Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1994.1061
Title: Empirical study on end-users' update performance for different abstraction levels
Authors: Hock, Chuan Chan
Kwok, Kee Wei 
Keng, Leng Siau 
Issue Date: Sep-1994
Source: Hock, Chuan Chan, Kwok, Kee Wei, Keng, Leng Siau (1994-09). Empirical study on end-users' update performance for different abstraction levels. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 41 (3) : 309-328. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1994.1061
Abstract: Recent laboratory experiments have shown a strong tendency that database users can perform better at the conceptual level than at the logical level. The experiments measured users' performance for the tasks of database design and database retrieval. Besides database design and retrieval, the third major database task is update. User performance for updates has not been measured. With the widespread availability of databases, updates will be done frequently by end-users. This task is gaining in importance as a measure of the usability of a database system. An experiment was conducted to measure the effect of different abstraction levels on user performance for updates. A conceptual level group used the entity relationship model with an entity relationship query language KQL, while a logical level group used the relational model with the standard relational language SQL. Performance was primarily measured by the accuracy of the update query. Secondary measures of time and confidence were also taken. The results showed that updates at the conceptual level were 15.4% more accurate and required only 57.8% of the time taken for logical level updates. The differences were statistically significant with p values of less than 0.03.
Source Title: International Journal of Human Computer Studies
URI: http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/52906
ISSN: 10715819
DOI: 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1061
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

15
checked on Dec 6, 2017

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

13
checked on Nov 22, 2017

Page view(s)

44
checked on Dec 10, 2017

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.