D.Harman, ed. TREC-4. Proceedings of the Fourth Text Retrieval Conference (pp.181-209) Washington, D.C.:GPO.
[9]Borlund P(2003). The concept of relevance in IR. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,54(10):913-925
[10]Burton V.T.,Chadwick,S.A. (2000).Investigating the Practices of Student Researchers: Patterns of Use and Criteria for Use of Internet and Library Sources Computers and Composition 17,309-328
[11]Bush,V(1945). As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly,1945, July:101-108.
[12]Choe, J.M. (1996). The relationships among performance of accounting information systems, influence factors, and evolution level of information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems 12(4):215-239
[13]Compeau, D. R.,& Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy:Development of a measure and initial Test. MIS Quarterly,19(2),189-211.
[14]Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A.,& Huff,S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology:A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly,23(2),145-158.
[15]Cool, C., Belkin, N. J.,& Kantor, P. B. (1993). Characteristics of texts affecting relevance judgments. In M. E. Williams, Proceedings of the 14th National Online Meeting,77-84 Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc
[16]Cooper, W. S(1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness,part 2:Implementation of the philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(6):413-424
[17]Cooper, W.S (1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness, part 1:The subjective philosophy of evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,24(2):87-100
[18]Crystal, A., Jane Greenberg. (2006) Relevance Criteria Identified by Health Information Users During Web Searches. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(10):1368-1382
[19]Cuadra, C. A.,& Katter, R. V. (1967). Opening the black box of relevance. Journal of Documentation,23(4),291-303.
[20]Cuadra, C.A.,& Katter, R.V. (1967). Experimental studies of relevance judgments final report, volume 1:Project summary. Cleveland, OH:Case Western Reserve University, School of Library Science, Center for Documentation and Communication Research
[21]DAVIS, R; BAGOZZI, R.; and WARSHAW, R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology:A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science,35:982-1003
[22]Davis, F.D. (1989). "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology". MIS Quarterly,13 (3), pp.318-340
[23]DeLone, W. and McLean, E.(1992). Information System Success:The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information System Research,3(1):60-95
[24]DeLone, W. and McLean, E.(2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success:A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems (19:4):9-30
[25]Eisenberg, M.,& Barry, C. (1988). Order effects:A study of the possible influences of presentation order on user judgment of document relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,39:293-300.
[26]Eyono, S.D.O.(2010).An Information and System Quality Evaluation Framework for Tribal Portals:the Case of Selected Tribal Portals from Cameroon.2010 2nd International Conference on Computer Technology and Development (ICCTD 2010):115-120
[27]Fleiss, JL, Gross, AJ (1991). Meta-analysis in epidemiology, with special reference to studies of the association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer:a critique. J Clin Epidemiol 2:127-139
[28]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(3):124-133
[29]Gelderman, M. (2002). Task difficulty, task variability and satisfaction with management support systems. Information & Management 39(7),593-604.
[30]Goffman, W (1964). On relevance as a measure. Information Storage and Retrieval,2(3), 201-203.
[31]Goffman, W., Newill, V.A (1966). Methodology for test and evaluation of information retrieval systems. Information Storage and Retrieval,3(1),19-25.
[32]Goodhue, D.L., Thompson, R. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly 19(2),213-236.
[33]Goodrum, A., Pope, R., Godo, E. and Thom, J. (2010), Newsblog relevance:Applying relevance criteria to news-related blogs. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,47:1-2
[34]Halawi, L.A., Mccarthy, R.V., Aronson, J.E. (2007) An empirical investigation of knowledge-management systems'success. The Journalof Computer Information Systems 48(2): 121-135.
[35]Harter, P(1992). Psychological relevance and information science. Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science,43(9):602-615
[36]Harter,S.P.,Hert,C.A.(1997). Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems:Approaches, Issues, and Methods. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST),32, ed. Martha E. Williams,New York:Interscience Publishers,8-13
[37]Hernon, P.,& Calvert, P. J. (2005). E-service quality in libraries:Exploring its features and dimensions. Library & Information Science Research,27,377-404.
[38]Hirsh, S. G. (1999), Children's relevance criteria and information seeking on electronic resources. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,50:1265-1283
[39]Howard, D. L. (1994). Pertinence as reflected in personal constructs. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45,172-185.
[40]Ingwersen, P. Information retrieval interaction. London:Tayler Graham Publishing,1992
[41]Inskip,C., MacFarlane, A., Rafferty,P. (2010). Creative professional users' musical relevance criteria. J. Information Science 36(4):517-529
[42]Ivari, J. (2005). An Empirical Test of the DeLone-McLean Model of Information System Success. The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems,36(2):8-27.
[43]Janes, J. W. (1991). Relevance judgments and the incremental presentation of document representations. Information Processing & Management,27(6),629-646.
[44]Janes, J. W. (1991). The binary nature of continuous relevance judgments:A case study of users'perceptions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,42(10),754-756.
[45]Janes, J. W. (1994). Other people's judgments:A comparison of user's and other's judgments of document relevance, topicality, and utility. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,45(3),160-171.
[46]Janes, J.W., McKinney, R. (1992). Relevance judgments of actual users and secondary judgers:a comparative study. Library quarterly,62(2):150-168
[47]Kim J, et al. (2002) Business as buildings:metrics for the architectural quality of internet businesses. Information Systems Research 13(3),239-254.
[48]Kim, S., Oh, J.& Oh, S. (2007) Best-Answer Selection Criteria in a Social Q&A site from the User Oriented Relevance Perspective. Proceeding of the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,44 (1):1-15
[49]Kim,B., Hanb,I.(2011).The role of utilitarian and hedonic values and their antecedents in a mobile data service environment. Expert Systems with Applications,38(3):2311-2318
[50]Kinnucan, M.T.(1992). The size of retrieval sets. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,43:29-72.
[51]Kuhlthau, C. C(1993). Seeking meaning:a process approach to library and information services. Norwood, NJ:Ablex Publishing
[52]Kulkarni, U.R., Raviindran, S., Freeze, R. (2006). A knowledge management success model: theoretical development and empirical validation. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(3),309-347
[53]Lancaster, F. W(1979). Information retrieval systems:Characteristics,testing and evaluation. New York:John Wiley & Sons
[54]Lawley, K. N., Soergel, D. and Huang, X. (2005), Relevance criteria used by teachers in selecting oral history materials. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,42
[55]Leonard, L.E(1975). Inter-indexer consistency and retrieval effectiveness:Measurement and relationship. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Illinois, IL
[56]Liddy, E.D(1990). Anaphora in natural language processing and information retrieval. Information Processing & Management,26(1):39--52
[57]Maglaughlin, K. L. and Sonnenwald, D. H. (2002), User perspectives on relevance criteria:A comparison among relevant, partially relevant, and not-relevant judgments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53:327-342.
[58]Markey, K(1984). Interindexer consistency tests:A literature review and report of a test of consistency in indexing visual materials. Library and information science research, (6):155～177
[59]Maron, M.E., Kuhns, J.L (1960). On relevance, probabilistic indexing, and information retrieval. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery,7(3),216-244.
[60]McKinney, V., Yoon, K.,& Zahedi, F. (2002). The measurement of Web-customer satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research,13(3),296-309
[61]Mellon, C.A.(1990).Naturalistic Inquiry for Library Science:Methods and Applications for Research, Evaluation, and Teaching. New York:Greenwood Press,1990
[62]Meng,Y.(2005).An exploration of users' video relevance criteria. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
[63]Metzler,P.et. al(1990). Conjunction,ellipsis, and other discontinuous constituents in the Constituent Object Parser. Information Processing & Management,26(1):53-71
[64]Mizzaro, S (1997). Relevance:The whole history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,48(9):810-832
[65]Mizzaro, S(1998). How many relevances in information retrieval.Interacting with Computers,(10):303-320
[66]Moore, G. C., Benbasat I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research,2 (3):173-191.
[67]Nilan, M.S., Peek, R.P., Snyder, H.W. (1988). A methodology for tapping user evaluation behaviors:An exploration of users'strategy, source and information evaluating. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science,152-159. Medford, NJ:Learned Information.
[68]Papaeconomou, C., Zijlema, A.F., Ingwersen, P (2008). Searchers' relevance judgments and criteria in evaluating web pages in a learning style perspective. In Proceedings of IIiX.123-132.
[69]Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A.,& Berry, L.L. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing,67(4),420-450.
[70]Park, T. K (1993). The nature of relevance in information retrieval:An empirical study. Library Quarterly,63(3):318-351
[71]Park, T.K (1992). The nature of relevance in information retrieval:An empirical study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington,IN
[72]Perez-Mira,B(2010). Validity of DeLone and McLean's model of information systems success at the web site level of analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.
[73]Petter, S., DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.(,2008). Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information System: 236-263
[74]Pitt, L.F., Watson, R.T., and Kavan, C.B. (1995). Service Quality:A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness. MIS Quarterly,19(2),173-188.
[75]Rai, A., Lang, S.S., Welker, R.B. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models:an empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information SystemsResearch 13(1),5-69.
[76]Rees, A. M.,& Schulz, D. G. (1967). A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching (2 vols., NSF Contract No. C-423). Center for Documentation and Communication Research, School of Library Science, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
[77]Rees, A.M.,& Schultz, D.G. (1967). A field experimental approach to the study of relevance assessments in relation to document searching:Final report:Volume 1. Cleveland, OH:Case Western Reserve University, School of Library Science, Center for Documentation and Communication Research
[78]Reijo Savolainen, Jarkko Kari, (2006).User-defined relevance criteria in web searching. Journal of Documentation,62(6):685-707
[79]Salton G(1989). Automatic Text Processing:The Transformation, Analysis, and Retrieval of Information by Computer. Addison-Wesley
[80]Salton, G. Buckley, C., Smith, M(1990). On the application of syntactic methodologies in automatic text analysis. Information Processing & management,26(1):73～92
[81]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
[82]Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part Ⅱ:nature and manifestations of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(3),1915-1933.
[83]Saracevic, T. (2007). Relevance:A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part Ⅲ:Behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,58(13),2126-2144.
[84]Saracevic, T. Relevance Reconsidered'96. In P. Ingwersen,& N.O. Pors, Proceedings of CoLIS 2, second international conference on conceptions of library and information science: Integration in perspective, Copenhagen,1996.201-218. Copenhagen:Royal School of Librarianship
[85]Schamber, L. (1991). Users' criteria for evaluation in a multimedia information seeking and use situation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
[86]Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,29,3-48
[87]Schamber, L.,& Bateman, J. (1996.) User criteria in relevance evaluation; Toward development of a measurement scale. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Baltimore, MD 218-225. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
[88]Schamber, L.,et. Al (1990). A re-examination of relevance:Toward a dynamic, situational definition. Information Processing & Management,26(6):755-775
[89]Scholl,H. et al(2011). The TEDS framework for assessing information systems from a human actors' perspective:Extending and repurposing Taylor's Value-Added Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(4):789-804
[90]Seddon, P.B. (1997). A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success. Information Systems Research,8(3),240-253.
[91]Sedera, D. and G. Gable (2004). A Factor and Structural Equation Analysis of the Enterprise Systems Success Measurement Model. International Conference of Information Systems, Washington, D.C.
[92]Sedghia, S., Sandersona, M., Clougha,P(2008). A study on the relevance criteria for medical images.Pattern Recognition Letters,29(15):2046-2057
[93]Sperber, D., Wilson, D. Relevance:Communication and Cognition北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2001, Second Edition
[94]Spink, A., Greisdorf, H., Bateman, J. (1998). Examining different regions of relevance:From highly relevant to not relevant. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Columbus, OH,3-12. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
[95]Straub, D.W., et al. (1995). Measuring system usage:implications for IS theory testing. Management Science 41(8),1328-1342.
[96]Su, L.T. (1993). Is relevance an adequate criterion for retrieval system evaluation:An empirical inquiry into user's evaluation. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science,93-103. Medford, NJ:Learned Information, Inc.
[97]Tang, R.,& Solomon, P. (1998). Toward an understanding of the dynamics of relevance judgment:An analysis of one person's search behavior. Information Processing & Management, 34(2/3):237-256.
[98]Tang,R. Solomon,P. (2001). Use of relevance criteria across stages of document evaluation: On the complementarity of experimental and naturalistic studies. JASIST 52(8):676-685
[99]Taube M. et al(1952). Unit Terms in Coordinate Indexing. American Documentation,3(4): 213-218
[100]Taylor, A. R., Cool, C., Belkin, N. J.,& Amadio, W. J. (2007). Relationships between Categories of Relevance Criteria and Stage in Task Completion. Information Processing and Management,43 (4),1071-1084.
[101]Taylor, A.R., Zhang, X.,& Amadio, W.J. (2009). Examination of Relevance Criteria Choices and the Information Search Process. Journal of Documentation.
[102]Taylor, R. S. (1986). Value-added processes in information systems. Norwood, NJ:Ablex Publishing.
[103]Tombros,A., Ruthven,I. Jose,J.M.(2003). Searchers' Criteria For Assessing Web Pages.SIGIR'03 Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in informaion retrieval,385-386
[104]Tsakonas, G.,& Papatheodorou, C. (2007). Critical constructs of digital library interaction. In Proceedings of 11th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics 1,57-67
[105]Vakkari, P.& Hakala, N (2000). Changes in Relevance Criteria and problem Stages in Task Performance. Journal of Documentation 56 (5),540-562
[106]Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46(2),186-204.
[107]Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B.,& Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology:Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly,27(3),425-478.
[108]Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technologyacceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly 24(1), 115-149.
[109]Wang, P (1994). A cognitive model of document selection of real users of information retrieval systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Maryland, College of Library and Information Science, College Park, MD
[110]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):98-114
[111]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,1998,49(2):115-133
[112]Wang, P.L.(2010) Contextualizing User Relevance Criteria:A Meta-ethnographic Approach to User-centered Relevance Studies. Poster Paper IIiX 2010:Information Interaction in Context (New Brunswick, NJ, August 18-22)
[113]Westbrook, L.(2001).Faculty Relevance Criteria:Internalized User Needs. Library Trends, 50(2):197-206
[114]Wilson, P(1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval,9:457-469
[115]Wilson, T. D. (1997). Information behaviour:an inter-disciplinary perspective. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen and B. Dervin (Eds.). Information seeking in context:proceedings of an international conference on research in information needs, seeking and use in different contexts. Tampere, Finland:14 August 1996-16 August 1996. (pp.39-50). London:Taylor Graham
[116]Wixom, B. H.,& Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research,16(1),85-102.
[117]Xie, H. (2008). Users' Evaluation of Digital Libraries:Their uses, their criteria, and their assessment. Information Processing & Management,44(3),1346-1373.
[118]Zhang X.M. (2002). Collaborative Relevance Judgment:A Group Consensus Method for Evaluating User Search Performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53(3):220-231
[119]成颖,孙建军,巢乃鹏.信息检索中的相关性模型.图书情报工作,2004(12)：46-50
[120]成颖,孙建军,宋玲丽.相关性判据研究.中国图书馆学报,2005,31(3)：55-60
[121]成颖,孙建军.信息检索中的相关性研究.情报学报,2004(6)：689-6965
[122]风笑天.现代社会调查方法.武汉：华中科技大学出版社,2005
[123]甘怡群.心理与行为科学统计.北京：北京大学出版社,2005
[124]侯杰泰等.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004
[125]黄慕萱.资讯检索中“相关”概念之研究。台湾：学生书局,1996
[126]黄雪玲.信息检索中“相关”概念与“相关”判断.美国信息科学学会台北学生分会会讯,6(6)：84-106
[127]贾俊平.统计学.北京：清华大学出版社,2006,第二版
[128]康耀红.相关性及排序原则.情报理论与实践,1990,(4)：7-9
[129]李本乾.描述传播内容特征检验传播研究假设：内容分析法简介(下).当代传播,2000(1)：47-49
[130]李国秋,吕斌.检索相关性研究的发展.情报理论与实践,1996,(2)：56-59
[131]梁战平.我国科技情报研究的探索与发展.情报探索,2007,(7)：3-7
[132]马费成.论情报学的基本原理及理论体系构建.情报学报,2007,26(1)：3-13
[133]屈鹏等.国际情报学研究主题的聚类分析——基于1996-2003年的LISA数据库.情报学报,2007,26(6)：909-917
[134]孙绍荣论试验方法在情报学理论建设中的作用：美国的相关性试验的启示情报理论与实践.1989,(2)：9-10
[135]孙绍荣.美国的文献相关性试验评介.情报业务研究,1989,(2)：137-140
[136]王家钺.信息检索中相关性概念的研究.现代外语,2001(2)：181-191
[137]吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2000
[138]吴明隆.结构方程模型:AMOS的操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,第1版,2009
[139]张新民等.相关性研究探析.情报学报,2008,27(5)：691-697
[140]朱滢.实验心理学.北京：北京大学出版社,2000