MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967259661 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.448

Neurophysiological Correlates of Information Systems Commonly Used Self-Reported Measures: A Multitrait Multimethod Study

2012· article· en· W1967259661 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Ortíz de Guinea, Ryad Titah, Pierre‐Majorique Léger, Thomas Micheneau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArousalNeurophysiologyTraitCognitionCognitive psychologyComputer sciencePerceptionConstruct (python library)PsychologyConstruct validityCognitive loadArtificial intelligencePsychometricsSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the importance and criticality of instrument validation in IS research, the objective of this study is to provide a systematic assessment of IS construct validity via a multitrait multimethod (MTMM). In doing so, this paper uses structurally different methods -- neurophysiological and self-reported scales - to measure three commonly used IS constructs: engagement, arousal and cognitive load. The study's results generally support MTMM expectations and shed light on the complexity of detecting the nature of mono-method bias. More specifically, the study's results show that primitive perceptual IS constructs such as arousal are unlikely to suffer from mono-method bias, whereas more complex perceptual constructs such as engagement or cognitive load have higher within method correlations. There are two alternative explanations for the within method correlations: a) a method bias, or b) a combination between trait and method.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207