Content validity and reliability of an instrument to investigate serendipitous retrieval of information: Information Encountering and its Subsequent Keeping and Sharing Behaviour Scale (IEKSBS)
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2025
Content validity and reliability of an instrument to investigate serendipitous retrieval of information: Information Encountering and its Subsequent Keeping and Sharing Behaviour Scale (IEKSBS)
Good quantitative survey research is based on valid and reliable instruments. However, when it comes to information encountering (IE) and its keeping (IK) and sharing (IS) behaviours, there was currently no instrument available to accurately measure it. Therefore, this study was designed to prepare a valid and reliable instrument to investigate IE and its subsequent behaviours. This comprised of its preferred keeping tools, communication channels, purposes of sharing, motivators to share and constraints in sharing. Three already available instruments in the information behaviours lacked the distinguished type of information. These instruments were merged after seeking permission from their original authors. The merged instrument was validated for content and reliability. The data for reliability checking were collected twice: first, at the time of the pilot study and second, at the time of the final study. A multi-stage purposive total population sampling technique was used to collect the data from the sample. The subsequent instrument proved to be reliable for the investigation of IE, IK and IS behaviours. The process of making an instrument valid and reliable is complex. Therefore, the steps taken to establish content validity and reliability of the instrument are presented in detail in this article. The instrument is attached in the end for future studies and research.
JaegerPTThompsonKMMcClureCR.Information management. In: KKempf-Leonard (ed.) Encyclopedia of social measurement. New York: Elsevier, 2005, pp. 277–282.
2.
IngwersenPJärvelinK.Information retrieval in context: IRiX. ACM SIGIR For2005; 39: 31–39.
3.
WilsonTD.Human information behavior. Informing Science2000; 3: 49–56.
4.
ErdelezS.Information encountering: An exploration beyond information seeking 1995.
5.
ErdelezS.Information encountering. In: KEFisherSErdelezLMcKechnie (eds) Theories of information behavior Medford. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2004, pp. 179–184.
6.
AwamuraN.Rethinking the information behavior model of information encountering: An analysis of the interviews on information encountering on the Web. Libr Inform Sci2006; 55: 47–69.
7.
AwanWAAmeenKSoroyaSH.Information encountering and sharing behaviour of research students in an online environment. ASLIB J Inform Manag2019; 71: 500–517.
8.
AwanWAAmeenKSoroyaSH.Research information encountering and keeping behaviour of post-graduate students of social sciences in an online environment. Online Inform Rev2021; 45: 21–45.
9.
ChoiW.Older adults’ health information behavior in everyday life settings. Libr Inform Sci Res2019; 41: 100983.
10.
DuJTHainesJ.Indigenous Australians’ information behaviour and Internet use in everyday life: an exploratory study. Inform Res2017; 22: 1–23.
11.
HartelJ.Information behaviour, visual research, and the information horizon interview: three ways. Inform Res2017; 22: 1–13.
12.
HuvilaIAhmadF.Holistic information behavior and the perceived success of work in organizations. Libr Inform Sci Res2018; 40: 18–29.
13.
KwasitsuLChiuAM.Mobile information behavior of Warner Pacific University students. Libr Inform Sci Res2019; 41: 139–150.
14.
LekicDRivièreALIhadjadeneM.Information behaviour of top managers of telecommunications network units in the context of the digital transformation of the organization. Inform Res2020; 25: 884.
15.
MeyerHWJ. The influence of information behaviour on information sharing across cultural boundaries in development contexts. Inform Res2009; 14: 8.
16.
WangSYuL.Everyday information behaviour of the visually impaired in China. Inform Res2017; 22: 1–18.
17.
ErdelezSBasicJLevitovDD.Potential for inclusion of information encountering within information literacy models. Inform Res: Inter Electr J2011; 16: n3.
18.
ErdelezSMakriS.Information encountering re-encountered: a conceptual re-examination of serendipity in the context of information acquisition. J Document2020; 76: 731–751.
19.
JiangTFuSSongE.Toward a description framework of information encountering experiences: guidance for diarists in story telling. J Document2020; 76: 807–827.
20.
JiangTGuoQXuYet al. A diary study of information encountering triggered by visual stimuli on micro-blogging services. Inform Process Manag2019; 56: 29–42.
21.
MiwaMEgusaYSaitoHet al. A method to capture information encountering embedded in exploratory web searches. Inform Res2011; 16: 487.
22.
PanahiSWatsonJPartridgeH.Information encountering on social media and tacit knowledge sharing. J Inform Sci2016; 42: 539–550.
23.
StewartKNBasicJ.Information encountering and management in information literacy instruction of undergraduate, students. Int J Inform Manag2014; 34: 74–79.
24.
WildemuthBM.The urgency and importance of an active information seeking task influence the interruption of information encountering episodes. Evid Based Libr Inform Pract2020; 15: 167–170.
25.
LuC-J.Accidental discovery of information on the user-defined social web: a mixed-method study. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, 2012.
26.
PalsdottirA.The connection between purposive information seeking and information encountering: a study of Icelanders’ health and lifestyle information seeking. J Document2010; 66: 224–244.
27.
StreinerDLNormanGRCairneyJ.Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
28.
AnderbergPEivazzadehSBerglundJS.A novel instrument for measuring older people’s attitudes toward technology (TechPH): development and validation. J Med Internet Res2019; 21: 13951.
29.
BarkeADoeringBK.Development of an instrument to assess parents’ excessive Web-based searches for information pertaining to their children’s health: the ‘Children’s Health Internet Research, Parental Inventory’ (CHIRPI). J Med Internet Res2020; 22: 1–17.
30.
HuangXChandraADePaoloCet al. Measuring transactional distance in web-based learning environments: an initial instrument development. Open Learn2015; 30: 106–126.
31.
LeveyJANowakKL.Development of the Levey-Nowak embedded librarian presence instrument: a preliminary study. J Libr Inform Serv Dist Learn2015; 9: 304–311.
32.
Martín-AlcázarFRuiz-MartínezMSánchez-GardeyG.Assessing social capital in academic research teams: a measurement instrument proposal. Scientometrics2019; 121: 917–935.
33.
AbunadiIAlqahtaniF.Instrument development and contextualization for perceived characteristics of e-transactions. Program2017; 51: 52–64.
34.
HayotteMThérouannePGrayLet al. The French eHealth Acceptability Scale using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 model: instrument validation study. J Med Internet Res2020; 22: 1–11.
35.
HesamamiriRMazdehMMJafariM.Measuring the reliability of knowledge management Instrument development and validation. ASLIB Proc2013; 65: 484–502.
36.
HortaHSantosJ.An instrument to measure individuals’ research agenda setting: the multi-dimensional research agendas inventory. Scientometrics2016; 108: 1243–1265.
37.
WiseKErdelezSChiangY. Development of a scale to measure individual differences in opportunistic discovery of information. In: Proceeding of the 62nd annual conference of the International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ, May 24–28 2012.
38.
KimEWiseKErdelezSet al. Development of a scale to measure propensity for serendipitous discovery of information in an online context. Unpublished Manuscript, 2019.
39.
PonterottoJGMathewJTRaughleyB.The value of mixed methods designs to social justice research in counseling and psychology. J Soc Act Counsel Psychol2013; 5: 42–68.
40.
JonesWDumaisSBruceH.Once found, what then? A study of ‘keeping’ behaviors in the personal use of Web information. Proc Am Soc Inform Sci Technol2002; 39: 391–402.
41.
BruceHJonesWDumaisS.Keeping and re-finding information on the web: What do people do and what do they need?Proc Assoc Inform Sci Technol2004; 41: 129–137.
42.
DiekemaAROlsenMW.Teacher Personal information management (PIM) practices: finding, keeping, and re-finding information. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol2014; 65: 2261–2277.
43.
Van KleekMGBernsteinMPanovichKet al. Note to self: examining personal information keeping in a lightweight note-taking tool. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, 4–9 April 2009, pp. 1477–1480. New York: ACM.
44.
HelvoortA. A questionnaire for the institutional assessment of personal information management. In: SKurbanoğluUAlPLErdoğanet al. (eds) e-Science and information management. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2012, pp. 138–149.
45.
AmeenK.Personal information management practices and behaviors of social sciences’ students. Pak J Inform Manag Libr2016; 18: 12–24.
46.
BundersonJSSutcliffeKM.Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects. Acad Manag J2002; 45: 875–893.
47.
AslamM. Knowledge sharing practices in learning: a study of research in sciences at University of the Punjab. Unpublished M. Phil Thesis, Lahore University of the Punjab, Lahore, 2015.
48.
RafiqueGM.Knowledge sharing behavior of medical students: a study of the University College of Medicine, Lahore. Lahore, Pakistan: University of the Punjab, Lahore, 2014.
49.
TolisanoSR.Web 2.0 tools can promote literacy and global awareness. Leaders Comp2008; 5: 7–9.
50.
UsmanSHOyefolahanIO.Encouraging knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: a survey. Arxiv, 2014, https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7437
51.
YuenJTMajidS.Knowledge-sharing patterns of undergraduate students in Singapore. Libr Rev2007; 56: 485–494.
52.
MajidSWeySM. Knowledge sharing behavior of graduate students. In: JennexM. E. (ed.) Global aspects and cultural perspectives on knowledge management: emerging dimensions. Philadelphia, PA: IGI Global, 2011, pp. 113–125.
53.
MahmoodKRichardsonJJV. Impact of Web 2.0 technologies on academic libraries: a survey of ARL libraries. Electr Libr2013; 31: 508–520.
54.
PallantJ.SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows. London: McGraw Hill, Open University Press, 2005.
55.
AERA AERA and NCME NCoMiE. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 1999.
56.
MessickS.Validity. In: RLLinn (ed.) Educational measurement. New York: Macmillan, 1989, pp. 13–103.
57.
FrazerLLLawleyM.Questionnaire design & administration: a practical guide. Brisbane, QLD, Australia; New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
58.
OppenheimAN.Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. New York: Pinter Publishers, 2000.
59.
AhmedWSoroyaMSMalikGF.Service quality of library front desk staff in medical colleges of Lahore. Libr Manag2015; 36: 12–22.
NunnallyJCBernsteinIHBergeJM.Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967.
62.
TavakolMDennickR.Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ2011; 2: 53.
63.
TeddlieCTashakkoriA.Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009.
64.
SoroyaSHAmeenK.What do they want? Millennials and role of libraries in Pakistan. J Acad Libr2018; 44: 248–255.
65.
BakerMJ.Theory, practice and impact in academic marketing research. J Custom Behav2010; 9: 5–18.
66.
SoroyaSHAmeenK.Subject-based reading behavior differences of young adults under emerging digital paradigm. Arlington, VA: Special Interest Group on International Information Issues (SIGIII) of the Association for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T), 2017.
67.
EtikanIMusaSAAlkassimRS.Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theor Appl Stat2016; 5: 1–4.
68.
MacDonaldSLStaidMStaidMet al. Remote hyperspectral imaging of grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 in cabernet sauvignon vineyards. Comput Electr Agri2016; 130: 109–117.
69.
LethaleSMMakhadoLKoenMP.Factors influencing preceptorship in clinical learning for an undergraduate nursing programme in the North West Province of South Africa. Int J Afr Nurs Sci2019; 10: 19–25.
70.
RamosRRCalidgidCC.Patient safety culture among nurses at a tertiary government hospital in the Philippines. Appl Nurs Res2018; 44: 67–75.
71.
PrinceLYSchmidtkeCBeckJKet al. An assessment of organizational health literacy practices at an academic health center. Qual Manag Health Care2018; 27: 93–97.
72.
PearlCEVasquezEMarinoMTet al. Establishing content validity of the quality indicators for classrooms serving students with autism spectrum disorders instrument. Teacher Educ Spec Educ2018; 41: 58–69.
73.
WoodsideAG.Predicting advertising execution effectiveness: scale development and validation. Eur J Market2016; 50: 306–311.
74.
BeaulieuJScutchfieldFDKellyAV.Content and criterion validity evaluation of national public health performance standards measurement instruments. Publ Health Rep2003; 118: 508–517.
75.
BakerNARedfernMS.Developing an instrument to measure keyboarding style: obtaining content validity. Proc Hum Fact Ergon Soc Ann Meet2003; 47: 1164–1168.
76.
ShahidiJBernierNCohenSR.Quality of life in terminally ill cancer patients: contributors and content validity of instruments. J Palliat Care2010; 26: 88–93.
77.
WickertNMWong RiffKWYMansourMet al. Content validity of patient-reported outcome instruments used with pediatric patients with facial differences: a systematic review. Cleft Palate-Craniof J2018; 55: 989–998.
78.
YoonSSpeyerRCordierRet al. A systematic review evaluating psychometric properties of parent or caregiver report instruments on child maltreatment – part 1: content validity. Trauma Viol Abuse2021; 22: 1013–1031.
79.
AlbertsonDJohnstonMP.Modelling users’ perceptions of video information seeking, learning through added value and use of curated digital collections. J Inform Sci2021; 47: 575–589.
80.
EftekharZZiaeiSMoghaddamHS.New educational system and information and communication technology’s influence on the process of information seeking behavior: case of students of Islamic higher education. Int J Inform Sci Manag2019; 17: 73–82.
81.
FardousJDuJTHansenPet al. Group trip planning and information seeking behaviours by mobile social media users: a study of tourists in Australia, Bangladesh and China. J Inform Sci2021; 47: 323–339.
82.
HansenPWidénG.The embeddedness of collaborative information seeking in information culture. J Inform Sci2017; 43: 554–566.
83.
KavithaNChandrashekaraM.Information needs and information seeking behaviour of secondary school students in Mysore North Block: a study. Asian J Inform Sci Technol2022; 12: 18–25.
84.
ShuvaNZ.‘I actually got my first job through my ex-colleague’: employment-related information seeking behavior of Bangladeshi immigrants in Canada. J Libr Inform Sci2022; 54: 34–53.
85.
SuperioDLNemizESOliverosMGHet al. Responsible aquaculturists: the information-seeking behavior of milkfish farmers in Iloilo, Philippines. Inform Develop2019; 35: 767–780.
86.
ChiJPianWZhangS.Consumer health information needs: a systematic review of instrument development. Inform Process Manag2020; 57: 102376.
87.
LjungbergAKFossumBFürstCJet al. Translation and cultural adaptation of research instruments – guidelines and challenges: an example in FAMCARE-2 for use in Sweden. Inform Health Social Care2015; 40: 67–78.
88.
BahiaKNantelJ.A reliable and valid measurement scale for the perceived service quality of banks. Int J Bank Market2000; 18: 84–91.
89.
DevlinSJDongHBrownM.Selecting a scale for measuring quality. Market Res: Mag Manag1993; 5: 12–17.
