The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validation in Information Systems Research: A State-of-the-Art Assessment1
Abstract
Over 10 years ago, the issue of whether IS researchers were rigorously validating their quantitative, positivist instruments was raised (Straub 1989). In the years that have passed since that time, the profession has undergone many changes. Novel technologies and management trends have come and gone. New professional societies have been formed and grown in prominence and new demands have been placed on the field’s research and teaching obligations. But the issue of rigor in IS research has persisted throughout all such changes. Without solid validation of the instruments that are used to gather data upon which findings and interpretations are based, the very scientific basis of positivist, quantitative research is threatened. As a retrospective on the Straub article, this research seeks to determine if and how the field has advanced in instrument validation. As evidence of the change, we coded positivist, quantitative research articles in five major journals over a recent three year period for use of validation techniques. Findings suggest that the field has advanced in many areas, but, overall, it appears that a majority of published studies are still not sufficiently validating their instruments. Based on these findings, approaches are suggested for reinvigorating the quest for validation in IS research via content/construct validity, reliability, and manipulation validity.
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY1
LAWSHE, C. H. (1975) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x · Cited by 7,313
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
Cited by
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
Self-citationDeveloping and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81 · Cited by 5,550
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23044045 · Cited by 3,165
Building Effective Online Marketplaces with Institution-Based Trust
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0015 · Cited by 2,516
Self-citationLowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication · doi:10.1109/tpc.2014.2312452 · Cited by 1,901
Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008 · Cited by 1,987
Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical Test and Theoretical Analysis
Rai, A., Lang, S. S., & Welker, R. B. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.1.50.96 · Cited by 1,611
Individual Trust in Online Firms: Scale Development and Initial Test
(2002) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045715 · Cited by 1,347
Extending the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM
Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M. A., & Popovič, A. (2014) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.004 · Cited by 808
Zhu, K., & Kraemer, K. L. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.3.275.82 · Cited by 779
Perceived information quality in data exchanges: Effects on risk, trust, and intention to use
Nicolaou, A. I., & McKnight, D. H. (2006) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0103 · Cited by 682
Examining Trust in Information Technology Artifacts: The Effects of System Quality and Culture
Vance, A., Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C., & Straub, D. W. (2008) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240403 · Cited by 599
Self-citationIn Pursuit of Moderation: Nine Common Errors and Their Solutions1
Carte, T. A., & Russell, C. J. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036541 · Cited by 565
Sharma, R., Yetton, P., & Crawford, J. (2009) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/20650305 · Cited by 496
Yang, Q., Pang, C., Liu, L., Yen, D. C., & Michael Tarn, J. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.058 · Cited by 410
Cenfetelli, R. T., Benbasat, I., & Al-Natour, S. (2008) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0163 · Cited by 272
Perceived risk and trust associated with purchasing at electronic marketplaces
Verhagen, T., Meents, S., & Tan, Y.-H. (2006) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000644 · Cited by 270
O’Leary, M. B., Wilson, J. M., & Metiu, A. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.4.13 · Cited by 191
The role of quality in e‐procurement performance: An empirical analysis
Vaidyanathan, G., & Devaraj, S. (2008) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.08.004 · Cited by 133
Agogo, D., & Hess, T. J. (2018) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2018.1435230 · Cited by 121
AI Literacy - Towards Measuring Human Competency in Artificial Intelligence
Pinski, M., & Benlian, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2023.021 · Cited by 94
Identifying issues in customer relationship management at merck-medco
Torkzadeh, G., Chang, J. C.-J., & Hansen, G. W. (2006) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.10.003 · Cited by 56
Organizational adoption of supply chain management system: A multi-theoretic investigation
Cao, Q., Gan, Q., & Thompson, M. A. (2013) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2013.02.003 · Cited by 39
Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research1
Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148814 · Cited by 32
Self-citation(2004) · Cited by 21
Eide, H., Leren, L., & Sørebø, Ø. (2017) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2016.1198427 · Cited by 19
(2018) · DigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University)
Metadata
- Authors
- Boudreau, M.-C., Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2001-03-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-16
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2124421215
- Cited by
- 959
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 32.11
- 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
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.
