The Study on Cost Comparisons of Various Card Sorting Methods


Card sorting has always been recognized as the most economical and effective method used to elicit users' cognition. Therefore, it has been applied as the most common method to design libraries web information architectures based on user centered concepts. However, according to Nielsen's 2004 study, to conduct card sorting experiments, the most appropriate number of participants is 15 people. In 2007, Paul proposed that card sorting method spends more cost at the participant number and analysis time. Thus, he suggested applying the modified Delphi card sorting method to resolve the situation. In the modified Delphi card sorting method, there are about 9 (8~10) participants to conduct experiments in a linear fashion. Beside the seed participant, the rest were to revise the card sorting result made by the preceding participant. The final obtained result is regarded as the one of all of participants. However, in 2010, Shieh and Wu put forward the refined modified Delphi card sorting method which is similar to the Delphi card sorting method. The refined modified Delphi card sorting method has a total of nine participants. But it limits rounds to at most 3 (Walker and Selfe in 1996 suggested). By conducting the findability tests, Shieh and Wu illustrated that their refined card sorting method is superior to Paul's. In this research, we will further explore whether the refined modified Delphi card sorting is superior to the method proposed by Paul in time cost. This study will give a mathematical model to demonstrate the result of this

Author Information
Jiann-Cherng Shieh, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan
Chih-Hwei Lu, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan

Paper Information
Conference: LibrAsia2016
Stream: Librarianship - Information architectures, resources, services and promotion

This paper is part of the LibrAsia2016 Conference Proceedings (View)
Full Paper
View / Download the full paper in a new tab/window

Comments & Feedback

Place a comment using your LinkedIn profile


Share on activity feed

Powered by WP LinkPress

Share this Research

Posted by James Alexander Gordon