Multiple Factors Influence Undergraduates’ Intent to Use Online Library Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Joo, S., & Choi, N. (2015). Factors affecting undergraduates’ selection of online library resources in academic tasks. Library Hi Tech, 33(2), 272-291. doi: 10.1108/LHT-01-2015-0008 Objective – To investigate multiple factors that may affect undergraduate students’ selection of online library resources. Usefulness and ease of use, quality, and user differences were each explored as factors influencing undergraduates’ use intention. Design – Survey questionnaire. Setting – A state university located in the United States of America. Subjects – 332 randomly selected undergraduate students. Methods – A survey designed to measure the intent to utilize online library resources was administered to an undergraduate population. The results, including 11 factors of use intention, were analyzed quantitatively using inferential statistics such as structural equation modeling, multiple regression, t-tests, ANOVAs, and linear regression. Main Results – The factors of usefulness and ease of use were reported to have a positive relationship with undergraduates’ intent to use online library resources (regression weights = 0.473 and 0.408, p < 0.01). Respondents who answered that they were “very or extremely familiar” with online library resources had higher use intention of these sources (mean = 6.17) than other groups moderately or not at all familiar (mean = 5.74 and 4.95, respectively). Experience in a library instruction program was not found to influence use intention (t = -0.368, p > 0.05). Conclusions – The authors conclude that multiple factors influence online library resource selection behavior among undergraduates. The results indicate that usefulness and ease of use are important factors in use intention. The effect of “resource quality” factors, indicated by credibility, format, accessibility, currency, and coverage, suggested that all five factors positively impact use intention. Accessibility is most likely to increase the likelihood of online library resource selection while the credibility of a source has the weakest effect on selection. Familiarity with online library resources and self-reported strong search skills also positively influenced use intention.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".