skip to main content
10.1145/3284179.3284228acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Validity and reliability of a survey to know the technological acceptance of an institutional repository: The case of resources on energy and sustainability

Authors Info & Claims
Published:24 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to present the validity and reliability of a survey designed for technological acceptance of the Institutional Repository RITEC of Tecnologico de Monterrey with resources on energy and sustainability. The research question to be answered is: how does the user experience influence the success or failure of the acceptance of an Institutional Repository? The survey consists of four points in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): perceived utility (PU), perceived ease of use (EU), attitudes towards use (ATU) and intention to use (BIU). The pilot survey was applied to 47 students enrolled in the virtual course "Visibility of open knowledge through the RITEC". The results obtained from the reliability analysis, using Cronbach's alpha index, indicate the high internal consistency of the survey. The validity of the survey focuses on the content validity, valued by a group of experts.

References

  1. Anglada, L., & Abadal, E., 2018. ¿Qué es la ciencia abierta? Anuario ThinkEPI, 12, 292--298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Betz, S., & Hall, R. (2015). Self-archiving with ease in an institutional repository: microinteractions and the user experience. Information Technology and Libraries (Online), 34(3), 43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Serrano-Vicente, R., Melero, R., & Abadal, E., 2014. Indicadores para la evaluación de repositorios institucionales de acceso abierto. In Anales de documentación, 17(2).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. ISO CD 9241-210, 2008. Ergonomics of human-system interaction. Part 210: Human-centred design process for interactive systems. ISOGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Manzoor, M., 2013. Measuring User Experience of Usability Tool, Designed for Higher Educational Websites. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 14(3)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. International Standard, ISO 924 -- 210, 2010 Ergonomics of Human System Interaction Part 210: Human Centred Design for Interactive Systems, International Organization for Standardization, Suiza, 2010Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, F. D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Magües, D. A., Castro, J. W., & Acuna, S. T., 2016. HCI usability techniques in agile development. In Automatica (ICA-ACCA), IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1--7). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Martins, A. I., Queirós, A., Rocha, N. P., & Santos, B. S., 2013. Usability evaluation: A systematic literature review. RISTI - Revista Iberica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informacao, 11(1), 31--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W., 2015. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L., 2006. Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures 1. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 474--498Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. De Vaus, D. A., 2014. Surveys in social research (6th ed.). London, England: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Czaja, R., & Blair, J., 2005. Selecting the method of data collection. Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and Procedures, 33--58. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Oviedo, H. C. y Campos A., 2005. Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Revista colombiana de psiquiatría, 34(4).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Law, E., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A., Kort, J., 2009. Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2009 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, pp. 719--728. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kahneman, D., 1999. Objective happiness. In: Kahneman, D., Diener, E., Schwarz, N. (Eds.), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Quality. Sage, New York, pp. 3--25Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., & Göritz, A., 2010. Needs, affect, and interactive products--Facets of user experience. Interacting with computers, 22(5), 353--362. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., Kasser, T., 2001. What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80, 325--339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. García-Peñalvo, F. J., 2014. Formación en la sociedad del conocimiento, un programa de doctorado con una perspectiva interdisciplinar. Education in the Knowledge Society 15, 1, 4--9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. García-Peñalvo, F. J., 2015. Engineering contributions to a Knowledge Society multicultural perspective. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologías del Aprendizaje (IEEE RITA) 10, 1, 17--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. I. L. Wu and J. L. Chen. 2005. An extension of Trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of online tax: An empirical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 62, 784--808. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Validity and reliability of a survey to know the technological acceptance of an institutional repository: The case of resources on energy and sustainability

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      TEEM'18: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality
      October 2018
      1072 pages
      ISBN:9781450365185
      DOI:10.1145/3284179

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 24 October 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      TEEM'18 Paper Acceptance Rate151of243submissions,62%Overall Acceptance Rate496of705submissions,70%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader