Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2019.36.4.129

A Study on Evaluation Model for Usability of Research Data Service  

Park, Jin Ho (주식회사 리스트 사업개발본부)
Ko, Young Man (성균관대학교 문과대학 문헌정보학과)
Kim, Hyun Soo (성균관대학교 정보관리연구소)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society for information Management / v.36, no.4, 2019 , pp. 129-159 More about this Journal
Abstract
The Purpose of this study is to develop an evaluation model for usability of research data service from the angles of evaluating usefulness of research data service itself and research data use experience-based usability. First, the various cases of evaluating usability of data services are examined and 4 rating scales and 20 measuring indicators for research data service are derived as a result of comparative analysis. In order to verify validity and reliability of the rating scale and the measuring indicators, the study conducted a survey of 164 potential research data users. KMO Bartlett Analysis was performed for validity test, and Principle Component Analysis and Verimax Rotating Method were used for component analysis on measuring indicators. The result shows that the 4 intrinsic rating scales satisfy the validity criteria of KMO Barlett; A single component was determined from component analysis, which verifies the validity of measuring indicators of the current rating scale. However, the result of 12 user experience-based measuring indicators analysis identified 2 components that are each classified as rating scale of utilization level and that of participation level. Cronbach's alpha of all 6 rating scales was 0.6 or more for the overall scale.
Keywords
research data; data quality; usability evaluation; rating scale; measuring indicator;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 6  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 강병서, 김계수 (2009). (SPSS 17.0) 사회과학 통계분석. 서울: 한나래.
2 Kim, Eun-Jung, & Nam, Tae-Woo (2012). Factor analysis of effects on research data collection. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 29(2), 27-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2012.29.2.027   DOI
3 Kim, Jun-Seop, Kim, Sun-Tae, & Choi, Sang-Ki (2019). The functional requirements of core elements for research data management and service. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 53(3), 317-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2019.53.3.317   DOI
4 Kim, Ji-Hyun (2015). A study on the perceptions of university researchers on data management and sharing. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 49(3), 413-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2015.49.3.413   DOI
5 Park, Mi-Young, Ahn, In-Ja, & Nam, Seung-Joo (2018). A study on the analysis of research data management and sharing of science & technology government-funded research institutes. Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 29(4), 319-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2018.29.4.319   DOI
6 Seoul Metropolitan Government (2015). Developing indicators for public data use in seoul city. Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government
7 송지준 (2008). 논문작성에 필요한 SPSS/AMOS 통계분석방법. 서울: 21세기사.
8 You, Sa-Rah (2019). Reconsideration of research framework for RRM in the perspective of linked open data. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 53(3), 101-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2019.53.3.101   DOI
9 Cho, Jane (2016). Study about research data citation based on DCI (Data Citation Index). Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 50(1), 189-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2016.50.1.189   DOI
10 Choi, Li-Jin, & Jung, Young-Mi (2019). A study on the legal interoperability guidelines for research data. In Proceedings of Summet, Meeting of Korean Library And Information Science Society, 2019. 5. 24, Gyeongsangbuk-do: Kyungpook National University Global Plaza, 241-250.
11 Abran, A., Khelifi, A., Suryn, W., & Seffah, A. (2003, April). Consolidating the ISO usability models. In Proceedings of 11th international software quality management conference. 23-25.
12 Dietrich, D., Gray, J., McNamara, T., Poikola, A., Pollock, P., Tait, J., & Zijlstra, T. (2009). Open data handbook. Retrieved from http://opendatahandbook.org/guide/en/what-is-open-data/
13 Elsevier (2015). 10 aspects of highly effective research data. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/connect/10-aspects-of-highly-effective-research-data
14 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (n.d.). EPSRC policy framework on research data. Retrieved from https://epsrc.ukri.org/about/standards/researchdata/
15 Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2008). To share or not to share: Publication and quality assurance of research data outputs. A report commissioned by the research information network.
16 European Commission (n.d.). Facts and Figures for open research data. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/goals-research-and-innovation-policy/open-science/open-science-monitor/facts-and-figures-open-research-data_en
17 Executive Office of the President of the United States (2013). Open Data Policy-Managing Information as an Asset. Washington, D.C.
18 Hicksa, D., Woutersb, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429-31.   DOI
19 ISO/IEC 9126 (2001). Quality characteristics and guidelines for the user. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
20 Pilat, D., & Fukasaku, Y. (2007). OECD principles and guidelines for access to research data from public funding. Data Science Journal, 6, OD4-OD11.   DOI
21 University of Leicester (2012.09.04.). Research Data - Definitions. Retrieved from https://www2.le.ac.uk/services/research-data/rdm/what-is-rdm/research-data
22 Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., ... & Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18