Campos HA

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 231-244
PDF size: 112.43 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: examine the methods and technique used in the evaluation of the catalogues of public access on line and identify the constants for its evaluation.
Methods: document analysis was used to verify in the bibliography the studies referred to the methods and technique used in the evaluations of the catalogues of public access on line. They analyzed besides different initiatives related to the evaluation of catalogues on line, so that it could identify to which evaluative method appearance devoted each one of the studies analysed.
Results: a group of initiatives are developed for the quality of the evaluation of the catalogues on line from different dimensions; among them is the referred to the provision of the catalogues on line; the one who takes in consideration the analysis of the errors; the referred to the studies of the interface and the one that considers the usability of the systems, in which they generally relate the relative appearances of the architecture of the information and the already implicit in this approach from the perspective of the users.
Conclusions: in the studies about the evaluation of catalogues on line there is a terminological diversity to identify the different practice, but it could be systematised in three big divisions: qualitative, quantitative and those that use the comparisons. The methods used in the evaluation of the catalogues on line contain, in general, a wide component of statistical application, but we can say that in their whole methods they are not properly produced by the Bibliotecology or by the Science of the Information, but they are marked by the influence of other fields of knowledge, as the Mathematical Sciences and the Computation, the cognitive Psychology, the usability, among other disciplines. The majority of the authors do not establish differences between the methods and the collection of information technique. The different proposals analysed, from diverse perspectives, with different terminologies and even through different indicators and compilation of information, are essentially focused in the study of the usability of the system or all that is referred to his ergonomic capacities, the management of the contents or the creation, maintenance, reuse or adjust of the metainformative system, and the transparency of the system of recovery of the information.

REFERENCES

1. Martínez F. Enseñanza de la recuperación y acceso por tema en las Escuelas de Bibliotecología Mexicanas. Boston: 67th IFLA Council and General Conference; 2001.

2. Codina L. Internet invisible y Web semántica: ¿el futuro de los sistemas de información en línea? 2003 [citado 20 de mayo de 2007]. Disponible en: http://www.lluiscodina.com/articulos/websemantica.pdf

3. Alveranga L. Representação do conhecimento na perspectiva da Ciência da Informação em tempo e espaço digitais. Rev Electr Bibliotec Ciênc Inform. 2003;15:25-31.

4. Bonal JL, Ortego MP. Métodos de evaluación de la calidad de catálogos automatizados: análisis comparativos. Bilbao: VII Jornadas españolas de documentación; 2000.

5. Markey K. Twenty-Five Years of End-User Searching. Part 1: Research Findings. J Inform Sci Tecnol. 2007;58(8):1071-81.

6. Larson R. The decline of subject searching: Long term trends and patterns of index use in an online catalog. Journal of American Socieiy for Information Science, 1991;42:36-49.

7. Huang J, Wong K. Technical services and user service improvement. Libr Manag. 2006;27(6/7):505-14.

8. Breeding M. Tendencias actuales y futuras en tecnologias de la información para unidades de información. El profesional de la información. 2011;11(1):9-15.

9. Lancáster FW, Pinto M. Procesamiento de la información científica. Madrid: Arco/Libros; 2001.

10. Powell RR, Connaway LS. Basic research methods for librarians. Westport: Libraries Unlimited; 2004.

11. APQC. The Bechmarking Code of Conduct [Internet]. 2005 [citado 13 de mayo de 2011]. Disponible en: http:// www.orau.gov/pbm/pbmhandbook/apqc.pdf

12. Catalán Vega MA. Metodologías de evaluación de Interfaces Gráficas de Usuario [tesis]. 2000 [citado 20 de mayo de 2007]. Disponible en: http://eprints.rclis.org/6732/

13. Larson R. The decline of subject searching: Long term trends and patterns of index use in an online catalog. J Am Soc Informat Scien. 1991(42):135-43.

14. Penniman WD, Dominick WD. Monitoring and evaluation of online information system usage. Informat Proces Manag. 2001;16(1):75-82.

15. Hider PM. Constructing an index of search goal redefinition through transaction log analysis. J Docum. 2007;63(2):175-87.

16. Johnson GI, Briggs P. Question-asking and verbal protocol. En: Cassell C, Symon G, editors. Qualitative methods in organizational research. London: Sage. 1994. p. 55-71.

17. Ghuna T, Saraf V. OPAC usability: assessment through verbal protocol. The Electronic Librar. 2005;23(4):463-73.

18. Yang SC. Reconceptualizing think-aloud methodology: refining the encoding and categorizing techniques via contextualized perspectives. Comput in Hum Behav. 2003;19(1):95-115.

19. Casari Boccato VR, Spotti M, Lopes F. O uso de linguagem documentária em catálogos coletivos de bibliotecas universitárias: um estudo de avaliação sociocognitiva com protocolo verbal. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação. 2010;15(3):23-51.

20. Morrison HG. Online catalogue research and the verbal protocol method, Library HiTech. 1999;17(2):197-206.

21. Griffiths JR, Hartley RJ, Willson JP. An improved method of studying usersystem interaction by combining transaction log analysis and protocol analysis. Informat Res. 2002;7(4):67-75.

22. Pinto M. Gestión de la calidad en documentación. Rev Bibliotecon Docum. 1998;1:171-83.

23. Belkin NJ. A methodology for taking account of user tasks, goal and behavior for desing of computerized library catalogs. SIGCHI Bull. 1991;23(1):61-5.

24. Alvite ML, Rodríguez B. Evaluación de interfaces de OPACs implementadas con UNICORN en las universidades madrileñas. III Jornadas españolas de bibliotecas digitales. Madrid: Universidad Politécnica; 2002.