Journal of Information and Knowledge (Formerly SRELS Journal of Information Management)

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Assessing Information Search by Task Outcome


Affiliations
1 Tampere University, FIN-33014, Finland
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


People do not search information as such but seek to get a job done or to manage a situation by the help of search results. Therefore, the ultimate goal of information search is to advance task performance. It should be evaluated accordingly, i.e. by its contribution to task outcome. This implies an extended notion of search process, which also covers the use of information in search results for task outcome. For measuring the effect of search to task outcome we propose both indirect and direct indicators which measure search success.

Keywords

Information Seeking, Information Search Model, Knowledge Structures, Measuring Search Outcome.
User
About The Author

Pertti Vakkari
Tampere University, FIN-33014
Finland


Notifications

  • Budzik, N. and Hammond, K. (2000). User interactions with everyday applications as context for just-in-time information access. In Proc. UIU’00 (pp. 44-51). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/325737.325776

  • Cooper, W. S. (1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness. JASIST, 24( 2), 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240204

  • Harter, S. (1992). Psychological relevance and information science. JASIST, 43(9), 602-615. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199210)43:9<602::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-Q

  • Hersh, W., Pentecost, J. and Hickam D. (1996). A taskoriented approch to information retrieval. JASIST, 47(1), 50-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199601)47:1<50::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-1

  • Ja¨rvelin, K., Vakkari, P., Arvola, P, Baskaya, F., J¨arvelin, A., Kek¨ala¨inen, J., Keskustalo, H., Kumpulainen, S., Saastamoinen, M., Savolainen, R. and Sormunen, E. (2015). Task-based information interaction evaluation: The viewpoint of program theory. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 33(1), 3:1-3:30. https://doi.org/10.1145/2699660

  • Kekäläinen J. and Järvelin, K. (2002). Evaluating information retrieval systems under the challenges of interaction and multi-dimensional dynamic relevance. In Proc. CoLIS4 (pp. 253-270).

  • Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge UP, Cambridge. Lancaster, W. and Warner A. (1993). Information retrieval today. Arlington, VA: Information Resources Press.

  • Liu, M., Liu, Y., Mao, X., Luo, C., Zhang, M. and Ma, S. (2018), “Satisfaction with failure” or “unsatisfied success”: Investigating the relationship between search success and user satisfaction. In Proc. WWW2018 (1533-1542). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186065

  • Rees, A. (1967). Evaluation of information systems and services. ARIST, 2, 63-86.

  • Rossi, P., Lipsey, M. and Freeman, H. (2004). Evaluation. A systematic approach. 7th ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

  • Rubin R. J. (2006). Demonstrating results using outcome measurement in your library. Chicago: ALA.

  • Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.

  • Syed, R. and Collins-Thompson, K. (2017). Retrieval algorithms optimized for human learning. In Proc. SIGIR’17 (pp. 555-564). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi. org/10.1145/3077136.3080835

  • Tague-Sutcliffe, J. (1995). Measuring information. Academic Press, San Diego. Vakkari, P. (1999). Task complexity, problem structure and information actions. IP&M, 35, 819-837. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00028-X

  • Vakkari, P. (2003). Task-based information searching. ARIST 2003, vol. 37. Medford, NJ: Information Today, p. 413-464. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370110

  • Vakkari, P. (2010). Exploratory searching as conceptual exploration. In: Proc. of 4th Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction and Information Retrieval (pp. 24-27). New Brunswick, NJ. Vakkari, P. (2020). The Usefulness of search results. A Systematization of types and predictors. In Proc. CHIIR2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3343413.3377955

  • Vakkari, P., Völske, M., Potthast, M., Hagen, M. and Stein, B. (2019). Modeling the usefulness of search results as measured by information use. IPM, 56(3), 879-894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.02.001

  • Wildemuth, B.M., de Bliek, R., Friedman, C.P. and File, D.D. (1995). Medical students’ personal knowledge, searching proficiency, and database use in problem solving. JASIST, 46(8), 590-607.https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199509)46:8<590::AID-ASI7>3.0.CO;2-#

  • Yu, R., Gadiraju, U., Holtz, P., Rokicki, M., Kemkes, P. and Dietze, S. (2018). Predicting user knowledge gain in informational search sessions. In Proc. SIGIR’18 (pp. 75-84). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209978.3210064 Conference Name:ACM Woodstock conference


Abstract Views: 245

PDF Views: 7




  • Assessing Information Search by Task Outcome

Abstract Views: 245  |  PDF Views: 7

Authors

Pertti Vakkari
Tampere University, FIN-33014, Finland

Abstract


People do not search information as such but seek to get a job done or to manage a situation by the help of search results. Therefore, the ultimate goal of information search is to advance task performance. It should be evaluated accordingly, i.e. by its contribution to task outcome. This implies an extended notion of search process, which also covers the use of information in search results for task outcome. For measuring the effect of search to task outcome we propose both indirect and direct indicators which measure search success.

Keywords


Information Seeking, Information Search Model, Knowledge Structures, Measuring Search Outcome.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.17821/srels%2F2023%2Fv60i1%2F170893