同义词概念模型验证的眼动追踪实验

IF 4.1 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS International Journal of Accounting Information Systems Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100578
Walter R. Boot , Cheryl L. Dunn , Bachman P. Fulmer , Gregory J. Gerard , Severin V. Grabski
{"title":"同义词概念模型验证的眼动追踪实验","authors":"Walter R. Boot ,&nbsp;Cheryl L. Dunn ,&nbsp;Bachman P. Fulmer ,&nbsp;Gregory J. Gerard ,&nbsp;Severin V. Grabski","doi":"10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A key advantage of conceptual models is that their quality can be evaluated and validated before beginning the costlier stages of information system development. Few research studies investigate the validation process for such models, particularly regarding multiplicities, even though multiplicity mistakes can be very costly. We investigated the validation of conceptual model multiplicities, varying how closely natural language statements of business rules match the models that purport to represent those rules. Participants in an eye tracking experiment completed validation tasks in which they viewed a statement and an accompanying UML class diagram in which a specified multiplicity was consistent with the statement (valid) or inconsistent with the statement (invalid). We varied whether the focal multiplicity was a minimum or a maximum and varied the class diagram’s semantics and order compared to that of the statement. Logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between accuracy and the experimental manipulations and controls. The results show that the odds of accuracy in validating class diagrams that used synonyms instead of the exact statement terminology were only 0.46 times the odds of accuracy when the class diagram and statement words matched, showing a costly effect of synonymy. Interestingly, independent of the three levels of relative semantics, the odds of accuracy were 0.48 times when class diagrams were consistent with business rules as they were when class diagrams were inconsistent with business rules. To gain insight into cognition under correct task performance, we conducted additional linear regression analysis on various eye tracking metrics for only the accurate responses. Again, synonymy was observed to be costly, with a cognitive burden of increased integrative transitions between statement and model in the range of 39 to 66%.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47170,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Accounting Information Systems","volume":"47 ","pages":"Article 100578"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An eye tracking experiment investigating synonymy in conceptual model validation\",\"authors\":\"Walter R. Boot ,&nbsp;Cheryl L. Dunn ,&nbsp;Bachman P. Fulmer ,&nbsp;Gregory J. Gerard ,&nbsp;Severin V. Grabski\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100578\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>A key advantage of conceptual models is that their quality can be evaluated and validated before beginning the costlier stages of information system development. Few research studies investigate the validation process for such models, particularly regarding multiplicities, even though multiplicity mistakes can be very costly. We investigated the validation of conceptual model multiplicities, varying how closely natural language statements of business rules match the models that purport to represent those rules. Participants in an eye tracking experiment completed validation tasks in which they viewed a statement and an accompanying UML class diagram in which a specified multiplicity was consistent with the statement (valid) or inconsistent with the statement (invalid). We varied whether the focal multiplicity was a minimum or a maximum and varied the class diagram’s semantics and order compared to that of the statement. Logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between accuracy and the experimental manipulations and controls. The results show that the odds of accuracy in validating class diagrams that used synonyms instead of the exact statement terminology were only 0.46 times the odds of accuracy when the class diagram and statement words matched, showing a costly effect of synonymy. Interestingly, independent of the three levels of relative semantics, the odds of accuracy were 0.48 times when class diagrams were consistent with business rules as they were when class diagrams were inconsistent with business rules. To gain insight into cognition under correct task performance, we conducted additional linear regression analysis on various eye tracking metrics for only the accurate responses. Again, synonymy was observed to be costly, with a cognitive burden of increased integrative transitions between statement and model in the range of 39 to 66%.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Accounting Information Systems\",\"volume\":\"47 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100578\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Accounting Information Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467089522000306\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Accounting Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467089522000306","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

概念模型的一个关键优点是,它们的质量可以在开始昂贵的信息系统开发阶段之前进行评估和验证。很少有研究调查这些模型的验证过程,特别是关于多重性,尽管多重性错误可能代价非常高昂。我们研究了概念模型多样性的验证,改变了业务规则的自然语言语句与声称表示这些规则的模型的匹配程度。眼球追踪实验的参与者完成了验证任务,他们在其中查看一个语句和伴随的UML类图,其中指定的多重性与语句一致(有效)或不一致(无效)。我们改变了焦点多重性是最小还是最大,并改变了类图与语句的语义和顺序。采用Logistic回归分析了准确度与实验操作和控制之间的关系。结果表明,当类图和语句词匹配时,使用同义词而不是确切的语句术语验证类图的准确率只有类图和语句词匹配时的0.46倍,这显示了同义词带来的代价高昂的影响。有趣的是,独立于三个相对语义级别,类图与业务规则一致时的准确率是类图与业务规则不一致时的0.48倍。为了深入了解正确任务执行下的认知,我们对各种眼动追踪指标进行了额外的线性回归分析,仅针对准确的反应。再一次,同义被观察到是昂贵的,在陈述和模型之间增加的整合转换的认知负担在39%到66%的范围内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
An eye tracking experiment investigating synonymy in conceptual model validation

A key advantage of conceptual models is that their quality can be evaluated and validated before beginning the costlier stages of information system development. Few research studies investigate the validation process for such models, particularly regarding multiplicities, even though multiplicity mistakes can be very costly. We investigated the validation of conceptual model multiplicities, varying how closely natural language statements of business rules match the models that purport to represent those rules. Participants in an eye tracking experiment completed validation tasks in which they viewed a statement and an accompanying UML class diagram in which a specified multiplicity was consistent with the statement (valid) or inconsistent with the statement (invalid). We varied whether the focal multiplicity was a minimum or a maximum and varied the class diagram’s semantics and order compared to that of the statement. Logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between accuracy and the experimental manipulations and controls. The results show that the odds of accuracy in validating class diagrams that used synonyms instead of the exact statement terminology were only 0.46 times the odds of accuracy when the class diagram and statement words matched, showing a costly effect of synonymy. Interestingly, independent of the three levels of relative semantics, the odds of accuracy were 0.48 times when class diagrams were consistent with business rules as they were when class diagrams were inconsistent with business rules. To gain insight into cognition under correct task performance, we conducted additional linear regression analysis on various eye tracking metrics for only the accurate responses. Again, synonymy was observed to be costly, with a cognitive burden of increased integrative transitions between statement and model in the range of 39 to 66%.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Accounting Information Systems will publish thoughtful, well developed articles that examine the rapidly evolving relationship between accounting and information technology. Articles may range from empirical to analytical, from practice-based to the development of new techniques, but must be related to problems facing the integration of accounting and information technology. The journal will address (but will not limit itself to) the following specific issues: control and auditability of information systems; management of information technology; artificial intelligence research in accounting; development issues in accounting and information systems; human factors issues related to information technology; development of theories related to information technology; methodological issues in information technology research; information systems validation; human–computer interaction research in accounting information systems. The journal welcomes and encourages articles from both practitioners and academicians.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Bridging the gap in talent: A framework for interdisciplinary research on autism spectrum disorder persons in accounting and information systems A scoping review of ChatGPT research in accounting and finance Digital transformation voluntary disclosure: Insights from leading European companies Understanding cybersecurity breach contagion effects: The role of the loss heuristic and internal controls
×
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