Search (74 results, page 1 of 4)

0.08425623 = sum of:
  0.025179751 = product of:
    0.100719005 = sum of:
      0.100719005 = weight(_text_:author's in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.100719005 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.29699162 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.05907648 = sum of:
    0.031727377 = weight(_text_:i in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031727377 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050464742 = queryNorm
        0.16668847 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)
    0.027349105 = weight(_text_:22 in 286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027349105 = score(doc=286,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050464742 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 286, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=286)

Abstract

This paper highlights some of the significant findings from author's PhD: "Factors affecting the end-use of electronic databases in public libraries." Public libraries have a wide range of different types of users who, unlike academic or special library users, are not necessarily information-trained (see Coles, 1998). Whereas the academic, special library user may have specific information needs that can be met by electronic sources, public library users do not necessarily have such specific information needs that can easily be identified and met. Most user surveys have tended to concentrate on the searching and retrieval aspect of information seeking behaviour, whereas this study's user survey focused more on how people perceived and related to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). It was not how people searched a particular electronic source, in this case CD-ROM, that was of prime interest but rather whether or not people actually used them at all and the reasons why people did or did not use electronic media. There were several reasons the study looked at CD-ROM specifically. Firstly, CD-ROM is a well established technology, most people should be familiar with CD-ROM/multimedia. Secondly, CD-ROM was, at the start of the study, the only open access electronic media widely available in public libraries. As well as examining why public library users chose to use electronic sources, the paper looks at the types of CD-ROM databases used both in the library and in general Also examined are what sort of searches users carried out. Where appropriate some of the problems inherent in studying end-users in public libraries and the difficulty in getting reliable data, are discussed. Several methods were used to collect the data. I wished to avoid limiting research to a small sample of library sites, the aim was to be as broad in scope as possible. There were two main groups of people 1 wished to look at: non-users as well as CD-ROM users

Date

22. 3.2002 8:51:28

0.07372026 = product of:
  0.14744052 = sum of:
    0.14744052 = sum of:
      0.106416866 = weight(_text_:i in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.106416866 = score(doc=917,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.55909014 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
      0.041023657 = weight(_text_:22 in 917) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041023657 = score(doc=917,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 917, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=917)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I started my professional career in library and information science because of my great interest in knowledge organization. The more experience I gained in the profession, the more I realized how crucial it is to understand which organization would be best for each group of users. This in turn requires an understanding of how users seek information. And so now my focus is an studying information seeking and searching behavior. Throughout the relatively long course of changing my focus, I followed Pauline Cochrane's writings. Now I can say that she has been among the first to have a "user-centered approach" to knowledge organization, and she has used the term three years before it became a mainstream phrase. The following is a short discussion about the usercentered approach which was presented in a workshop in 1997.

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.045136496 = product of:
  0.09027299 = sum of:
    0.09027299 = sum of:
      0.056086615 = weight(_text_:i in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056086615 = score(doc=2117,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 2117, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2117)
      0.03418638 = weight(_text_:22 in 2117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418638 = score(doc=2117,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2117, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2117)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper presents an application of the model described in Part I to the evaluation of Web search engines by undergraduates. The study observed how 36 undergraduate used four major search engines to find information for their own individual problems and how they evaluated these engines based an actual interaction with the search engines. User evaluation was based an 16 performance measures representing five evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, utility, user satisfaction, and connectivity. Non-performance (user-related) measures were also applied. Each participant searched his/ her own topic an all four engines and provided satisfaction ratings for system features and interaction and reasons for satisfaction. Each also made relevance judgements of retrieved items in relation to his/her own information need and participated in post-search Interviews to provide reactions to the search results and overall performance. The study found significant differences in precision PR1 relative recall, user satisfaction with output display, time saving, value of search results, and overall performance among the four engines and also significant engine by discipline interactions an all these measures. In addition, the study found significant differences in user satisfaction with response time among four engines, and significant engine by discipline interaction in user satisfaction with search interface. None of the four search engines dominated in every aspect of the multidimensional evaluation. Content analysis of verbal data identified a number of user criteria and users evaluative comments based an these criteria. Results from both quantitative analysis and content analysis provide insight for system design and development, and useful feedback an strengths and weaknesses of search engines for system improvement

Date

24. 1.2004 18:27:22

Footnote

Teil I im selben Heft

0.0369228 = product of:
  0.0738456 = sum of:
    0.0738456 = sum of:
      0.03965922 = weight(_text_:i in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03965922 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
      0.03418638 = weight(_text_:22 in 2339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03418638 = score(doc=2339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050464742 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2339)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Over the last 4 years, the Information Interaction Laboratory at Rutgers' School of communication, Information and Library Studies has performed a series of investigations concerned with various aspects of people's interactions with advanced information retrieval (IR) systems. We have benn especially concerned with understanding not just what people do, and why, and with what effect, but also with what they would like to do, and how they attempt to accomplish it, and with what difficulties. These investigations have led to some quite interesting conclusions about the nature and structure of people's interactions with information, about support for cooperative human-computer interaction in query reformulation, and about the value of visualization of search results for supporting various forms of interaction with information. In this discussion, I give an overview of the research program and its projects, present representative results from the projects, and discuss some implications of these results for support of subject searching in information retrieval systems

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.027761457 = product of:
  0.055522915 = sum of:
    0.055522915 = product of:
      0.11104583 = sum of:
        0.11104583 = weight(_text_:i in 4338) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11104583 = score(doc=4338,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 4338, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4338)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.027761457 = product of:
  0.055522915 = sum of:
    0.055522915 = product of:
      0.11104583 = sum of:
        0.11104583 = weight(_text_:i in 4363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11104583 = score(doc=4363,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.58340967 = fieldWeight in 4363, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.023930466 = product of:
  0.04786093 = sum of:
    0.04786093 = product of:
      0.09572186 = sum of:
        0.09572186 = weight(_text_:22 in 7585) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09572186 = score(doc=7585,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7585, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7585)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2000 17:52:11

0.023930466 = product of:
  0.04786093 = sum of:
    0.04786093 = product of:
      0.09572186 = sum of:
        0.09572186 = weight(_text_:22 in 3924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09572186 = score(doc=3924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 3924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library and information science research. 22(2000) no.4, S.371-382

0.022032281 = product of:
  0.044064563 = sum of:
    0.044064563 = product of:
      0.17625825 = sum of:
        0.17625825 = weight(_text_:author's in 6932) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17625825 = score(doc=6932,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.51973534 = fieldWeight in 6932, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6932)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This experiment explores the effectiveness of retrieving the listing of a known-item book from the 3.6 million entry onine catalog at the library of the University of Michigan using various combinations of author's name plus first and last title words. The principal finding was that 98.9% of the time a 1 to 20 line miniature catalog (minicat) was displayed that contained either the entry sought or a not-in-database (NID) reply when the search comprised all three words.

0.020607539 = product of:
  0.041215077 = sum of:
    0.041215077 = product of:
      0.082430154 = sum of:
        0.082430154 = weight(_text_:i in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082430154 = score(doc=599,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.43306938 = fieldWeight in 599, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Researchers in the discipline of Higher Education have examined philosophical and psychological literature to develop epistemological development theories and models. They are primarily interested in understanding: "how individuals come to know, the theories and beliefs they hold about knowing, and the manner in which such epistemological premises are a part of and an influence on the cognitive processes of thinking and reasoning" (Hofer & Pintrinch, 1997). I propose to develop a theoretical framework for undergraduates' information seeking behavior based upon the insights into their knowledge construction offered through these models and theories of epistemological development. Epistemology is defined as "the philosophical study of the nature, sources, and limits of knowledge' (Moser, Mulder, & Trout, 1998). I will focus my paper on four major theories and models of undergraduates' epistemological development. I will present a new model of information seeking behavior incorporating these theories and models about how undergraduates construct knowledge and the consequent influence on their information seeking behavior

0.020511828 = product of:
  0.041023657 = sum of:
    0.041023657 = product of:
      0.08204731 = sum of:
        0.08204731 = weight(_text_:22 in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08204731 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17671894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

9. 2.2008 17:52:22

0.01982961 = product of:
  0.03965922 = sum of:
    0.03965922 = product of:
      0.07931844 = sum of:
        0.07931844 = weight(_text_:i in 3539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07931844 = score(doc=3539,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.41672117 = fieldWeight in 3539, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.019630315 = product of:
  0.03926063 = sum of:
    0.03926063 = product of:
      0.07852126 = sum of:
        0.07852126 = weight(_text_:i in 4636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07852126 = score(doc=4636,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.41253293 = fieldWeight in 4636, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

i

Location

I

0.019630315 = product of:
  0.03926063 = sum of:
    0.03926063 = product of:
      0.07852126 = sum of:
        0.07852126 = weight(_text_:i in 6785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07852126 = score(doc=6785,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.41253293 = fieldWeight in 6785, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6785)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My original intention in this Keynote Paper was to talk about models of information behaviour, and I shall do that to some extent. However, both Carol Kuhlthau and Amanda Spink address this general conceptual level of research into information-seeking behaviour and I thought it would more appropriate to present my current research.

0.018884813 = product of:
  0.037769627 = sum of:
    0.037769627 = product of:
      0.1510785 = sum of:
        0.1510785 = weight(_text_:author's in 473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1510785 = score(doc=473,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 473, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=473)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this study descriptions of a novel by 100 users at 2 Swedish public libraries, Malmö and Molndal, Mar-Apr 95, were compared to the index terms used for the novels at these libraries. Describes previous systems for fiction indexing, the 2 libraries, and the users interviewed. Compares the AMP system with their own model. The latter operates with terms under the headings phenomena, frame and author's intention. The similarities between the users' and indexers' descriptions were sufficiently close to make it possible to retrieve fiction in accordance with users' wishes in Molndal, and would have been in Malmö, had more books been indexed with more terms. Sometimes the similarities were close enough for users to retrieve fiction on their own

0.016825985 = product of:
  0.03365197 = sum of:
    0.03365197 = product of:
      0.06730394 = sum of:
        0.06730394 = weight(_text_:i in 3103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06730394 = score(doc=3103,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.35359967 = fieldWeight in 3103, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3103)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.015863689 = product of:
  0.031727377 = sum of:
    0.031727377 = product of:
      0.063454755 = sum of:
        0.063454755 = weight(_text_:i in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063454755 = score(doc=3826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports the findings of an experiment simulating use of a university OPAC by academic library users. Examines how effective are online searches by university library users employing surname plus first title word, or last title word, or first and last title words in producing miniature catalogues of i screen. The searches were known item searches for books

0.015863689 = product of:
  0.031727377 = sum of:
    0.031727377 = product of:
      0.063454755 = sum of:
        0.063454755 = weight(_text_:i in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063454755 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.015863689 = product of:
  0.031727377 = sum of:
    0.031727377 = product of:
      0.063454755 = sum of:
        0.063454755 = weight(_text_:i in 4761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063454755 = score(doc=4761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19033937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.33337694 = fieldWeight in 4761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.015737344 = product of:
  0.031474687 = sum of:
    0.031474687 = product of:
      0.12589875 = sum of:
        0.12589875 = weight(_text_:author's in 617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12589875 = score(doc=617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3391308 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050464742 = queryNorm
            0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 617, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=617)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The study adopts a naturalistic approach to investigate users' interaction with a browsable MeSH (medical subject headings) display designed to facilitate query construction for the PubMed bibliographic database. The purpose of the study is twofold: first, to test the usefulness of a browsable interface utilizing the principle of faceted classification; and second, to investigate users' preferred query submission methods in different problematic situations. An interface that incorporated multiple query submission methods - the conventional single-line query box as well as methods associated the faceted classification display was constructed. Participants' interactions with the interface were monitored remotely over a period of 10 weeks; information about their problematic situations and information retrieval behaviors were also collected during this time. The traditional controlled experiment was not adequate in answering the author's research questions; hence, the author provides his rationale for a naturalistic approach. The study's findings show that there is indeed a selective compatibility between query submission methods provided by the MeSH display and users' problematic situations. The query submission methods associated with the display were found to be the preferred search tools when users' information needs were vague and the search topics unfamiliar. The findings support the theoretical proposition that users engaging in an information retrieval process with a variety of problematic situations need different approaches. The author argues that rather than treat the information retrieval system as a general purpose tool, more attention should be given to the interaction between the functionality of the tool and the characteristics of users' problematic situations.