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 = ∑λi^2/ [∑λi^2 + ∑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: λ_i is the component loading to an indicator and var(Є_i) = 1 – λ_i²

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