Useful, Validated Instruments for Conducting Information Systems Empirical Research

 

Below are Dimensions of IS Success from the Garrity & Sanders (1998) model: Interface Satisfaction, Decision Support Satisfaction, Task Support Satisfaction and Quality of Work Life Satisfaction. In addition, a number of other validated measures are included:

 

Operationalization of Latent Variables



Interface Satisfaction

IESY

The information system is easy to use

[24, 29]

IFLX

The information system is flexible

[24, 34]

IUND

The information system provides understandable output

[29, 34]

IFRM

The information system presents information in a useful form

[29, 34]

Information Satisfaction

FCUR

The information system provides information that is current

[29, 35]

FTIM

The information system provides information that is timely

[29, 35]

FACC

The information system provides information that is accurate

[29, 35]

FCOM

The information system provides information that is complete

[6, 29]

FRLB

The information system provides information that is reliable

[6, 7]

Decision Support Satisfaction

DEVL

The information system helps me evaluate alternatives

Adapted from [81]

DQUL

The information system improves the quality of decisions

[81]

DRLV

The information system provides more relevant info for my decision making

[81]

DPRI

The information system helps me to better set priorities in decision making

[81]

Task Support Satisfaction

TRLY

I have come to rely on the information system when performing my job

[81]

TUSE

The information system is useful in my job

[24, 81]

TBEN

I find the information system beneficial to my job

Adapted from [81]

Service Quality

SPMT

Employees in the IS department give prompt service

[22, 94, 95]

SHLP

Employees in the IS department are always willing to help

[22, 94, 95]

SCRT

Employees in the IS department are courteous

[22, 94, 95]

SKLG

Employees in the IS department have knowledge to answer questions

[22, 94, 95]

SATT

Employees in the IS department give personal attention

[22, 94, 95]

SNED

Employees in the IS department understand my needs and those of work group

[22, 94, 95]

SPRM

Employees in the IS department deliver when they promise to do something

[22, 94, 95]

SSOL

Employees in the IS department show sincere interest in solving problems

[22, 94, 95]

SFST

Employees in the IS department perform services right the first time

[22, 94, 95]

SFES

Employees in the IS department maintain fully functional equipment & software

[22, 94, 95]

Quality of Work Life Satisfaction

QSCH

The information system makes my tasks easier to schedule

[13, 77]

QRUT

The information system gives me the right level of routine in my work

[65]

QTIM

The information system helps alleviate time pressure

[12]

QAUT

The information system gives me the right level of autonomy in my work

[36, 39]

Perceived Organizational Impact

PQUL

The information system helped our organization to provide better quality product

Adapted from [47]

PPRO

The information system increases productivity of organization

Adapted from [47]

PEFF

The information system enhances effectiveness of organization

[66]

*Note that all questionnaire items of the research constructs use a 7-point Likert scale, varying from Strongly disagree 1 to Strongly agree 7.

 

Table 4. Measures, Loadings, and Weights

Interface

Satisfaction

Service Quality

Decision Support Satisfaction

Quality of Work Life Satisfaction

Perceived Organizational Impact

Item

Loading

Weight

Item

Loading

Weight

Item

Loading

Weight

Item

Loading

Weight

Item

Loading

Weight

IESY

0.868

0.282

SPMT

0.872

0.114

DEVL

0.850

0.272

QSCH

0.872

0.296

PQUL

0.930

0.337

IFLX

0.875

0.293

SHLP

0.900

0.114

DQUL

0.942

0.281

QRUT

0.910

0.287

PPRO

0.963

0.357

IUND

0.896

0.278

SCRT

0.826

0.095

DRLV

0.941

0.277

QTIM

0.884

0.286

PEFF

0.959

0.361

IFRM

0.887

0.285

SKLG

0.870

0.122

DPRI

0.929

0.274

QAUT

0.875

0.279

 

 

 

Information Quality

SATT

0.886

 

0.119

Task Support Satisfaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

SNED

0.871

0.131

 

 

 

 

 

 

FCUR

0.892

0.213

SPRM

0.881

0.109

TRLY

0.914

0.328

 

 

 

 

 

 

FTIM

0.893

0.225

SSOL

0.904

0.111

TUSE

0.914

0.369

 

 

 

 

 

 

FACC

0.908

0.227

SFST

0.873

0.119

TBEN

0.947

0.384

 

 

 

 

 

 

FCOM

0.911

0.229

SFES

0.799

0.119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRLB

0.895

0.218

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Note: all loadings and weights are statistically significant at p< 0.001 using Jackknifing (t172, two-tailed test).

 

 

Table 5. Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

Constructs

Alpha

CR

AVE

Formula

Interface Quality

0.9037

0.9329

0.7767

 

CR = (∑λi)2 / [(∑λi)2 + ∑ivar(Єi)]

AVE = ∑λi2 / [∑λi2 + ∑ivar(Єi)]

Information Quality

0.9428

0.9551

0.8097

Service Quality

0.9645

0.9685

0.7546

Decision Support Quality

0.9412

0.9543

0.8395

Task Support Satisfaction

0.9161

0.9469

0.8560

Quality of Work Life Satisfaction

0.9169

0.9354

0.7546

Perceived Organizational Impact

0.9530

0.9660

0.9045

*Note: λi is the component loading to an indicator and var(Єi) = 1 λi2

 

 

Table 6. Correlations of latent variables

Interface Quality

Information

Quality

Service Quality

DSQ

TSS

QWLS

POI

Interface Quality

(0.881)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information Quality

0.643

(0.900)

 

 

 

 

 

Service Quality

0.496

0.520

(0.868)

 

 

 

 

Decision Support Quality (DSQ)

0.573

0.538

0.400

(0.916)

 

 

 

Task Support Satisfaction (TSS)

0.647

0.631

0.423

0.629

(0.925)

 

 

Quality of Work Life Satisfaction

0.612

0.566

0.426

0.785

0.653

(0.885)

 

Perceived Organizational Impact

0.700

0.673

0.454

0.685

0.707

0.733

(0.951)

*Note: the number in parenthesis is the square root of AVE

Selected References Used for Instrument Development

6. Bailey, J.E., and Pearson, S.W. Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction. Management Science, 29, 5, (1983), 530-545.

12. Billings, R.S.; Klimoski, R.J.; and Breaugh, J.A. The Impact of Change in Technology on Job Characteristics: A quasi-experiment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, June, (1977), 318-339.

13. Breaugh, J.A., and Colihan, J.P. Measuring Facets of Job Ambiguity: Construct Validity Evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 2, (1994), 191-202.

22. Cronin, J.J., Jr., and Taylor, S.A. Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 3, (1992), 55-68.

24. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3, (1989), 319-340.

29. Doll, W.J., and Torkzadeh, G. The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction. MIS Quarterly, 12, 2, (1988), 259-274.

33. Garrity, E.J., and Sanders, G.L. Dimensions of Information Systems Success, in Edward J. Garrity and G. Lawrence Sanders, ed., Information Systems Success Measurement, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 1998, 13-45.

35. Goodhue, D.L., and Thompson, R.L. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19, 2, (1995), 213-236.

36. Griffin, R.W. Effects of Work Redesign on Employee Perceptions, Attitudes and Behaviors: A Long-Term Investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 2, (1991), 425-435.

39. Hackman, J.R., and Oldham, G.R. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1980.

41. Heckhausen, J., and Schulz, R. A life-span theory of control. Psychological Review, 102, (1995), 284-304.

47. Jenster, P.V. Firm Performance and Monitoring of Critical Success Factors in Different Strategic Contexts. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3, 3, (1987), 17-33.

65. Miller, C.C.; Click, W.H.; Wang, Y.-D.; and Huber, G.P. Understanding Technology-Structure Relationships: Theory Development and Meta-Analytic Theory Testing. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 2, (1991), 370-399.

66. Millman, Z., and Hartwick, J. The Impact of Automated Office Systems on Middle Managers and Their Work. Mis Quarterly, 11, 4, (1987), 479-492.

77. Rice, R.W.; McFarlin, D.B.; Hunt, R.G.; and Near, J.P. Organizational Work and the Perceived Quality of Life: Toward a Conceptual Model. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 2, (1985), 296-310.

81. Sanders, G.L. MIS/DSS Success Measure. Systems, Objectives, Solutions, 4, (1984), 29 - 34.

94. Teas, R.K. Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers' perceptions of quality. Journal of Marketing, 57, 4, (1993), 18-34.

95. Teas, R.K. Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: An assessment of a reassessment. Journal of Marketing, 58, 1, (1994), 132-139.

 

Figure 1. A Means-End Model of IS Success

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______

Figure 2. Garrity and Sanders (1998) Model of IS Success