Measuring a Model on Credibility Evaluation of Scientific Websites: Exploring Relationships and Priorities

IF 1.9 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE New Review of Academic Librarianship Pub Date : 2021-05-05 DOI:10.1080/13614533.2021.1925713
H. Keshavarz, Y. Norouzi
{"title":"Measuring a Model on Credibility Evaluation of Scientific Websites: Exploring Relationships and Priorities","authors":"H. Keshavarz, Y. Norouzi","doi":"10.1080/13614533.2021.1925713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Owing to the extreme importance of evaluating the credibility of existing scientific websites, the present study sets out to measure a proposed model concerning the views and preferences of university students in Iran, when evaluating information. Data were collected by administrating a highly validated questionnaire among 487 students in ten top universities in Iran. Structural Equating Modelling using software SmartPLS was conducted to analyse the data collected. To evaluate the measurement and structural models, a set of criteria including Cronbach's alpha, factor loadings, convergent and divergent validities, R2 , Q2 , redundancy, and GoF were considered to measure the power and validity of the model. Considering the path coefficients and the t-statistic for the dimensions and their components, path analysis showed that the t-statistic is greater than 2.57 indicating that all of the constructs contributed to the credibility of information on scientific websites at 99% confidence level. Coefficients of correlation concerning the overall information credibility were found to be 0.728 for trustworthiness and 0.718 for expertise. Expertise with a path coefficient of 0.968 and trustworthiness with 0.948 were the first and second priorities for the main variable. Moreover, ethics with a path coefficient of 0.787 and objectivity with 0.464 were the first and last priorities for trustworthiness respectively while accuracy with 0.874 and professional information with 0.674 were the first and last priorities for the dimension expertise respectively. The model could be used to evaluate the credibility of scientific websites’ information, which also provides a potential set for further research.","PeriodicalId":38971,"journal":{"name":"New Review of Academic Librarianship","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13614533.2021.1925713","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Review of Academic Librarianship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2021.1925713","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Owing to the extreme importance of evaluating the credibility of existing scientific websites, the present study sets out to measure a proposed model concerning the views and preferences of university students in Iran, when evaluating information. Data were collected by administrating a highly validated questionnaire among 487 students in ten top universities in Iran. Structural Equating Modelling using software SmartPLS was conducted to analyse the data collected. To evaluate the measurement and structural models, a set of criteria including Cronbach's alpha, factor loadings, convergent and divergent validities, R2 , Q2 , redundancy, and GoF were considered to measure the power and validity of the model. Considering the path coefficients and the t-statistic for the dimensions and their components, path analysis showed that the t-statistic is greater than 2.57 indicating that all of the constructs contributed to the credibility of information on scientific websites at 99% confidence level. Coefficients of correlation concerning the overall information credibility were found to be 0.728 for trustworthiness and 0.718 for expertise. Expertise with a path coefficient of 0.968 and trustworthiness with 0.948 were the first and second priorities for the main variable. Moreover, ethics with a path coefficient of 0.787 and objectivity with 0.464 were the first and last priorities for trustworthiness respectively while accuracy with 0.874 and professional information with 0.674 were the first and last priorities for the dimension expertise respectively. The model could be used to evaluate the credibility of scientific websites’ information, which also provides a potential set for further research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科学网站可信度评估模型之测量:关系与优先级之探讨
由于评估现有科学网站的可信度非常重要,本研究旨在衡量伊朗大学生在评估信息时的观点和偏好的拟议模型。通过对伊朗10所顶尖大学的487名学生进行高度有效的问卷调查来收集数据。利用SmartPLS软件进行结构方程建模,对收集到的数据进行分析。为了评估测量和结构模型,考虑了一组标准,包括Cronbach's alpha,因子负荷,收敛和发散效度,R2, Q2,冗余和GoF,以衡量模型的有效性和效度。考虑各维度及其组成部分的路径系数和t统计量,通径分析显示,t统计量大于2.57,表明所有构建对科学网站信息可信度的贡献达到99%的置信水平。整体信息可信度的相关系数发现可信度为0.728,专业知识为0.718。路径系数为0.968的专业知识和0.948的可信度是主变量的第一和第二优先事项。诚信维度的路径系数为0.787,客观性维度的路径系数为0.464,准确性维度的路径系数为0.874,专业信息维度的路径系数为0.674,诚信维度的路径系数为0.787,客观性维度的路径系数为0.464。该模型可用于评估科学网站信息的可信度,也为进一步的研究提供了一个潜在的集合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
New Review of Academic Librarianship
New Review of Academic Librarianship Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Acquisition Management in the University Libraries of Pakistan: A Provincial Perspective Collaboration Between an Academic Library and Library Association in Jamaica: Digitization of the Association’s Publication Engaging to Empower: Honouring Student Sentiment and Voices to Implement a Holistic Approach in Creating an Inclusive and anti-Racist Library University of Cape Coast Doctoral Students’ Use of Mobile Devices to Seek Information Wellbeing Collections in UK Academic Libraries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1