Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 8.1
Studies Cited as Being in Title and/or Abstracts/Keywords of ISI Web of Science and EBSCO
Source
Disposition
Studies Examined from ISI Web of Science and EBSCO
Beckman (2002)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Chan (2001)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Dennis and Carte (1998)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Dunn and Grabski (2001)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Hubona, Everett, Marsh, and Wauchope (1998)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Mahoney, Roush, and Bandy (2003)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Tuttle and Kershaw (1998)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Umanath and Vessey (1994)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Vessey and Galletta (1991)
EBSCO
Analyzed
Additional Studies Examined
Borthick, Bowen, Jones, and Tse (2001)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Khatri, Vessey, Ram, and Ramesh (2006)
Author
Analyzed
Smelcer and Carmel (1997)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Speier and Morris (2003)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Speier, Vessey, and Valacich (2003)
Author
Analyzed
Wheeler and Jones (2003)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Wilson and Addo (1994)
Web of Science
Analyzed
Studies Not Further Examined
Agarwal and Sinha (1996)
Web of Science
System development domain
Agarwal, De, and Sinha (1999)
EBSCO
System development domain
Agarwal, Sinha, and Tanniru (1996)
Web of Science
System development domain
Chandra and Krovi (1999)
Web of Science
Conceptual
Giordano (2002)
Web of Science
System development domain
Heliades and Edmonds (2000)
Web of Science
System development domain
Hung (2003)
Web of Science
Does not test core CF
Jahng, Jain, and Ramamurthy (2000)
Web of Science
Conceptual; not CF
Mennecke, Crossland, and Killingsworth (2000)
Web of Science
Does not test core CF
Meyer, Shamo, and Gopher (1999)
Web of Science
Conceptual
Ramarapu, Frolick, Wilkes, and Wetherbe (1997)
Web of Science
Conceptual
Sinha and Vessey (1992)
Web of Science
System development domain
Song and Salvendy (2003)
Web of Science
Conceptual; not CF
Swink and Robinson (1997)
Web of Science
Does not test core CF
Vessey (1994)
Web of Science
Conceptual foundation
Wright (1995)
Web of Science
Mixed representations
problem representation/task match, problem representation/problem-solving skill match, or problem-
solving task/problem-solving tool match, and, indeed, three-way matches. Additionally, studies
could have been classified by the domain in which they are applied.
From the viewpoint of classifying cognitive fit studies based on the theoretical distinction of task
complexity, we found that the majority of the studies used more complex decision-making or problem-
solving tasks, with very few studies addressing simple information acquisition and information eval-
uation tasks. Hence, this approach did not allow a sufficiently rich characterization of studies that
addressed more complex tasks. From the viewpoint of classifying the studies based on which problem-
solving elements were matched, we found that by far the majority of studies addressed matches
between task type and problem representation, that is, the original formulation of the model (Vessey,
1991, 1994). Again, this basis for classification did not prove to be appropriate. Finally, classifying
Search WWH ::




Custom Search