Models and Approaches of Digital Library Quality Performance Assessment

Document Type : Research َ Article

Authors

1 PhD Candidate, Knowledge and Information Science, Babol Branch, Islamic Azad University, Babol Branch, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Knowledge and Information Science, Babol Branch, Islamic Azad University, Babol Branch, Iran

Abstract

Purpose: To review quality models and approaches to digital library performance.
Methodology: This article is an overview article. The library method is used by searching and retrieval tools on the web to collect scientific and research documents in this field. As the literature related to the measurement of the quality of digital library services, including research and review, was searched on the scientific databases of Science Direct, Gesture, Emerald, Scopus and Google Scholar, during the years 2000 - 2018. The articles were selected based on qualitative criteria based on purpose, evaluation and final articles. Of the 66, 735 original articles retrieved, 18 articles had qualitative criteria. Endnote software has been used to integrate search results. To validate the results, a specialist was used other than the research team.
Findings: A number of approaches have been suggested in the literature for evaluating digital libraries. The performance of digital libraries is a qualitative assessment of the functionality of the digital libraries as a combination of three general categories of Usability, functionality and accessibility. The results show that research carried out in the main dimensions of digital library service quality assessment is in the dimension of Usability and accessibility with a frequency of 33% and then the function with a frequency of 28%, and in the sub component of reliability dimension with percentage The prevalence of 38% has the highest frequency, and privacy with a frequency of 16% has the lowest frequency, which indicates the vacuums and dispersion of research done in this direction.
Conclusion: A combination of three indictors, ie Usability, functionality and accessibility serve best to for evaluating the performance of in digital environments.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

اردکانی، سعید؛ طاهری دمنه، محسن؛ و منصوری، حسین (1388). ارزیابی خدمات الکترونیکی کتابخانه با استفاده از مدل ای کوآل مورد مطالعه: کتابخانه‌های دانشگاه یزد. مطالعات کتابداری و علم اطلاعات (مجله علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی) 16 (1)، 4-5.
اسفندیاری مقدم، علیرضا؛ بیات، بهروز (1387). کتابخانه‌های دیجیتال: پژوهش‌های ارزیابی‌محور. مباحث و ملاحظات. کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، 11 (3)، 207-240.
پاپی، زینب (1386). ارزیابی کیفی وب‌سایتهای کتابخانه‌های دانشگاهی دانشگاههای دولتی ایران به منظور ارائه پیشنهادهایی درجهت ارتقاء کیفیت آنها. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، اهواز.
جعفربگلو، مریم؛ حمیدی، محسن؛ انوری، شاپور؛ و فامیل روحانی، سیدعلی‌اکبر (1393). ارزیابی کیفیت خدمات کتابخانه‌های‏ دیجیتال براساس الگوی دیجی‌کوال (مورد مطالعه: کتابخانۀ‏ دیجیتال دانشگاه تهران). پژوهش‌های کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی دانشگاهی، 48 (2)، 309-324.
سلامی، مریم؛ میری، انیس (1394). مطالعه تأثیر کیفیت ساختاری و محتوایی وب‌سایت کتابخانه‌های عمومی بر رضایت و وفاداری الکترونیکی کاربران. کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، 18 (2)، 167-185.
سیادتی، لیلاسادات؛ مؤمنی، عصمت؛ و علیپورحافظی، مهدی (1396). تحلیل مفهومی الگوی دیجی‌کوال براساس چارچوب نظری پنج –اس. مطالعات دانش‌شناسی، 3 (11)، 59-76.
یوسف‌زاده نجدی تبریز، الهام؛ صنعت‌جو، اعظم (1394). سنجش کیفیت خدمات الکترونیکی کتابخانه‌های دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد از دیدگاه کتابداران و دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی برپایه مدل تلفیقی لیب‌کوال، دیجی‌کوال و ای‌اس‌کوال. پژوهشنامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، 5 ( 2 )، 107-126.
نائیچ، الهام؛ نوروزی، یعقوب؛ حمیدی، محسن (1391). دیجی‌کوال ابزاری برای سنجش کیفیت کتابخانه‌های دیجیتال: مطالعه موردی در کتابخانه دیجیتال دانشگاه آزاداسلامی واحد بروجرد از دیدگاه کاربران. دانش‌شناسی، 5 (17)، 85-104.
‎Ahmad, M., & Abawajy, J. H. (2014). Digital library service quality assessment model. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 129, 571-580.
Bawden, D., & Vilar, P. (2006). Digital libraries: to meet or manage user expectations. AslibProceedings: New Information Perspectives, 58 (4), 346-354.
Bertot, J. C. et al. (2006). Functionality, usability and accessibility: Interactive user-centered evaluation strategies for digital libraries. Performance Management and Metrics, 7 (1), 17-28.
Calvert, P. J. (2008). Assessing the effectiveness and quality of libraries. PhD Dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington.
Carvalho, S., & White, H. (2004). Theory-based evaluation: the case of social funds. American journal of evaluation, 25 (2), 141-160.
Dalrymple, P. W., & Zweizig, D. L. (1992). Users' experiences of information retrieval systems: an exploration of the relationship between search experience and affective measures. Library and Information Science Research, 14 (2) 167-181.
Debattista, J., Lange, C., Auer, S., & Cortis, D. (2018). Evaluating the quality of the LOD cloud: an empirical investigation. Semantic Web, 9 (6), 859-901.
Debattista,  J., & McKenna, L., & Brennan, R. (2018). Understanding information professionals: a Survey on the quality of linked data sources for digital libraries. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from http://doras.dcu.ie/22979/1/ODBASE2018Library.pdf
Einasto, O. (2017). The instrument for evaluating the academic library e-service quality. Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis, 41 (3), 308-318.
Hert, C. A. (2001). User-centered evaluation and its connection to design. In C. R. McClure & J. C. Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating Networked Information Services: Techniques, Policy, and Issues (Chap. 8), (pp. 155-174). NJ, Medford: InformationToday.
Hu, C. P., Hu, Y., & Yan, W. W. (2014). An empirical study of factors influencing user perception of university digital libraries in China. Library & Information Science Research, 36 (3-4), 225-233.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., Jackson, E., & Dunn, E. (1994). Starting, ceasing, and replacing leisure activities over the life-span. Journal of leisure research, 26 (3), 227-249.
Lane, F. C., Andersone, B.k Ponce, H. F. & Natesan, P. (2012). Factorial invariance of LibQUAL+® as a measure of library service quality over time. Library & Information Science Research, 34 (1), 22–30.
McClure, C. R., & Bertot, J. C. (2001). Introduction. In C. R. McClure and J. C. Bertot (Eds.), Evaluating Networked Information Services: Techniques, Policy, and Issues, (xiii-xx). NJ, Medford: Information Today.
McInerney, C. R., & Bird, N. J. (2005). Assessing website quality in context: Retrieving information about genetically modified food on the Web. Information Research, 10 (2), Retrieved January 25, 2020, from http://www.informationr.net/ir/10-2/paper213.html
Nadler, D. M., & Furman, V. M. (2001). Access board issues final standards for disabled access under Section 508 of Rehabilitation Act. Government Contract Litigation Reporter, 14 (19), 14.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale   for measuring consumer perception of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-37.
Webb, H. W., & Webb, L. A. (2004). SiteQual: an integrated measure of web site quality. Journal of Enterprise InformationManagement, 17 (6), 430-440.
Xie, H. (2006). Evaluation of digital libraries: Criteria and problems, from users' perspectives. Library and Information Science Research, 28 (3), 433-452.
Xu, F., & Du, J. T. (2018). Factors influencing users’ satisfaction and loyalty to digital libraries in Chinese universities. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 64-72,
Zhang, Y. L., Bi, R. F., & Xiao, M. (2017). Studying on enhancing readers’ satisfaction model of electronic service quality in library based on LibQUAL+ and Kano. Procedia Engineering, 174, 260-266. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705817301327
Zhu, Q. (2002). 5S Graph: a modeling tool for digital libraries. Master's thesis, Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 19 June 2019
  • Revise Date: 15 September 2019
  • Accept Date: 16 September 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics