WONG, Wendy (MSc(LIM) student, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong) CHU, Samuel Kai Wah (The University of Hong Kong) http://citers2013.cite.hku.hk/en/paper_628.htm --------------------------- Author(s) bear(s) the responsibility in case of any infringement of the Intellectual Property Rights of third parties. --------------------------- CITE was notified by the author(s) that if the presentation slides contain any personal particulars, records and personal data (as defined in the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance) such as names, email addresses, photos of students, etc, the author(s) have/has obtained the corresponding person's consent.

1. Dr Chu, Samuel K. W.
Ms Wong, Wendy N. M.

2.  Research problem
 Purposes of the research
 Research questions & framework
 Rubric Design
 Research in progress- some early findings
 Indications for strategy development
 Further analysis in the research

3.  Ageing Population, Digital Divide & Geriatric
Health Concerns from Family Caregivers
 The Popularity of Social Question & Answer (Q&A)
sites
 Uncertainty about the quality of health information
collected from community Q&A sites
 Base on their own judgments
 The possible harms for health can be caused by
adopting wrong information available on the
Internet.

4.  inform the quality of geriatric health
information available on social Q&A sites from a
health profession’ perspective;
 develop strategies for increasing the chance to
receive good quality answers as well as
identifying answers contained potentially
wrong/misleading information;
 explore cultural differences and sharing
traits regarding to quality appraisals of online
geriatric health information

5.  Quality of geriatric health information
 Patterns of Answers
 Patterns of Question Setting
 Level of Quality Judgment of users
 Cultural similarities and differences

8. Information quality
(IQ) Dimensions:
• Accuracy
•Completeness
•Relevance
•Verifiability
•Professional Advices
•Usefulness
•Commericalisation
1 =Poor; 2= Fair; 3=Good
Poor – A total score of 1 - 11 OR A total score of 12 - 17
with≧4 IQ dimensions to be rated 1
Fair – A total score of 12-17 with＜4 IQ dimension(s) to be rated
1 OR A total score of 18 or more with≧2 IQ Dimension(s) to be
rated 1
Good – A total score of 18 or more with≦1 IQ Dimension to be
rated 1

9. 1 Adams, Eysenbach & Kohler, 2002; Eysenbach, Powell, Kuss & Sa, 2002; Fichman, 2011;
Guada & Venable, 2011; Hajjar, Gable & Jenkinson et. al., 2005; Kim, 2010; Kunst & Khan,
2002; Oh, Worrall & Yi, 2011; Rieh & Danielson, 2007; Shachaf, 2009; Stvilia, Mon & Yi,
2009; Williams, Nicholas, Huntington & McLean, 2002a; Zhu, Bernhard & Gurevych, 2009
2 Abrahamson, Fisher, Turner, Durrance & Turner, 2008; Eysenbach, Powell, Kuss & Sa, 2002;
Fichman, 2011; Marshall & Williams, 2006; Oh, Worrall & Yi, 2011; Rieh & Danielson, 2007;
Shachaf, 2009; Stvilia, Mon & Yi, 2009; Zhu, Bernhard & Gurevych, 2009
3 Abrahamson, Fisher, Turner, Durrance & Turner, 2008; Bliemel & Hassanein, 2006; Oh,
Worrall & Yi, 2011; Stvilia, Mon & Yi, 2009; Zhu, Bernhard & Gurevych, 2009
4 Abrahamson, Fisher, Turner, Durrance & Turner, 2008; Eysenbach, Powell, Kuss & Sa, 2002;
Bliemel & Hassanein, 2006; Childs, 2004; Kim, 2010; Marshall & Williams, 2006; Oh, Worrall
& Yi, 2011; Zhu, Bernhard & Gurevych, 2009
5 Eysenbach, Powell, Kuss & Sa, 2002; Fichman, 2011; Gagliardi & Jadad, 2002; Kim, 2010;
Marshall & Williams, 2006; Oh, Worrall & Yi, 2011; Rieh & Danielson, 2007; Shachaf, 2009;
Stvilia, Mon & Yi, 2009; Williams, Nicholas, Huntington & McLean, 2002a
6 Abrahamson, Fisher, Turner, Durrance & Turner, 2008; Abrahamson & Rubin, 2012; Bliemel
& Hassanein, 2006; Guada & Venable, 2011; Kim, 2010; Stvilia, Mon & Yi, 2009; Zhu,
Bernhard & Gurevych, 2009;
7 Abrahamson, Fisher, Turner, Durrance & Turner, 2008; Bliemel & Hassanein, 2006; Kim,
2010; Stvilia, Mon & Yi, 2009; Zhu, Bernhard & Gurevych, 2009
8 Adams, 2010; Gagliardi & Jadad, 2002; Kunst & Khan, 2002; Oh, Worrall & Yi, 2011;
Weitzman, Cole, Kaci & Mandl, 2011; Williams, Nicholas, Huntington & McLean, 2002b

16.  Question settings – provide more information more
than just simply a question – tend to received short
& poor quality
 Professional advices – tend to ask further question
to collect more information/providing the reasons
for their arguments
 Completeness – seeking further information/the
ways for formulating questions
 Verifiability – educating users to identify reliable
sources

18. Abrahamson, J.A., Fisher, K.E., Turner, A.G., Durrance, J.C. & Turner, T.C. (2008).
Lay information mediary behavior uncovered: exploring how nonprofessionals
seek health information for themselves and others online. Journal of the Medical
Library Association, 96(4): 310-323.
Abrahamson, J.A. & Rubin, V.L. (2012). Discourse structure differences in lay and
professional health communication. Journal of Documentation, 68(6): 826-851.
Blooma, M.J., Goh, D.H.L. & Chua, A.Y.K. (2012). Predictors of high-quality
answers. Online Information Review, 36(3): 383-400.
Childs, S. (2004). Developing health website quality assessment guidelines for the
voluntary sector: outcomes from the Judge Project. Health Information &
Libraries Journal, 21(Suppl. 2): 14-26.
Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O. & Sa, E. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the
quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: A
systematic review. Journal of American Medical Association, 287(20): 2691-2700.
Fichman, P. (2011). A comparative assessment of answer quality on four question
answering sites. Journal of Information Science, 37(5): 476-486.
Fox, S. & Duggan, M. (2013). Online health 2013, Washington, D.C: Pew Research
Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved 10/03/2013 form
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/PIP_HealthOnline.pdf
Fox, S. & Jones, S. (2009). The social life of health information, Washington, D.C:
Pew Research Center’s Internet American Life Project. Retrieved 16/12/2012
from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-
Information.aspx
Furnham, A. (2001). Vocational preference and P–O fit: Reflections on Holland’s
theory of vocational choice. Applied Psychology, 50(1): 5-29.

19. Gagliardi, A. & Jadad, A.R. (2002). Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health
information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. British Medical
Journal, 324(7337): 569-573.
Gazan, R. (2006). Specialists and synthesists in a question answering community. Proceedings
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1): 1-10.
Hajjar, I., Gable, S.A., Jenkinson, V.P., Kane, L.T. & Riley. R.A. (2005). Quality of internet
geriatric health information: The GeriatricWeb Project. Journal of American Geriatrics Society,
53(5): 885-890.
Harper, F.M., Moy, D., & Konstan, J.A. (2009). Facts or friends?: Distinguishing informational and
conversational questions in social Q&A sites. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 27th
ACM international conference on Human factors in computing systems. New York, USA.
Harper, F.M., Raban, D., Rafaeli, S., & Konstan, J.A. (2008). Predictors of answer quality in
online Q&A sites. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 26th annual SIGCHI conference
on Human factors in computing systems. Florence, Italy.
Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 2nd edn.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Kim, K.H. (2010). Understanding the consistent use of internet health information. Online
Information Review, 34(6): 875-891.
Kim, S. (2010). Questioners' credibility judgments of answers in a social question and answer
site. Information Research, 15(2): 55-82.
Kim, S. & Oh, S. (2009). Users’ relevance criteria for evaluating answers in a social Q&A site.
Journal of the American society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4): 716-727.
Kim, S., Oh, J.S. & Oh, S. (2007). Best‐answer selection criteria in a social Q&A site from
the user‐oriented relevance perspective. Proceedings of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 44(1): 1-15.

20. Kim, S., Oh, S. & Oh, J.S. (2008). Evaluating health answers in a social Q&A site. Proceedings of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45(1): 1–6.
Kunst, H. & Khan, K.S. (2002). Quality of web‐based medical information on stable COPD:
comparison of non‐commercial and commercial websites. Health Information & Libraries
Journal. 19(1): 42-48.
Leung, L. (2008). Internet embeddedness(sic): Links with online health information seeking,
expectancy value/quality of health information websites, and Internet usage patterns.
Cyberpsychological Behavour. 11(5): 565-569.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text
organization. Text, 8(3): ST243-281.
Marshall, L.A. & Williams, D. (2006). Health information: does quality count for the consumer? How
consumers evaluate the quality mof health information materials across a variety of media. Journal of
Librarianship and Information Science, 38(3): 141-156.
Martion, C. & Choo, C.W. (2012). A review of theoretical models of health information seeking on the web.
Journal of Documentation, 68(3): 330-352.
Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., Jamali, H. & Williams, P. (2007). Digital health information for the
consumer: Evidence and policy implications. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I. & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic
versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2): 291-310.
Oh, S., Oh, J.S. & Shah, C. (2008). The use of information sources by internet users in answering
questions. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 45(1):
1-13
Oh, S., Worrall, A. & Yi, Y.J. (2011). Quality evaluation of health answers in Yahoo! Answers: A
comparison between experts and users. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 48(1): 1-3.
Renahy, E., Parizot, I. & Chauvin, P. (2010). Determinants of the frequency of online health
information seeking: results of a web-based survey conducted in France in 2007. Informatics for
Health & Society Care, 35(1): 25-39.
Rieh, S.Y. & Danielson, D.R. (2007). Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 41(1): 307-364.

21. Shachaf, P. (2009). The paradox of expertise: Is the Wikipedia Reference Desk as good as your
library?. Journal of Documentation, 65(6): 977-996.
Shah, C., & Pomerantz, J. (2010). Evaluating and predicting answer quality in community QA.
Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on
Research and development in information retrieval. New York, USA.
Stvilia, B., Al-Faraj, A. & Yi, Y.J. (2009). Issues of cross-contextual IQ evaluation—The case of
Arabic, English, and Korean Wikipedias. Library & Information Science Research, 31(4): 232-
239.
Stvilia, B. Mon, L. & Yi, Y.J. (2009). A model of online consumer health IQ. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(9):1781-1791.
Tian, Y. & Robinson, J.D. (2008). Incidental health information use and media complementarities: A
comparison of senior and non-senior cancer patients. Patient Educating and Counseling, 71(3):
340-344.
Varnum, M.E., Grossmann, I., Kitayama, S. & Nisbett, R.E. (2010). The origin of cultural differences
in cognition the social orientation hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1):
9-13.
Williams, P., Nicholas, D., Huntington, P. & McLean, F. (2002a). Surfing for health: User
evaluation of a health information website. Part one: Background and literature
review. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 19(2): 98-108.
Williams, P., Nicholas, D., Huntington, P. & McLean, F. (2002b). Surfing for health: User
evaluation of a health information website.
Part two: Fieldwork. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 19(4): 214-225.
Yan, Y.Y. (2010). Online health information seeking behavior in Hong Kong: an exploratory
study. Journal of Medical System, 34(2): 147-153.
Zhu, Z, Bernhard, D. & Gurevych, I. (2009). A multi-dimensional model for accessing the
quality of answers in social Q & A sites. Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab,
Technische Universitat Darmstadt.