Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluating municipal websites: A methodological comparison of three think-aloud variants

van den Haak, Maaike J., de Jong, Menno D.T., Schellens, Peter Jan·2009·Government Information Quarterly
DOI 10.1016/j.giq.2007.11.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.giq.2007.11.003

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Alavi, 2005, On the adequacy of verbal protocols in examining an underlying construct of a test, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 1, 10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.02.004 · DOI
  2. Chadwick, 2003, Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the Internet: “E-Government” in the United States, Britain and the European Union, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 16, 271, 10.1111/1468-0491.00216 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Choudrie, 2004, Evaluating global E-Government sites: A view using web diagnostic tools, Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2, 105
  4. Cullen, 2000, Democracy online: An assessment of New Zealand government websites, Government Information Quarterly, 17, 243, 10.1016/S0740-624X(00)00033-2 · doi:10.1016/s0740-624x(00)00033-2
  5. De Jong, 2006, Municipalities on the Web: User-friendliness of government information on the internet, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4084, 174, 10.1007/11823100_16 · DOI
  6. De Jong, 2006, Scenario evaluation of municipal Websites: Development and use of an expert-focused evaluation tool, Government Information Quarterly, 23, 191, 10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.007 · DOI
  7. Eschenfelder, 2004, Behind the Website: An inside look at the production of Web-based textual government information, Government Information Quarterly, 21, 337, 10.1016/j.giq.2004.04.004 · DOI
  8. Eschenfelder, 2007, Examining the role of Website information in facilitating different citizen-government relationships: A case study of state Chronic Wasting Disease Websites, Government Information Quarterly, 24, 64, 10.1016/j.giq.2006.05.002 · DOI
  9. Farkas, 2000, Guidelines for designing Web navigation, Technical Communication, 47, 341
  10. Funkesson, 2007, Nurses' reasoning process during care planning taking pressure ulcer prevention as an example: A think-aloud study, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, 1109, 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.04.016 · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.04.016
  11. Griffin, 2005, An exploratory evaluation of UK local e-Government from an accountability perspective, The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3, 13
  12. Heeks, 2007, Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods and practice, Government Information Quarterly, 24, 243, 10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.005 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Jaeger, 2006, Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government Websites: A multi-method, user-centred evaluation of accessibility for persons with disabilities, Government Information Quarterly, 23, 169, 10.1016/j.giq.2006.03.002 · DOI
  14. Kaaya, 2004, Implementing e-Government services in East Africa: Assessing status through content analysis of government websites, The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2, 39
  15. Kim, 2001, Information seeking on the Web: Effects of user and task variables, Library & Information Science Research, 23, 233, 10.1016/S0740-8188(01)00081-0 · DOI
  16. Marcella, 2003, The effectiveness of parliamentary information services in the United Kingdom, Government Information Quarterly, 20, 29, 10.1016/S0740-624X(02)00138-7 · doi:10.1016/s0740-624x(02)00138-7
  17. Pieterson, 2007, Personalization in the public sector: An inventory of organizational and user obstacles towards personalization of electronic services in the public sector, Government Information Quarterly, 24, 148, 10.1016/j.giq.2005.12.001 · DOI
  18. Potter, 2003, Accessibility of Alabama government Websites, Journal of Government Information, 29, 303, 10.1016/S1352-0237(03)00053-4 · DOI
  19. Russo, 1989, The validity of verbal protocols, Memory & Cognition, 17, 759, 10.3758/BF03202637 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Schedler, 2007, Customer orientation in electronic government: Motives and effects, Government Information Quarterly, 24, 291, 10.1016/j.giq.2006.05.005 · DOI
  21. Schellings, 2006, Third-grader's think-aloud protocols: Types of reading activities in reading an expository text, Learning and Instruction, 16, 549, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.004 · DOI
  22. Schneider, 2006, Exploring ease in thinking aloud, Psychological reports, 98, 85, 10.2466/pr0.98.1.85-90 · DOI
  23. Shi, 2007, The accessibility of Chinese local government Websites: An exploratory study, Government Information Quarterly, 24, 377, 10.1016/j.giq.2006.05.004 · DOI
  24. Taylor, 2000, Accessing problem solving strategy knowledge: The complementary use of concurrent verbal protocols and retrospective debriefing, Journal of Educational Psychology, 29, 413, 10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.413 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Ummelen, 2000, Measuring reading behavior in policy documents: A comparison of two instruments, IEEE transactions of professional communication, 43, 292, 10.1109/47.867945 · doi:10.1109/47.867945
  26. Van den Haak, 2003, Retrospective versus concurrent think-aloud protocols: Testing the usability of an online library catalogue, Behaviour & Information Technology, 22, 339, 10.1080/0044929031000 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Van den Haak, 2004, Employing think-aloud protocols and constructive interaction to test the usability of online library catalogues: A methodological comparison, Interacting with computers, 16, 1153, 10.1016/j.intcom.2004.07.007 · DOI
  28. Van den Haak, 2007, Evaluation of an informational web site: three variants of the think-aloud method compared, Technical Communication, 54, 58
  29. Welch, 2005, Virtual interactivity between government and citizens: The Chicago Police Department's citizen ICAM application demonstration case, Political communication, 22, 215, 10.1080/10584600590933205 · DOI
  30. Wong, 2005, Writers' mental representations of the intended audience and of the rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed, System, 33, 29, 10.1016/j.system.2004.06.009 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
van den Haak, M. J., de Jong, M. D. T., & Schellens, P. J.
Venue
Government Information Quarterly
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-01
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
193-202
ISSN
0740-624X
DOI
10.1016/j.giq.2007.11.003
Cited by
44
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.