有效问题:一个新的图书馆学习分析调查的发展和评价

IF 1.8 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Andrew D. Asher, Kristin A. Briney, Abigail H. Goben
{"title":"有效问题:一个新的图书馆学习分析调查的发展和评价","authors":"Andrew D. Asher, Kristin A. Briney, Abigail H. Goben","doi":"10.1108/pmm-04-2023-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis article describes the development processes, sampling and analysis practices and the assessment of reliability and validity of a new 0survey that sought to evaluate undergraduate students' perceptions and expectations related to privacy and library participation in learning analytics studies. This article provides other researchers with information required to independently evaluate the survey's efficacy, as well as guidance for designing other surveys.Design/methodology/approachFollowing question development, pre-survey validity assessments were made using subject matter expert panel review and cognitive interviews. Post-hoc analysis of survey construct reliability was evaluated using the Omega coefficient, while exploratory factor analysis was utilized to assess construct validity. Survey design limitations and potential bias effects are also examined.FindingsThe survey exhibited a high level of reliability among research constructs, while the exploratory factor analysis results suggested that survey constructs contained multiple conceptual elements that should be measured separately for more nuanced analysis.Practical implicationsThis article provides a model for other researchers wishing to re-use the survey described or develop similar surveys.Social implicationsAs learning analytics interest continues to expand, engaging with the subjects, in this case students, of analysis is critical. Researchers need to ensure that captured measurements are appropriately valid in order to accurately represent the findings.Originality/valueThis survey is one of very few addressing library learning analytics that has undergone extensive validity analysis of the conceptual constructs.","PeriodicalId":44583,"journal":{"name":"Performance Measurement and Metrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Valid questions: the development and evaluation of a new library learning analytics survey\",\"authors\":\"Andrew D. Asher, Kristin A. Briney, Abigail H. Goben\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/pmm-04-2023-0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis article describes the development processes, sampling and analysis practices and the assessment of reliability and validity of a new 0survey that sought to evaluate undergraduate students' perceptions and expectations related to privacy and library participation in learning analytics studies. This article provides other researchers with information required to independently evaluate the survey's efficacy, as well as guidance for designing other surveys.Design/methodology/approachFollowing question development, pre-survey validity assessments were made using subject matter expert panel review and cognitive interviews. Post-hoc analysis of survey construct reliability was evaluated using the Omega coefficient, while exploratory factor analysis was utilized to assess construct validity. Survey design limitations and potential bias effects are also examined.FindingsThe survey exhibited a high level of reliability among research constructs, while the exploratory factor analysis results suggested that survey constructs contained multiple conceptual elements that should be measured separately for more nuanced analysis.Practical implicationsThis article provides a model for other researchers wishing to re-use the survey described or develop similar surveys.Social implicationsAs learning analytics interest continues to expand, engaging with the subjects, in this case students, of analysis is critical. Researchers need to ensure that captured measurements are appropriately valid in order to accurately represent the findings.Originality/valueThis survey is one of very few addressing library learning analytics that has undergone extensive validity analysis of the conceptual constructs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Performance Measurement and Metrics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Performance Measurement and Metrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/pmm-04-2023-0009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Performance Measurement and Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pmm-04-2023-0009","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: 0

摘要

目的本文描述了一项新的0调查的开发过程、抽样和分析实践以及可靠性和有效性评估,该调查旨在评估本科生对隐私和图书馆参与学习分析研究的看法和期望。本文为其他研究人员提供了独立评估调查效果所需的信息,以及设计其他调查的指导。设计/方法/方法在问题发展之后,使用主题专家小组审查和认知访谈进行调查前有效性评估。调查结构可靠性的事后分析使用Omega系数进行评估,而探索性因素分析用于评估结构有效性。调查设计的局限性和潜在的偏差影响也被审查。调查结果显示,调查结构在研究结构中具有较高的可靠性,而探索性因素分析结果表明,调查结构包含多个概念元素,应单独测量,以进行更细致的分析。实际含义本文为其他希望重复使用所描述的调查或开发类似调查的研究人员提供了一个模型。社会含义随着学习分析的兴趣不断扩大,参与分析的主体,在这种情况下是学生,是至关重要的。研究人员需要确保捕捉到的测量结果是适当有效的,以便准确地代表研究结果。原创性/价值本调查是为数不多的对概念结构进行广泛有效性分析的图书馆学习分析之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Valid questions: the development and evaluation of a new library learning analytics survey
PurposeThis article describes the development processes, sampling and analysis practices and the assessment of reliability and validity of a new 0survey that sought to evaluate undergraduate students' perceptions and expectations related to privacy and library participation in learning analytics studies. This article provides other researchers with information required to independently evaluate the survey's efficacy, as well as guidance for designing other surveys.Design/methodology/approachFollowing question development, pre-survey validity assessments were made using subject matter expert panel review and cognitive interviews. Post-hoc analysis of survey construct reliability was evaluated using the Omega coefficient, while exploratory factor analysis was utilized to assess construct validity. Survey design limitations and potential bias effects are also examined.FindingsThe survey exhibited a high level of reliability among research constructs, while the exploratory factor analysis results suggested that survey constructs contained multiple conceptual elements that should be measured separately for more nuanced analysis.Practical implicationsThis article provides a model for other researchers wishing to re-use the survey described or develop similar surveys.Social implicationsAs learning analytics interest continues to expand, engaging with the subjects, in this case students, of analysis is critical. Researchers need to ensure that captured measurements are appropriately valid in order to accurately represent the findings.Originality/valueThis survey is one of very few addressing library learning analytics that has undergone extensive validity analysis of the conceptual constructs.
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
Performance Measurement and Metrics
Performance Measurement and Metrics INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: ■Quantitative and qualitative analysis ■Benchmarking ■The measurement and role of information in enhancing organizational effectiveness ■Quality techniques and quality improvement ■Training and education ■Methods for performance measurement and metrics ■Standard assessment tools ■Using emerging technologies ■Setting standards or service quality
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信