Doctors' online information needs, cognitive search strategies, and judgments of information quality and cognitive authority: How predictive judgments introduce bias into cognitive search models

Abstract

Literature examining information judgments and Internet search behaviors notes a number of major research gaps, including how users actually make these judgments outside of experiments or researcher-defined tasks, and how search behavior is impacted by a user's judgment of online information. Using the medical setting, where doctors face real consequences in applying the information found, we examine how information judgments employed by doctors to mitigate risk impact their cognitive search. Diaries encompassing 444 real clinical information search incidents, combined with semistructured interviews across 35 doctors, were analyzed via thematic analysis. Results show that doctors, though aware of the need for information quality and cognitive authority, rarely make evaluative judgments. This is explained by navigational bias in information searches and via predictive judgments that favor known sites where doctors perceive levels of information quality and cognitive authority. Doctors' mental models of the Internet sites and Web experience relevant to the task type enable these predictive judgments. These results suggest a model connecting online cognitive search and information judgment literatures. Moreover, this implies a need to understand cognitive search through longitudinalor learning-based views for repeated search tasks, and Received June 13, 2009; revised August 12, 2009; accepted September 3, 2009 Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article. IntroductionInformation search is a process by which a person seeks knowledge about a problem or situation, constituting a major activity by the Internet's millions of users (Browne, Pitts, & Wetherbe, 2007). The Web is now a primary source of information for many people, driving a critical need to understand how users search or employ search engines (Jansen & Spink, 2006). Extensive literature examines not only behavioral models detailing the different moves or tactics during Internet search but also decision making or strategies described as cognitive search models (Navarro-Prieto, Scaife, & Rogers, 1999;Thatcher, 2006Thatcher, , 2008. The latter examines the cognitive aspects of the moves users employ to optimize their search performance, exploring elements such as expertnovice differences or judgments on when to terminate the search (e.g., Thatcher, 2006Thatcher, , 2008Cothey, 2002;Jaillet, 2003;Browne et al., 2007). This notion of judgment introduces a second stream of literature, Internet information judgments, where authors note that the use of predictive information judgments impacts decision making in search, based on an anticipation of a page's value before viewing it (Rieh, 2002;Griffiths & Brophy, 2005).Cognitive search models rarely explore the impact of predictive judgments. Most studies are based on tasks defined by researchers in experimental settings that are difficult to generalize to professional contexts or real use (Thatcher, 2006; information judgments during real instances of information search and...

The Information Seeking and Communication Model

“…Content analysis of the four other reports of physicians' information behaviour (Green and Ruff, 2005;Hughes et al, 2010;Lacey Bryant, 2004;Prosser et al, 2003) endorsed the validity of the ISCM. Many of the coding terms derived from the model were found to be applicable to these other reports, including terms not used in the analysis of the report by Reddy and Jansen, such as utility, credibility, user's perceptions, user's inhibiting factors, and feelings and thoughts during information seeking.…”

“…The importance of credibility as a factor in the use of information is also a prominent finding in the study by Hughes et al (2010). The following extract for example illustrates the trust with which one of the physicians interviewed regards guidelines issued by NICE (Hughes et al, 2010, appendix):…”

“…Using deductive content analysis a more detailed study was then carried out on the findings from five representative reports of physicians' information behaviour (Green and Ruff, 2005;Hughes et al, 2010;Lacey Bryant, 2004;Prosser et al, 2003;Reddy and Jansen, 2008). These reports were selected because: a) all involved direct interviews with or observation of physicians b) each report is detailed and includes quotations from the physicians or vignettes describing activities observed during the study c) together they cover both primary and secondary care physicians (general practitioners and hospital doctors) d) together they cover a number of different aspects of information behaviour:…”

“…• Hughes et al (2010) studied the online searching activities of hospital-and clinic-based physicians in the UK and their judgements of information quality from diaries recording their clinical information searches and by interviewing them.…”

“…The "Actions Decisions" box is intended to represent examples of outcomes of information seeking. Another outcome may be filling gaps in knowledge: "Doctors had two dominant types of information need or search task: to solve an immediate defined problem (e.g., 'the best beta blocker to use for someone with heart failure') or to get background information on a subject" (Hughes et al, 2010). To reflect this, the wording in the box can be changed to "Outcomes: actions, decisions, knowledge".…”