Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2022.vol9.no5.0431

Factors Affecting Perceived Usefulness of Google Scholar by University Students: An Empirical Study from Vietnam  

LE, Tran Gia Thanh (Faculty of Business Administration, FPT Can Tho University)
NGUYEN, Trong Luan (Faculty of Business Administration, FPT University, Can Tho Campus)
Publication Information
The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business / v.9, no.5, 2022 , pp. 431-441 More about this Journal
Abstract
Many new challenges in different sectors have emerged due to societal growth, and researchers are needed to help solve them; and Google Scholar is a tool to assist researchers in doing so. The goal of this study is to figure out what characteristics influence how effective the Google Scholar tool is for Vietnamese university students. The study focuses on analyzing and explaining the interplay between the independent variables Perceived of Google Scholar, Perceived ease of use, Comprehensiveness and subjective norm, Perceived Satisfaction for the dependent variable Perception of usefulness. The study was carried out using quantitative and qualitative methods with 280 data points collected online through the survey link. The methods used to test the scale such as Cronbach alpha, CFA, SEM, One sample T-test, Independent Sample T-test, and One-way Anova are used to find the correlation between factors such as gender, Age, and Majors that affect the students' perception of the usefulness of google scholar. The results show that all the factors suggested in the model have a significant impact on the perceived usefulness of Google scholar. Furthermore, research shows that Google Scholar is an important academic search engine for Vietnamese students.
Keywords
Google Scholar; Perceived Usefulness; Academic Search Engine; Vietnamese University;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555   DOI
2 Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338-342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF   DOI
3 Alotaibi, F., & Johnson, F. (2020). Why we like Google Scholar: postgraduate students' perceptions of factors influencing their intention to use. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 72(4), 304. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-10-2019-0304   DOI
4 Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2012). Counting citations in the field of business and management: Why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science. Scientometrics, 93(3), 553-581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0729-2   DOI
5 Anker, M. S., Hadzibegovic, S., Lena, A., & Haverkamp, W. (2019). The difference in referencing in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. ESC Heart Failure, 6(6), 1291-1312. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12583   DOI
6 Belkin, N. J., & Croft, A. (1992). Anomalous state of knowledge as the basis for information retrieval. Canadian Journal of Library and Information Science, 5, 133-143. https://faculty.washington.edu/harryb/courses/INFO310/Belkin1980_ASK.pdf
7 Wang, Y. (2020). Web-scale discovery and Google Scholar: A study in use patterns. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 32(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941126X.2019.1709722   DOI
8 Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. UK: Taylor & Francis.
9 Cothran, T. (2011). Google Scholar acceptance and use among graduate students: A quantitative study. Library and Information Science Research, 33(4), 293-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2011.02.001   DOI
10 Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2019). Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations? Journal of Informetrics, 13(2), 467-484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.02.009   DOI
11 Johnson, F., Rowley, J., & Sbaffi, L. (2016). Exploring information interactions in the context of Google. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 824-840. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23443   DOI
12 Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 7(4), 396-403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975   DOI
13 Kidder, L. H., & Fine, M. (1987). Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 35, 1459-1501. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1459   DOI
14 Gusenbauer, M. (2019). Google Scholar to overshadow them all?. Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 118(1), 177-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5   DOI
15 Oh, K. E., & Colon-Aguirre, M. (2019). A comparative study of perceptions and use of google scholar and academic library discovery systems. College and Research Libraries, 80(6), 876-891. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.6.876   DOI
16 Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2015). Factor analysis and latent structure analysis: Confirmatory factor analysis. International encyclopedia of the social and Behavioral Science, 87, 978-991. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.25009-5   DOI
17 Lavidas, K., Achriani, A., Athanassopoulos, S., Messinis, I., & Kotsiantis, S. (2020). University students' intention to use search engines for research purposes: A structural equation modeling approach. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2463-2479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10071-9   DOI
18 Borlund, P., & Pharo, N. (2019). A need for information-on-information needs. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, Ljubljana, Slovenia, June 16-19, 2019 (pp. 1908-1919). Boras, Sweden: UoB. http://www.informationr.net/ir/24-4/colis/colis1908.html
19 Martin-Martin, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado Lopez-Cozar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations' COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 871-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4   DOI
20 Mikki, S. (2010). Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for earth sciences. Scientometrics, 82(2), 321-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0038-6   DOI
21 Nguyen, T., Bui, T. H. V., Nguyen, T. L. T., Tran, M. D., & Tran, T. K. N. (2021). Perception of organizational support to lecturers' research motivation: The case of Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no2.0657   DOI
22 Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3, 248-292.
23 Rafika, A. S., Putri, H. Y., & Widiarti, F. D. (2017). Analisis mesin pencarian Google Scholar sebagai sumber baru untuk kutipan. Journal CERITA, 3(2), 193-205. https://doi.org/10.33050/cerita.v3i2.657   DOI
24 Ruthven, I. (2019). The language of information needs: Differentiating conscious and formalized information needs. Information Processing and Management, 56(1), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2018.09.005   DOI
25 Shen, L. (2012). Graduate students report strong acceptance and loyal usage of google scholar. Evidence-Based Library and Information Practice, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.18438/B8RW3P   DOI
26 Wu, M., & Chen, S. C. (2014). Graduate students appreciate Google Scholar, but still, find a use for libraries. Electronic Library, 32(3), 375-389. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2012-0102   DOI
27 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(4), 336-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80231-2   DOI
28 Tella, A., Oyewole, M., & Tella, A. (2017). An analysis of perceived usefulness of Google Scholar by the postgraduate students of the University of Ilorin, Nigeria. SA Journal of Information Management, 19(1), 793. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v19i1.793   DOI
29 Noruzi, A. (2005). Google Scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. In Libri, 55(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2005.170   DOI
30 Yahua, Q., Jizong, W., Yi, Y., Ming, Z., & Shilong, L. (2011). Determination of 235U isotope abundance by measuring selected pairs of fission products. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 665, 70-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2011.10.020   DOI
31 Zientek, L. R., Werner, J. M., v. Campuzano, M. V., & Nimon, K. (2018). The use of Google Scholar for research and research dissemination. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 30(1), 39-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20209   DOI
32 Le, D. T. H., Nguyen, L. D. B., Phan, C. L. N., Vu, T. M., & Phan, H. T. (2022). Factors affecting training quality and student satisfaction: An empirical study in Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 9(4), 391-398. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2022.VOL9.NO4.0391   DOI
33 Taherdoost, H. (2018). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in research. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1(1), 56-70. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205040   DOI
34 Brezina, V. (2012). Use of Google Scholar in corpus-driven EAP research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 319-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.08.001   DOI
35 Taylor, R. S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College and Research Libraries, 29(3), 178-194. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_29_03_178   DOI
36 Alzhanova, F. G., Kireyeva, A. A., Satpayeva, Z. T, Tsoy, A. A., & Nurbatsin, A. (2020). Analysis of the level of technological development and digital readiness of scientific-research institutes. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(12), 1133-1147. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO12.1133   DOI
37 Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009). Google Scholar's ranking algorithm: An introductory overview. 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2009, Rio De Janerio, Brazil, 14-17 July 2009 (pp. 31-38 ). BIREME: Brazil. https://doi.org/10.1.1.303.31