The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methodological Issues in Experimental IS Research: Experiences and Recommendations
Abstract
Within the last ten years the use of experimental methodology in information systems (IS) research has substantially increased. However, despite our experience with experimentation, studies continue to suffer from methodological problems. These problems have led to an accumulation of conflicting results in several areas of IS research. Moreover, future research studies will keep producing contradictory results unless researchers begin to answer questions of task and measurement validity before reporting their experimental findings. This article discusses common methodological problems in experimental IS studies and, through a description of a series of graphics experiments at the University of Minnesota, illustrates the particularly acute problem of low internal validity. Suggestions are offered to experimental IS researchers on how some of these common problems can be alleviated or even avoided, particularly in studies on the use of managerial graphics.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Behavioral Decision Theory: Processes of Judgement and Choice
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000413 · Cited by 1,691
Bar Charts versus Circle Diagrams
Croxton, F. E., & Stryker, R. E. (1927) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1927.10502976 · Cited by 81 · cited 1×
“As a further illustration, "interpretation accuracy" has been measured by the accuracy with which data values displayed in different formats can be estimated [11, 12, 35], by the magnitude of errors found in interpretation tasks [5], by the percentage of correct responses to questions ranging from simple retrieval to…”
Method
Cited by
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150
Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research
Straub, D., & Gefen, D. (2004) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.01324 · Cited by 2,797
The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.01250 · Cited by 2,572
Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals’ Concerns About Organizational Practices1
Smith, H. J., Milberg, S. J., & Burke, S. J. (1996) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249477 · Cited by 2,266
Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature*
Vessey, I. (1991) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb00344.x · Cited by 1,263
Metadata
- Authors
- Jarvenpaa, S. L., Dickson, G. W., & DeSanctis, G.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1985-06-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 141-156
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2122418187
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 51.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methodological Issues in Experimental IS Research: Experiences and Recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/249115
- The paper
- Jarvenpaa, S. L., Dickson, G. W., & DeSanctis, G. (1985). Methodological Issues in Experimental IS Research: Experiences and Recommendations. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/249115
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.