2. Tefko Saracevic1 EVALUATION in searching Requirements Criteria tefkos@rutgers.edutefkos@rutgers.edu; http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~tefko/ http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~tefko/

3. Central ideas  Evaluation is an integral part of searching  But there a number of: o contexts & approaches to evaluation o requirements for evaluation o criteria used in evaluation Tefko Saracevic 2

4. ToC 1.Importance, definitions 2.Contexts & approaches 3.Requirements for evaluation 4.Web evaluation and some pretty pictures at the end Tefko Saracevic 3

5. 1. Importance, definitions Place of evaluation Tefko Saracevic 4

6. 5 Definition of evaluation Dictionary: 1. assessment of value the act of considering or examining something in order to judge its value, quality, importance, extent, or condition In searching: assessment of search results on basis of given criteria as related to users and use criteria may be specified by users or derived from professional practice, other sources or standards Results are judged & with them the whole process, including searcher & searching

7. Tefko Saracevic 6 Importance of evaluation  Integral part of searching o always there - wanted or not  no matter what user will in some way or other evaluate what obtained o could be informal or formal  Growing problem for all o information explosion makes finding “good” stuff very difficult  Formal evaluation part of professional job & skills o requires knowledge of evaluation criteria, measures, methods o more & more prized

8. Tefko Saracevic 7 Place of evaluation User Inf. need Evaluation Search Results

9. Tefko Saracevic 8 General application  Evaluation (as discussed here) is applicable to results from a variety of information systems: o information retrieval (IR) systems, e.g. Dialog, Scopus … o sources included in digital libraries, e.g. Rutgers o reference services e.g. in libraries or commercial on the web o web sources e.g. as found on many domain sites  Many approaches, criteria, measures, methods are similar & can be adapted for specific source or information system

10. 2. Contexts & approaches Broad orientation Tefko Saracevic 9

11. 10 Broad context Evaluating the role that an information system plays as related to: èSOCIETY - community, culture, discipline... èINSTITUTION - university, organization, company... èINDIVIDUALS - users & potential users (nonusers) Roles lead to broad, but hard questions as to what CONTEXT to choose for evaluation

12. Tefko Saracevic 11 Questions asked in different contexts  Social: o how well does an information system support social demands & roles?  hardest to evaluate  Institutional: o how well does it support institutional/organizational mission & objectives?  tied to objectives of institution  also hard to evaluate  Individual: o how well does it support inf. needs & activities of people?  most evaluations in this context

13. Tefko Saracevic 12 Approaches to evaluation  Many approaches exist o quantitative, qualitative … o effectiveness, efficiency... o each has strong & weak points  Systems approach prevalent o Effectiveness: How well does a system perform that for which it was designed? o Evaluation related to objective(s) o Requires choices:  Which objective, function to evaluate?

14. Tefko Saracevic 13 Approaches … (cont.)  Economics approach: o Efficiency: at what costs? o Effort, time also are costs o Cost-effectiveness: cost for a given level of effectiveness  Ethnographic approach o practices, effects within an organization, community o learning & using practices & comparisons

15. Tefko Saracevic 14 Prevalent approach  System approach used in many different ways & purposes – in evaluation of: o inputs to system & contents o operations of a system o use of a system o outputs from a system  Also, in evaluation of search outputs for given user(s) and use o applied on the individual level  derived from assessments from users or their surrogates, e.g. searchers o this is what searchers do most often o this is what you will apply in your projects

16. 3. Requirements for evaluation No evaluation without them Tefko Saracevic 15

17. Tefko Saracevic 16 Five basic requirements for system evaluation Once a context is selected need to specify ALL five: 1. Construct oA system, process, source  a given IR system, web site, digital library...  what are you going to evaluate? 2. Criteria oto reflect objective(s) of searching  e.g. relevance, utility, satisfaction, accuracy, completeness, time, costs …  on basis of what will you make judgments? 3. Measure(s) oto reflect criteria in some quantity or quality  precision, recall, various Likert scales, $$$...  how are you going to express judgment?

18. Tefko Saracevic 17 Requirements … (cont.) 4. Measuring instrument orecording by users or user surrogates (e.g. you) on the measure  expressing if relevant or not, marking a scale, indicating cost  people are instruments – who will it be? 5. Methodology oprocedures for collecting & analyzing data  how are you going to get all this done?  Assemble the stuff to evaluate (construct)? Choose what criteria? Determine what measures to use to reflect the criteria? Establish who will judge and how will the judgment be done? How will you analyze results? Verify validity and reliability?

19. Tefko Saracevic 18 Requirements … (cont.)  Ironclad rule: No evaluation can proceed if not ALL five of these are specified!  Sometimes specification on some are informal & implied, but they are always there!

20. Tefko Saracevic 19 1. Constructs  In IR research: most done on test collections & test questions o Text Retrieval Conference - TREC  evaluation of algorithms, interactions  reported in research literature  In practice: on use & user level: mostly done on operational collections & systems, web sites o e.g. Dialog, LexisNexis, various files  evaluation, comparison of various contents, procedures, commands,  user proficiencies, characteristics  evaluation of interactions  reported in professional literature

21. Tefko Saracevic 20 2. Criteria  In IR: Relevance basic & most used criterion o related to the problem at hand  On user & use level: many other o utility, satisfaction, success, time, value, impact,...  Web sources o those + quality, usability, penetration, accessibility...  Digital libraries, web sites o those + usability

22. Tefko Saracevic 21 2. Criteria - relevance  Relevance as criterion (as mentioned) o strengths:  intuitively understood, people know what it means  universally applied in information systems o weaknesses:  not static - changes dynamically, thus hard to pin down  tied to cognitive structure & situation of a user – possible disagreements  Relevance as area of study  basic notion in information science  many studies done about various aspects of relevance  Number of relevance types exist o indication of different relations  had to be specified which ones

23. Tefko Saracevic 22 2. Criteria - usability  Increasingly used for web sites & digital libraries  General definition (ISO) “extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use”  Number of criteria o enhancing user performance o ease of operations o serving the intended purpose o learnability – how easy to learn, memorize? o losstness – how often got lost in using it? o satisfaction o and quite a few more

24. Tefko Saracevic 23 3. Measures  in IR: Precision & recall preferred (treated in unit 4) o based on relevance o could be two or more dimensions  e.g. relevant–not relevant; relevant–partially relevant–not relevant  Problem with recall o how to find what's relevant in a file?  e.g. estimate; broad & narrow searching or union of many outputs then comparison  On use & user level o Likert scales - semantic differentials  e.g. satisfaction on a scale of 1 to x (1=not satisfied, x=satisfied) o observational measures  e.g. overlap, consistency

25. Tefko Saracevic 24 4.Instruments  People used as instruments o they judge relevance, scale...  But people who? o users, surrogates, analysts, domain experts, librarians...  How do relevance, utility... judges effect results? o who knows?  Reliability of judgments: o about 50 - 60% for experts

26. Tefko Saracevic 25 5. Methods  Includes design, procedures for observations, experiments, analysis of results  Challenges: o Validity? Reliability? Reality?  Collection - selection? size?  Request - generation?  Searching - conduct?  Results - obtaining? judging? feedback?  Analysis - conduct? tools?  Interpretation - warranted? generalizable?

27. 4. Web evaluation Criteria Tefko Saracevic 26

28. Tefko Saracevic 27 Evaluation of web sources  Web is value neutral o it has everything from diamonds to trash  Thus evaluation becomes imperative o and a primary obligation & skill of professional searchers – you o continues & expands on evaluation standards & skills in library tradition  A number of criteria are used o most derived from traditional criteria, but modified for the web, others added o could be found on many library sites  librarians provide the public and colleagues with web evaluation tools and guidelines as part of their services

29. Tefko Saracevic 28 Criteria for evaluation of web & Dlib sources  What? Content o What subject(s), topic(s) covered? o Level? Depth? Exhaustively? Specificity? Organization? o Timeliness of content? Up-to-date? Revisions? o Accuracy?  Why? Intention o Purpose? Scope? Viewpoint?  For? Users, use o Intended audience? o What need satisfied? o Use intended or possible? o How appropriate?

30. Tefko Saracevic 29 criteria...  Who done it? Authority o Author(s), institution, company, publisher, creator:  What authority? Reputation? Credibility? Trustworthiness? Refereeing?  Persistence? Will it be around?  Is it transparent who done it?  How? Treatment o Content treatment:  Readability? Style? Organization? Clarity? o Physical treatment:  Format? Layout? Legibility? Visualization? o Usability  Where? Access o How available? Accessible? Restrictions? o Links persistence, stability?

31. Tefko Saracevic 30 criteria...  How? Functionality o Searching, navigation, browsing? o Feedback? Links? o Output: Organization? Features? Variations? Control?  How much? Effort, economics o Time, effort in learning it? o Time, effort in using it o Price? Total costs? Cost-benefits?  In comparison to? Wider world o Other similar sources?  where & how similar or better results may be obtained?  how do they compare?

32. Tefko Saracevic 31 Quality Content coverage accuracy timeliness … Users, use audience need appropriateness … Functionality navigation features output … Effort in using it in learning it time, cost … Access availability persistence links … Treatment content layout visualization … Authority reputation credibility “About us” … Intention purpose scope viewpoint … Main criteria for web site evaluation

33. Tefko Saracevic 32 Evaluation: To what end?  To asses & then improve performance – MAIN POINT o to change searches & search results for better  To understand what went on o what went right, what wrong, what works, what doesn't & then change  To communicate with user o explain & get feedback  To gather data for best practices o conversely: eliminate or reduce bad ones  To keep your job o even more: to advance  To get satisfaction from job well done

34. Tefko Saracevic 33 Conclusions  Evaluation is a complex task o but also an essential part of being an information professional  Traditional approaches & criteria still apply o but new ones added or adapted to satisfy new sources, & new methods of access & use  Evaluation skills are in growing demand particularly because web is value neutral  Great professional skill to sell!

35. Tefko Saracevic 34 Evaluation perspectives - Rockwell

36. Tefko Saracevic 35 Evaluation perspectives

37. Tefko Saracevic 36 Evaluation perspective …

38. Tefko Saracevic 37 Possible rewards* * but don’t bet on it!