On the measurability of information quality

Abstract

The notion of information quality (IQ) has been investigated extensively in recent years. Much of this research has been aimed at conceptualizing IQ and its underlying dimensions (e.g., accuracy, completeness) and at developing instruments for measuring these quality dimensions. However, less attention has been given to the measurability of IQ. The objective of this study is to explore the extent to which a set of IQ dimensions-accuracy, completeness, objectivity, and representation-lend themselves to reliable measurement. By reliable measurement, we refer to the degree to which independent assessors are able to agree when rating objects on these various dimensions. Our study reveals that multiple assessors tend to agree more on certain dimensions (e.g., accuracy) while finding it more difficult to agree on others (e.g., completeness). We argue that differences in measurability stem from properties inherent to the quality dimension (i.e., the availability of heuristics that make the assessment more tangible) as well as on assessors'reliance on these cues. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

A study of factors that contribute to online review helpfulness

“…These could refer to the content, writing style, meaning, quality, source, and any other non-quantity aspects of information. Examples of qualitative factors include relevance, accuracy, reliability, timeliness, source credibility, readability, conciseness, sidedness, and others (Alkhattabi, Neagu, & Cullen, 2011;Arazy & Kopak, 2011;Leung, 2001;Wang & Strong, 1996;Yaari et al, 2011).…”

“…In terms of quantitative factors, the current research uses word count as a predictor of review helpfulness. Additionally, the quality of information is extremely crucial in online reviews, since high quality information provides reliable, current and concise information (Arazy & Kopak, 2011;Yaari, Baruchson-Arbib, & Bar-Ilan, 2011). In the online review context, quality of information relates to the qualifications and credibility of reviewers (Li & Zhan, 2011;Sotiriadis & van Zyl, 2013).…”

“…''Quality'' is a construct that is subjective and hard to define. High-quality information might be characterized as accurate, reliable, current, concise, fair, easy to understand, organized, and many other things (Alkhattabi et al, 2011;Arazy & Kopak, 2011;Yaari et al, 2011). Since the purpose of information in general is to inform, the maxim of quality is defined as ''appropriately informative'' (Grice, 1967).…”

Credibility Assessment of Online Information in Context

“…Most researchers agree that trustworthiness captures the perceived goodness or morality of the source, which is often phrased in terms of being truthful, fair, and unbiased (Fogg, 2003). Through numerous studies, additional related concepts have been identified, including currency, fairness, accuracy, trustfulness, completeness, precision, objectivity, and informativeness (Arazy & Kopak, 2011;Rieh, 2010). Fogg (2003) defines credibility with respect to "believability. "…”

Visible Evidence of Invisible Quality Dimensions and the Role of Data Management

“…Ashley (2012) argues that it may be possible to agree only that quality is desirable. Discussions on quality attributes have been recently initiated using the influence of information quality research (e.g., Arazy & Kopak, 2011;Knight & Burn, 2005;Lee at al., 2002) and MIS research (e.g., Madnick et al, 2009;Fox et al, 1994;Wang & Strong, 2006). Examples of the adopted or identified attributes of quality, as taken from recent discussions, include integrity, usability, objectivity, understandability, authenticity, accuracy, comprehensiveness, utility, transparency, and accessibility (Giarlo, 2012;OMB, 2002;Sticco, 2012).…”