臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：圖書館環境脈絡與個人特性對圖書館服務品質主觀評估之影響
作者：賴麗香
作者(外文)：Li-Hsiang Lai
校院名稱：臺灣大學
系所名稱：圖書資訊學研究所
指導教授：吳明德
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2008
主題關鍵詞：圖書館服務品質評估；使用者主觀評估；圖書館客觀評估；整合評估；圖書館環境脈絡；使用者個人特性；多層次分析；Library service quality evaluation；User-oriented evaluation；Library-oriented evaluation；integrated evaluation；Library contexts；Individual attributes；Multilevel analysis
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(3) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:3
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:50
圖書館導向之客觀評估與使用者導向之主觀評估是圖書館服務品質評估的兩大研究取向，然而，過去多數評估研究僅採用其中一種取向，或受限於資料分析方法，不僅無法完整呈現圖書館主客觀服務品質現況，亦缺乏深入探討兩者評估結果之間的關係。本研究目的在分析使用者對圖書館服務品質主觀評估之個人與館際差異，探討個人特性與圖書館環境脈絡 (客觀服務品質與結構屬性) 對使用者主觀評估圖書館服務品質的影響，並檢驗使用者的服務品質知覺是否作為其使用圖書館的狀況影響滿意度之中間機制，以及此中間機制是否受圖書館環境脈絡影響。縱合相關文獻，本研究建構「圖書館服務品質整合評估理論模型」，並提出五個研究假設。
本研究採用橫斷式問卷調查，取得國內51所大學圖書館為圖書館層次樣本，並以此51所大學之29,916位師生為使用者層次樣本。圖書館層次收集51所大學圖書館之資源投入與服務使用量資料，並透過評等及加權予以標準化，成為客觀服務品質或圖書館服務脈絡，包含人力、館藏、設備等資源投入品質，以及造訪使用、館藏使用及支援服務使用等輸出品質。此外，以圖書館之服務規模及公私立別等屬性為結構脈絡。使用者層次主要收集51所大學師生的圖書館使用頻率與廣度，以及對圖書館的內容、系統及支援等服務品質知覺、滿意度等主觀評估資料，以及使用者之身分類別、學科領域類別及自我效能等個人特性資料。資料分析採用層級線性模式/多層次分析法，逐一檢驗研究假設。
由多層次多變量回歸分析獲得以下五項研究結果：1. 不考慮使用者與圖書館層次任何因素下，使用者的使用頻率、使用廣度、服務品質知覺及滿意度等主觀評估均存在個人與館際差異，但超過88% 的差異來自使用者層次，圖書館層次能解釋差異的比例相對在12% 左右。2. 考慮使用者與圖書館層次所有變因後，使用者對圖書館服務品質的主觀評估會因使用者的身份類別、領域類別及自我效能等個人特性的不同而有差別，但滿意度不受自我效能的影響。3. 在排除使用者層次解釋變因的影響效果後，圖書館環境脈絡八個因素中，有一半對使用者的主觀評估有作用，分別為服務規模、人力品質、設備品質及造訪使用品質。而六個主觀評估品質，以使用者滿意受較多環環境脈絡因素影響，分別為服務規模、設備品質及造訪使用品質。使用者的支援服務品質知覺則完全不受圖書館環境脈絡影響。4. 使用者的服務品質知覺是其使用狀況影響滿意度之淨中間機制，即存在直接與間接影響關係，使用頻率越高，滿意度越高，透過服務品知覺增強其滿意度，而使用廣度越廣，滿意度卻越低，透過服務品知覺減弱其滿意度。5. 使用者的使用狀況直接及間接透過服務品質知覺影響滿意度之淨中間機制，多數的影響關係受圖書館環境脈絡影響，但使用狀況直接影響滿意度之效果不因圖書館環境脈絡的不同而有差異。
由結果顯示，本研究之研究假設與問題大部分得到支持和解答，但部分因研究方法之限制，可能影響研究結果，建議後續研究進一步探討與修正，且本研究所建構之「圖書館服務品質整合評估理論模型」，乃首次應用於國內大學圖書館的評估環境，亦建議後續重複驗證，以精煉評估理論模型。本研究結果亦提供大學圖書館參考，建議各館持續進行服務品質評估並深入了解使用者，使圖書館的服務更貼近使用者的需求。
Library-oriented or objective evaluation and user-oriented or subjective evaluation are two major approaches to evaluate library service quality. However, less is known about the relationship between the results of the two evaluation approaches, particularly about the effects of library contexts on users’ subjective evaluation. The present study employs a combination of library- and user-oriented evaluation approaches to develop an integrated evaluation model of library service quality with multi-level and multi-dimension. Based on this evaluation model, the purposes of the present study are (1) to analyze whether users’ subjective evaluation of library service quality varies among user individuals and libraries, (2) to examine the effects of individual attributes and library contexts (service and structural context) on users’ subjective evaluation, (3) to diagnose if the relationship between users’ self-reported usage of and user satisfaction with a library is mediated by users’ perceived library service quality, and (4) to test how the mediated effects are influenced by the library contexts, if the relationship between users’ self-reported usage and user satisfaction is mediated by users’ perceived library service quality.
The present study utilizes a cross-sectional survey designed to collect library and user level data respectively in 51 university libraries in Taiwan. There are eight factors of library level as library contexts. Six are indicators of objective, quantitative quality of library service context and two are variables of structural context. Library input and output data are standardized and weighted as six indicators of objective, quantitative quality of library service context: (1) manpower quality, (2) collection quality, (3) facility quality, (4) library visit quality, (5) circulation quality, and (6) support service quality. Two variables of library structural context are population size and public/private sector of a library. For the user level, there are six indicators of subjective evaluation and three individual attributes. Six indicators of subjective evaluation are (1) self-reported library use frequency, (2) library use width, (3) perceived content service quality, (4) perceived system service quality, (5) perceived support service quality, and (6) satisfaction. Individual attributes are user type (faculty and student), discipline (humanity, social science, and science) and self-efficacy. The sample size for the library level is 51 university libraries and for user level is 29,916 respondents from the faculty and students of the 51 universities. The hierarchical linear model (HLM) or multilevel analysis is utilized to estimate the effects of user-level and library-level factors on users’ six subjective evaluations.
The findings show that users’ six indicators of subjective evaluation of library service quality vary among user individuals and libraries respectively, when there are no factors of user level or library level considered. More than 88% of the variance in users’ subjective evaluation is at the user level, while about 12% is at the library level. The findings also show that users’ six indicators of subjective evaluation differ by the level of users’ type, discipline and self-efficacy; but there is no self-efficacy difference in user satisfaction. Four of eight factors of library contexts (population size, manpower quality, facility quality and library visit quality) have significant effects on most of the users’ six indicators of subjective evaluation. User satisfaction is the most affected indicator by population size, facility quality and library visit quality. However, users’ perceived support service quality does not vary by the library contexts. Further analyses show that users’ perceived service quality (perceived content quality, perceived system quality and perceived support service quality) is the partial mediation between self-reported usage (library use frequency and use width) and user satisfaction. In other words, self-reported usage has direct and indirect effects on user satisfaction through perceived service quality. Users’ library use frequency positively affects user satisfaction, while users’ library use width has a negative effect on user satisfaction. Moreover, seven factors of the library contexts, except for collection quality, have effects on some of the partially mediated effects. The effect of users’ library usage on user satisfaction does not differ by the library contexts. Finally, the implications of these findings and needs for future research are discussed.
王百祿主持 (民94)。行政院研考會全面提升政府網站服務品質專案：對政府網站評鑑的研究。台北市：台灣資訊智慧財產權協會。
上網日期：民95年2月10日。網址：http://www.rdec.gov.tw/public/Attachment/61261213771.pdf
白乙婷 (民88)。社會階層和健康槪念對農產品消費決策的影響 : 以水果消費為例。未出版之碩士論文，國立臺灣大學農業推廣學研究所，台北市。
吳明德 (民80)。館藏發展。台北市：漢美。new window
吳明德 (民92)。圖書館評鑑。國立成功大學圖書館館刊，(11)，1-8。new window
吳明德 (民95)。大學圖書館館藏發展的再省思。圖書與資訊學刊，59, 1-15。new window
吳雅慧、吳明德 (民92)。電子期刊使用研究-以國立臺灣大學電機資訊學院及文學院為例。國家圖書館館刊，92(1)，169-196。new window
吳聰賢 (民86)。農業行政學。台北市：明文書局。
李錦河、丁仁方、陳盈太、溫敏杰 (民94)。分析層級程序法(AHP) 在選舉整合策略擬定之應用。調查研究：方法與應用，18，113-159。new window
林呈潢 (民94)。大專校院圖書館[93年]。在中華民國圖書館年鑑(頁131-154)。台北市：國家圖書館。
邱皓政 (民91)。量化研究與統計分析：SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。二版，台北市：五南。
邱皓政譯 (民95)。多層次模型分析導論。台北市：五南。
胡歐蘭 (民96)。臺灣學術圖書館史。圖書與資訊學刊，6，11-35。new window
高桂足等編 (民63)。心理學名詞彙編。台北市：文景出版社。
秦建文 (民92)。咖啡連鎖店關鍵成功因素之研究。未出版之碩士論文，淡江大學管理科學研究所，台北縣。
國立臺中圖書館 (民95)。公共圖書館空間及營運改善計畫成效評估及讀者滿意度調查研究。台中市：臺中圖書館。
教育部 (民95)。大學院校-教育統計-各級學校名錄-94學年度「大專校院」。上網日期：民95年5月21日。網址：
http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/STATISTICS/EDU7220001/service/sts4-3.htm
教育部 (民96)。教育統計主要統計表-「95學年度大專院校校別專任教師數」、「95學年度大專院校校別職員警衛及工友人數」、「95學年度大專院校校別學生人數」。上網日期：民96年2月10日。網址：
http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/STATISTICS/EDU7220001/service/sts4-3.htm
陳建文、陳美文 (民93)。圖書館使用者認知價值、滿意度與忠誠度關係之研究。圖書與資訊學刊，50，32-48。new window
陳建文、陳美文 (民95)。圖書館服務品質對使用者滿意度與再使用意願之研究：以某大學為例。圖教育資料與圖書館學，44(1)，61-82。new window
黃元鶴 (民92)。圖書館滿意度調查之多變量分析。國立中央圖書館臺灣分館館刊，9(2), 37-48。
黃慕萱 (民85)。資訊檢索中「相關」概念之研究。台北市：台灣學生書局。new window
經濟部標準檢驗局(民96)。圖書館統計。中華民國國家標準CNS 13151，修訂公佈日期：96年5月2日。
盧秀菊 (民88)。學術圖書館之績效評估。大學圖書館，3(4)，4-14。new window
謝雨生 (民95a)。量化研究的挑戰與出路。中華圖書資訊學教育學會會訊，27, 17-32。
謝雨生 (民95b)。Model comparison，「高等社會研究法」課程，民95年10月11日授課講義。
謝雨生 (民96)。多層次分析的背景。未出版。
謝雨生、吳齊殷、李文傑 (民95)。青少年網絡特性、互動結構和友誼動態。台灣社會學，11, 175-236。new window
戴維利斯 (DeVellis, Robert F.) 著 (1999)。量表的發展與應用(Scale development: Theory and application) (吳齊殷譯；章英華校閱；國立編譯館主譯)。台北市：弘智文化。(原作1991年出版)
Adams, A., & Blandford, A. (2004). The unseen and unacceptable face of digital libraries. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 4(2), 71-81.
Andersen, V., Andersen, H., Degemms, M., Licchelli, O., Lops, P., & Zambetta, F. (2003). A methodological approach for designing and evaluating intelligent applications for digital collections. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 17(8-9), 745-771.
Anderson, T., & Choudhury, S. (2003, March 10, 2005). A usability research agenda for digital libraries. Retrieved Nov. 25, 2005, from http://dkc.jhu.edu/~teal/usability_research_agenda.html
Association of Research Libraries (2006). LibQUAL+TM. Retrieved Oct. 10, 2006, from http://www.libqual.org/index.cfm
Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA : Thomson Wadsworth
Baker, S. L., & Lancaster, F. W. (1991). The measurement and evaluation of library services (2nd ed.). Arlington, Virginia: Information Resources Press.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.) Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Bateson, G. (1978). The pattern which connects. Co-Evolution Quarterly, 18, 4-15.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., and Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142-163.
Bawden, D. (1990). User-oriented evaluation of information systems and services. Aldershot: Gower.
Begley, J. (Feb, 1999). Understanding general systems theory. Retrieved April 4, 2006, from http://www.bsn-gn.eku.edu/BEGLEY/GSThand1.htm
Bertot, J. C. (2001). Measuring service quality in the networked environment: approaches and consideration. Library Trends, 49(4), 758-775.
Bertot, J. C. (2004). E-metrics and performance indicators: availability and use. In J. C. Bertot, & D. M. Davis (Eds.), Planning and evaluating library networked services and resources (pp. 95-186).
Bertot, J. C., & McClure, C. R. (2003). Outcomes assessment in the networked environment: research questions, issues, considerations, and moving forward. Library Trends, 51(4), 590-613.
Bertot, J. C., & Snead, J. T. (2004). Selecting evaluation approaches for a networked environment. In J. C. Bertot, & D. M. Davis (Eds.), Planning and evaluating library networked services and resources (pp. 23-48). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.
Blau, P. M. (1991). Structural contexts of opportunities. Chicago: The Uniersity of Chicago Press.
Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: the perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7(4), 400-417.
Blixrud, J. C. (2001). The association of research libraries statistics and measurement program: from descriptive data to performance measures. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla67/papers/034-135e.pdf
Blixrud, J. C. (2003). Mainstreaming new measures. ARL: Bimonthly Report 230/231 Retrieved Feb. 1, 2006, from ttp://www.arl.org/newsltr/230/mainstreaming.html
Blixrud, J. C., & Kyrillidou, M. (2003). E-metrics: next steps for measuring electronic resources. ARL Bimonthly Report 230/231 Retrieved Feb. 5, 2006, from http://www.arl.org/newsltr/230/emetrics.html
Borgman, C. L. (2000). From Gutenberg to the global information infrastructure: access to information in the networked world. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Borgman, C. L. (2003). Designing digital libraries for usability. In A. P. Bishop, N. A. Van House & B. P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 85-118). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Borgman, C. L., Gilliland-Swetland, A.-N, Leazer, G. H., Mayer, R., Gwynn, D., Gazan, R., et al. (2000). Evaluating digital libraries for teaching and learning in undergraduate education: a case study of the Alexandria digital earth ProtoType (ADEPT). Library Trends, 49(2), 228-250.
Boyce, B. R., Meadow. C. T., & Kraft, D. H. (1994). Measurement in information science. San Diego: Academic Press.
Brophy, P. (2006). Measuring library performance: principles and techniques. London: Facet Publishing.
Buckland, M. K. (1988). Library services in theory and context. Oxford: Pergamon.
Chodorow, S. (2001). Scholarship, information, and libraries in the electronic age. In D. B. Marcum (Ed.), Development of digital libraries: an American perspective (pp. 3-15). London: Greenwood Press.
Clark, J. A. (2004). A usability study of the Belgian-American research collection: measuring the functionality of a digital library OCLC Systems & Services 20(3), 115-127.
Cook, C. C. (2001). A mixed-methods approach to the identification and measurement of academic library service quality constructs: LibQual+(TM). Unpublished Dissertation, Texas A&M University.
Cook, C. C., Coleman, V., & Heath, F. M. (2000). SERQUAL: a client-based approach to developing performance indicators. In Proceedings of the 3rd Northumbria international conference on performance measurement in libraries and information services held at Longhirst management and training centre, Longhirst Hall, Northumberland, England, 27 to 31 August 1999 (pp. 211-218). Newcastle upon tyne: Information North for the School of Information Studies, University of Northumbria at Newcastle.
Cook, C. C., & Heath, F. M. (2001). Users'' perception of library service quality: a LibQUAL+ qualitative study. Library Trends, 49(4), 548-584.
Cook, C. C., Heath, F., & Thompson, B. (2003). "Zones of tolerance" in perceptions of library service quality: a LibQUAL+TM study. Libraries and the Academy, 3(1), 113-123.
Cook, C. C., Heath, F. M., Thompson, B., & Webster, D. (2003). LibQUAL+TM: Preliminary Results from 2002. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 4(1), 38-47.
Cooper, W. S. (1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness. Part II. Implementation of the philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, (24), 413-424.
Cooper, W. S. (1976). The paradoxical role of unexamined documents in the evaluation of retrieval effectiveness. Information Processing & Management, 12(5), 367-375.
Crawford, J. (2000). Evaluation of library and information services. London: Aslib.
Crawford, W., & Gorman, M. (1995). Future libraries: dreams, madness & reality. Chicago：ALA.
Cronin, M. J. (1985). Performance measurement for public services in academic and research libraries. Washington, D.C.: Office of Management Studies, Association of Research Libraries.
Cullen, R. (2001). Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys. Library Trends, 49(4), 662-686.
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Unpublished Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioural impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475-487.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
De Gennaro, R. (1980). Library statistics & user satisfaction: no significant correlation. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 6(2), 95.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information system success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
Dervin, B. (1996). Given a context by any other name: methodological tools for taming the university beast. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, & B. Dervin (Eds.), Information seeking in context (pp. 13-34). London: Taylor Graham.
Eastwood, E. J. & Tompson, S. R. (2001). Digital library services: an overview of the hybrid approach. In A. Scammell (Ed.) Handbook of information management (8th Ed., pp.1-42). London: Aslib-IMI.
Glatthorn, A. A., & Joyner, R. L. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: a step-by-step guide. (2 nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Griffiths, J. M. (2003). Performance measurement in libraries. In J. Feather, & P. Sturges (Eds.), International encyclopedia of information and library science (pp.504-510). 2nd ed., London: Routledge.
Harter, S. P. (1986). Online information retrieval: concepts, principles, and techniques. New York: Acadenuc Press.
Harter, S. P., & Hert, C. A. (1997). Evaluation of information retrieval systems: approaches, issues, and methods. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 32, pp. 3-94). New York : Interscience Publishers.
Hartson, H. R., Shivakumar, P., & Pérez-Quiñones, M. A. (2004). Usability inspection of digital libraries: a case study. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 4(2), 108-123.
Hernon, P. (2002). Outcomes are key but not the whole story. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1), 54-55.
Hernon, P., & Altman, E. (1996). Service quality in academic libraries. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Hernon, P., & Altman, E. (1998). Assessing service quality: satisfying the expectations of library customers. Chicago: ALA.
Hernon, P., & Calvert, P. J. (2005). E-service quality in libraries: exploring its features and dimensions. Library and Information Science Research, 27(3), 377-404.
Hernon, P., & Dugan, R. E. (2002). An action plan for outcomes assessment in your library. Chicago: American Library Association.
Hernon, P., Nitecki, D. A., & Altman, E. (1999). Service quality and customer satisfaction: an assessment and future directions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(1), 9-17.
Hernon, P., & Whitman, J. R. (2001). Delivering satisfaction and service quality: a customer-based approach for libraries. Chicago: American Library Association.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723-744.
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y. L., Wong, W.-M., & Tam, K.-Y. (2002). Determinants of user acceptance of digital libraries: an empirical examination of individual differences and system characteristics. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 97-124.
Hoseth, A., & Kyrillidou, M. (2004). LibQUAL+ procedures manual. Washington D. C.: Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved October 15, 2006 http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/procedures_final2007.pdf
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis techniques and applications. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoyle, R. H. & Robinson, J. C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In C. Sansone, C. C. Morf, & A. T. Panter (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of methods in social psychology (pp.213-233). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Ingersoll, P. & Clushaw, J. (2004). Managing information technology: a handbook for systems librarians. Westport, Conn. : Libraries Unlimited.
International Organization for Standardization (1998). Information and documentation: library performance indicators. (1st ed.), Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
International Organization for Standardization (2003q). Information and documentation: library performance indicators.Amendment 1, additional performance indicators for libraries. (1st ed.), Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
International Organization for Standardization (2003b). Information and documentation: performance indicators for electronic library services. (3rd ed.), Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Ishman, M. D. (1996). Measuring information success at the individual level in cross-cultural environment. Information Resources Management Journal, 9(4), 16-28.
Jeng, J. (2005a). What is usability in the context of the digital library and how can it be measured? Information Technology & Libraries, 24(2), 47-56.
Jeng, J. (2005b). Usability assessment of academic digital libraries: effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, and learnability. Libri, International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 55(2-3), 96-121.
Kantor, P. B. (1984). Objective performance measures for academic and research libraries. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries.
Kenny, D. A., Korchmaros, J., & Bolger, N. (2003). Lower level mediation in multilevel models. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 115-128.
Knightly, J. J. (1979). Overcoming the criterion problem in the evaluation of library performance. Special Libraries, 70(4), 173-177.
Koohang, A., & Ondracek, J. (2005). Users'' views about the usability of digital libraries. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 407-423.
Kref, I., & Leeuw, J. de (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. London: Publications.
Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(2), 249-277.
Kuan, H. H., Bock, G.-W., & Vathanophas, V. (2005). Comparing the effects of usability on customer conversion and retention at e-commerce websites. Paper presented at the 38th Hawaii international conference on system science Retrieved July 9, 2005 from
http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2005/2268/07/22680174a.pdf.
Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2005). Applied linear statistical models. 5 th ed., Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Kurbanoglu, S. S. (2003). Self-efficacy: a concept closely linked to information literacy and lifelong learning. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 635-646.
Kyrillidou, M. (2002a). From input and output measures to quality and outcome measures, or, from the user in the life of the library to the library in the life of the user. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1), 42-46.
Kyrillidou, M. (2002b). An overview of performance measures in higher education and libraries. In D. L. Dewitt (Ed.), Evaluating the twenty-first century library: the association of research libraries new measures initiative, 1997-2001(pp.7-18). New York: The Haworth Information Press.
Kyrillidou, M. (2005). Library assessment as a collaborative enterprise. Resource Sharing & Information Networks, 18(1/2), 73-87.
Lai, L. H., Wu, M. D., & Hsieh, Y. S. (2006). Towards an integrated theory of digital library success from the users’ perspective. In P. Brophy, J. Craven, & M. Markland (Eds.), Libraries without walls 6: evaluating the distributed delivery of library services (pp. 178-187). London: Facet Publishing.
Lancaster, F. W. (1977). The measurement and evaluation of library services. Washington: Information Resources Press.
Lancaster, F. W. (1991). The measurement and evaluation of library services. 2nd. ed. Washington: Information Resources Press.
Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). A taxonomy of antecedents of information systems success: variable analysis studies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(2), 169-246.
Lieberson, S. (1985). Making it count: the improvement of social research and theory. Berkeley : University of California Press.
Lucas J., A., Lowe, J.J., robertson, B., Akincigil, A., Sambamoorthi, U., Bilder, S. et al. (2007). The relationship between organizational factors and resident satisfaction with nursing home care and life. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 19(2), 125-151)
Luke, D. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Marchionini, G., & Fox, E. A. (1999). Progress toward digital libraries: augmentation through integration. Information Processing and Management, 35(3), 219-225.
Marchionini, G., Plaisant, C., & Komlodi, A. (2003). The people in digital libraries: multifaceted approaches to assessing needs and impact. In A. P. Bishop, N. A. V. House, & B. P. Buttenfield (Eds.), Digital library use: social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 119-160). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.
Markless, S., & Streatfield, D. (2006). Evaluating the impact of your library. London: Facet Publishing.
Martensen, A., & Grønholdt, L. (2003). Improving library users'' perceived quality, satisfaction and loyalty: an integrated measurement and management system. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 29(3), 140-147.
Matthews, J. R. (2004). Measuring for results: the dimensions of public library effectiveness. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
McGill, T., Hobbs, V., & Klobas, J. (2003). User-developed applications and information systems success: a test of DeLone and McLean''s model. Information Resources Management Journal, 16(1), 24-45.new window
Molyneux, R. E. (1998). The Gerould statistics: 1907/08-1961/62: an historical compilation of data from academic libraries in the United States and Canada. 2nd ed. Retrieved 04 April, 2008, from http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/libsites/gerould/
Moyo, L. M. (2004). The virtual patron. In J. P. Miller (Ed.). Emerging issues in the electronic environment: challenges for libraries and researchers in the sciences (pp.185-209). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Information Press.
Narayana, G. J. (1991). Library and information management. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Ltd.
Nitecki, D. A. (1995). An assessment of the applicability of SERVQUAL dimensions as customer-based criteria for evaluating quality of services in an academic library. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Maryland College Park.
Nitecki, D. A. (1996). Changing the concept and measurement of service quality in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 22(3), 181-190.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of marketing, 49, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Pare, G., Lepanto, L., Aubry, D., & Sicottee, C. (2005). Toward a multidimensional assessment of picture archiving and communication system success. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 21(4), 471-479.
Poll, R., & Boekhorst, P. te. (1996). Measuring quality: international guidelines for performance measurement in academic libraries. München: K. G. Saur.
Rai, A., Lang, S. S., & Welker, R. B. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models: an empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information Systems Research, 13(1), 50-69.new window
Ranganathan, S. R. (1931). Five laws of library science. Madras: Madras Library Association.
Ranganathan, S. R. (1988). The five laws of library science. Bangalore : Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., & Congdon, R. (2007). HLM: hierarchical linear and non linear modeling. At http://www.ssicentral.com/hlm/index.html
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Resources Council on Library and Information. (1999). Executive summary. Scholarship, instruction, and libraries at the turn of the century: results from five task forces appointed by the American Council of learned societies and the Council on library and information resources. Retrieved Nov. 26, 2005, from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub78/pub78.pdf
Rosenberg, M. (1968). The logic of survey analysis. New York: Basic Books.
Roszkowski, M. J., Bakey, J. S., & Jones, D. B. (2005). So which score on the LibQual+TM tells me if library users are satisfied? Library and Information Science Research, 27(4), 424-439.
Saaty, T. L. (1986). Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 32(7), 841-855.
Saaty, T. L. (1987). Concept, theory, and techniques: rank generation, preservation and reversal in the analytic hierarchy process. Decision Science, 18, 157-177.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26.
Saaty, T. L. (1999). Decision making for leaders: the hierarchy process for decision in a complex world. (New ed.), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Saracevic, T. (2000). Digital library evaluation: toward an evolution of concepts. Library Trends, 49(2), 350-369.
Saracevic, T. (2004). Evaluation of digital libraries: an overview. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~tefko/DL_evaluation_Delos.pdf
Saracevic, T. & Kantor, P. B. (1997a). Studying the value of library and information services. Part I. Establishig a theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 527-542.
Saracevic, T. & Kantor, P. B. (1997b). Studying the value of library and information services. Part II. Methodology and taxonomy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(6), 543-563.
Seddon, P. B. (1997). A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 240-253.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage Publications.
Soergel, D. (1985). Organizing information: principles of data base and retrieval systems. San Diego: Academic Press.
Straub, D., Limayem, M., & Karahanna-Evaristo, E. (1995). Measuring system usage: implications for IS theory testing. Management Science, 41(8), 1328-1342.
Thompson, B., Cook, C. C., & Heath, F. (2003a). Two short forms of the LibQUAL+TM survey: assessing users'' perceptions of library service quality. Library Quarterly, 73(4), 453-465.
Thompson, B., Cook, C. C., & Heath, F. (2003b). Structure of perceptions of service quality in libraries: a LibQUAL+TM study. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 456-464.
Thompson, B., Kyrillido, M., & Cook, C. C. (2007). User library service expectations in health science vs. other settings: a LibQUAL+® study. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(suppl. 1), 38-45.
Thompson, B., Kyrillido, M., & Cook, C. C. (2008). Library users’ desires: a LIBQUAL+ study. Library Quarterly, 78(1), 1-18.
Thong, J. Y. L., Hong, W., & Tam, K. Y. (2002). Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: what are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(3), 215-242.
Thong, J. Y. L., Hong, W., & Tam, K. Y. (2004). What leads to user acceptance of digital libraries? Communications of the ACM, 47(11), 79-83.
Thong, J. Y. L. & Yap, C. S. (1996). Information systems effectiveness: a user satisfaction approach. Information Processing and Management, 32(5), 601-610.
Vaidyanathan, G., Sabbaghi, A., & Bargellini, M. (2005). User acceptance of digital library: an empirical exploration of individual and system components [electronic version]. Issues in Information Systems, VI, 279-285. Retrieved November 29, 2005 from
http://www.iacis.org/iis/2005_IIS/PDFs/Vaidyanathan_Sabbaghi_Bargellini.pdf.
Vakkari, P. (1996). Information seeking in context: a challenging metatheroy. In Pertti Vakkari, Reijo Savolainen, & Brenda Dervin (Eds.), Information seeking in context (pp. 451-464). London: Taylor Graham.
Van House, N. A. et al. (1987). Output measures for public libraries: a manual of standardized procedures. (2nd ed.), Chicago: American Library Association.
Van House, N. A., Weil, B., & McClure, C. R. (1990). Measuring academic library performance: a practical approach. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Walter, V. A. (1992). Output measures for public library service to children: a manual of standardized procedures, part of the public library development program. Chicago: American Library Association.
Walter, V. A. (1995). Output measures and more: planning and evaluating public library service for young adults, part of the public library development program. Chicago: American Library Association.
Wang, P., Hawk, W. B., & Tenopir, C. (2000) Users'' interaction with World Wide Web resources: an exploratory study using a holistic approach. Information processing and management, 36(2), 229-251.
White, A., & Kamal, E. D. (2006). E-metrics for library and information professionals: how to use data for managing and evaluating electronic resources collections. New York: Neal-Schuman.
Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85-102.
Yen, H. H. (2005). An evaluation of leisure agriculture policy in Taiwan utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, Michigan, U.S.A. Retrieved from Digital Dissertation Consortium.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service: balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: The Free Press.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：525（臺灣：488，外國：37） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1166620 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67081916
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上