Volume 12, Issue 1 (5-2025)
Human Information Interaction 2025, 12(1): 1-19 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
marefat R, sangari M. Validation methods of resources and its challenges among sports science students of Birjand University. Human Information Interaction 2025; 12 (1)
URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3201-en.html
URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3201-en.html
Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Faculty of Psychology Education & Head of Hiilab of Semnan University (https://hiilab.semnan.ac.ir), Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
Abstract: (2534 Views)
Background and purpose: The present study was conducted with the aim of identifying methods of validating methods of resources among sports science students of Birjand University. In numerous classes involving students from various disciplines, a recurring challenge reported by students was their unfamiliarity with source validation methods. Students, consistently indicated a lack of knowledge on how to assess the credibility of sources. When provided with examples of valid and invalid sources, many students struggled to properly evaluate them. Some students even expressed the belief that source validation was unnecessary, emphasizing merely the importance of using sources rather than verifying their validity. The researchers focused on a specific group—sports science students at Birjand University—to investigate how these students evaluate the sources they need and what challenges they encounter in the process.
Studies suggest that students often lack the skills to assess the credibility of articles found in databases or general websites like Wikipedia and online encyclopedias (Marefat, 1401; Azarang, 1399). For printed sources, students typically consider the author's credibility, organizational affiliation, and the publisher’s reputation as indicators of source reliability (Moradi, 1384). Marefat identified ten main categories related to evaluating sources, including institutional credibility, author credibility, content accuracy, observational reliability, referential validation, publication date, information distortion, credibility doubts, recognition of source credibility, and citation rate, particularly from psychology students’ perspectives (Marefat, 1396).
Research by Keshavarz, Vasfi, and Sha'bani (1393) examined the credibility of internet health information and how personality traits like conscientiousness influence evaluation methods among health-medical professionals. They found that many struggle to assess quality, relying mainly on impartiality, timeliness, and author credibility. Similarly, Roozbahani and Riahi-nia (1395) highlighted that faculty members prioritize content accuracy, data reliability, logical consistency, and relevance in determining source credibility. Kader’s study (Kader, 2013) on nurses identified a six-stage process for evaluating online health information, depending on skills, time, and website quality. Liu and Huang’s research (2005) among Chinese students revealed that current students often base their judgments on author name, affiliation, and website reputation, whereas graduates focus more on the information’s accuracy and quality.
Despite many evaluation efforts, challenges remain: first, understanding how users process unobservable information is difficult; second, differing information needs lead to varied processing approaches; and third, establishing a universal criterion for correct information processing is often impossible outside controlled environments. These issues highlight the complexity of assessing information credibility and the ongoing need for effective evaluation strategies (Liu, 2000).The main questions of the present study are:
1. What are the challenges faced by sports science students at Birjand University in evaluating their required resources?
2. How do sports science students at Birjand University evaluate their required resources?
Method:The statistical population of the present study consisted of 67 sports science students at Birjand University at the time of the research. Given the effort to collect maximum data, all 67 individuals were considered part of the research population, and no sampling was performed. Semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. In total, twenty master's students in sports science were interviewed. The interview process continued until saturation was reached, after interviewing sixteen students. From the sixteenth to the twentieth interview, the data obtained were repetitive, and based on this, the researchers decided to stop data collection. The initial codes were placed under sub-categories and main categories. In the present study, member checking was used to determine the research's credibility. In the present study, the constructivist approach in grounded theory, as proposed by Charmaz (2014), was adopted as the basis for the work, therefore, there is no need to present a paradigmatic model. Data analysis was also performed using MAXQDA 2020 software.
Findings: Among the 67 members of the research population, a total of 20 sports science students from Birjand University were interviewed. A totoal of 50% of the interviewees were women (10 people), and 10 (50%) were men. Categorizes and presents the concepts and codes extracted from the interviews related to the research questions. In the axial coding of the data, a total of 6 main challenges related to the validation methods of resources of sports students present in the interviews were found, such as lack of familiarity with investigating research violations, lack of familiarity with plagiarism, lack of familiarity with plagiarism software, etc. Also, 15 core codes related to the second research question, how to accredit sports students, were obtained.
Conclusion: Interviews with the research population revealed that students in the research population face certain challenges in validating sources. They highlighted "unfamiliarity with examining research misconduct, unfamiliarity with plagiarism, unfamiliarity with plagiarism software, unfamiliarity with citation styles and citation management software, disregard for the author's academic rank, and unfamiliarity with the credibility of open-access articles" in their conversations with researchers.
These points were derived from the overall final concepts identified during the interviews, which included "unfamiliarity with how to examine research misconduct, unfamiliarity with examining research misconduct, unfamiliarity with examining plagiarism, unfamiliarity with plagiarism software, unfamiliarity with citation styles, unfamiliarity with EndNote, disregard for the author's academic rank, and unfamiliarity with the credibility of open-access articles." The findings of the present study emphasize the need for serious attention from all students, including sports science students and other students, to the issue of information credibility and quality, and the necessity of sufficient and continuous training and skills in this area. Skill training in determining the quality and credibility of sources, based on specific and strong criteria, in the form of training courses, workshops, laboratories, projects, and research, are among the immediate actions in this field.
Especially, It is suggested that to better understand the problems and provide better solutions, other qualitative and mixed methods such as foresight and videography with highly standardized checklists be conducted in more extensive and broader research to achieve more generalizable and broader results. It seems that training in source validation methods is needed for the sports science students participating in the research, and their training can reduce the challenges of source validation among students and improve their source validation methods. It is suggested that the data from this research be measured as a quantitative study among students of Birjand University and other various universities across the country.
Studies suggest that students often lack the skills to assess the credibility of articles found in databases or general websites like Wikipedia and online encyclopedias (Marefat, 1401; Azarang, 1399). For printed sources, students typically consider the author's credibility, organizational affiliation, and the publisher’s reputation as indicators of source reliability (Moradi, 1384). Marefat identified ten main categories related to evaluating sources, including institutional credibility, author credibility, content accuracy, observational reliability, referential validation, publication date, information distortion, credibility doubts, recognition of source credibility, and citation rate, particularly from psychology students’ perspectives (Marefat, 1396).
Research by Keshavarz, Vasfi, and Sha'bani (1393) examined the credibility of internet health information and how personality traits like conscientiousness influence evaluation methods among health-medical professionals. They found that many struggle to assess quality, relying mainly on impartiality, timeliness, and author credibility. Similarly, Roozbahani and Riahi-nia (1395) highlighted that faculty members prioritize content accuracy, data reliability, logical consistency, and relevance in determining source credibility. Kader’s study (Kader, 2013) on nurses identified a six-stage process for evaluating online health information, depending on skills, time, and website quality. Liu and Huang’s research (2005) among Chinese students revealed that current students often base their judgments on author name, affiliation, and website reputation, whereas graduates focus more on the information’s accuracy and quality.
Despite many evaluation efforts, challenges remain: first, understanding how users process unobservable information is difficult; second, differing information needs lead to varied processing approaches; and third, establishing a universal criterion for correct information processing is often impossible outside controlled environments. These issues highlight the complexity of assessing information credibility and the ongoing need for effective evaluation strategies (Liu, 2000).The main questions of the present study are:
1. What are the challenges faced by sports science students at Birjand University in evaluating their required resources?
2. How do sports science students at Birjand University evaluate their required resources?
Method:The statistical population of the present study consisted of 67 sports science students at Birjand University at the time of the research. Given the effort to collect maximum data, all 67 individuals were considered part of the research population, and no sampling was performed. Semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. In total, twenty master's students in sports science were interviewed. The interview process continued until saturation was reached, after interviewing sixteen students. From the sixteenth to the twentieth interview, the data obtained were repetitive, and based on this, the researchers decided to stop data collection. The initial codes were placed under sub-categories and main categories. In the present study, member checking was used to determine the research's credibility. In the present study, the constructivist approach in grounded theory, as proposed by Charmaz (2014), was adopted as the basis for the work, therefore, there is no need to present a paradigmatic model. Data analysis was also performed using MAXQDA 2020 software.
Findings: Among the 67 members of the research population, a total of 20 sports science students from Birjand University were interviewed. A totoal of 50% of the interviewees were women (10 people), and 10 (50%) were men. Categorizes and presents the concepts and codes extracted from the interviews related to the research questions. In the axial coding of the data, a total of 6 main challenges related to the validation methods of resources of sports students present in the interviews were found, such as lack of familiarity with investigating research violations, lack of familiarity with plagiarism, lack of familiarity with plagiarism software, etc. Also, 15 core codes related to the second research question, how to accredit sports students, were obtained.
Conclusion: Interviews with the research population revealed that students in the research population face certain challenges in validating sources. They highlighted "unfamiliarity with examining research misconduct, unfamiliarity with plagiarism, unfamiliarity with plagiarism software, unfamiliarity with citation styles and citation management software, disregard for the author's academic rank, and unfamiliarity with the credibility of open-access articles" in their conversations with researchers.
These points were derived from the overall final concepts identified during the interviews, which included "unfamiliarity with how to examine research misconduct, unfamiliarity with examining research misconduct, unfamiliarity with examining plagiarism, unfamiliarity with plagiarism software, unfamiliarity with citation styles, unfamiliarity with EndNote, disregard for the author's academic rank, and unfamiliarity with the credibility of open-access articles." The findings of the present study emphasize the need for serious attention from all students, including sports science students and other students, to the issue of information credibility and quality, and the necessity of sufficient and continuous training and skills in this area. Skill training in determining the quality and credibility of sources, based on specific and strong criteria, in the form of training courses, workshops, laboratories, projects, and research, are among the immediate actions in this field.
Especially, It is suggested that to better understand the problems and provide better solutions, other qualitative and mixed methods such as foresight and videography with highly standardized checklists be conducted in more extensive and broader research to achieve more generalizable and broader results. It seems that training in source validation methods is needed for the sports science students participating in the research, and their training can reduce the challenges of source validation among students and improve their source validation methods. It is suggested that the data from this research be measured as a quantitative study among students of Birjand University and other various universities across the country.
References
1. Azarang, A. H. (2019). Wikipedia, a treasure trove for all kinds of uses and abuses. Jahan Kitab, 25 (11-12), pp. 38-42. [In Persian].
2. Cader, R.(2013). Judging Nursing Information on the World Wide Web, CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing,13(2), 66-73. [DOI:10.1097/NXN.0b013e3182771880]
3. Charmaz, K.(2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publication.
4. Charmaz, K.(2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage, 2014.
5. Creswell, J. W.(2003) . Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Second Edition. Sage Publications.
6. Ghasemi, A. H.(2006). Information Literacy Competency For Higher Education. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 21(4): 97-119, [In Persian].
7. Hooman, H.(2012). Practical Guide to Qualitative Research. Tehran: Samt, 2012. [In Persian].
8. Keshavarz, H.(2014) . How Credible is Information on the Web: Reflections on Misinformation and Disinformation? Infopreneurship Journal,1(2), 1-17.
9. Keshavarz, H., Vasfi, M. and Shabani, A.(2015). Assessing health information on the web by medicine, nursing and midwify students and Faculty members. Journal of Academic Librarianship and Information Research, 48(4): 477-499. [In Persian].
10. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
11. Liu, M.(2000) . Assessing human information processing in lending decisions: A machine learning approach. Journal of Accounting Research, 60(2), 607-651.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12427 [DOI:10.1111/1475-679X.12427.]
12. Liu, Z., & Huang, X. (2005). Evaluating the credibility of scholarly information on the web: A cross cultural study. The International Information & Library Review, 37(2), 99-106. [DOI:10.1080/10572317.2005.10762670]
13. Marefat, R.(2022). Basic Information Literacy Skills for Psychology Students. Technical Editor: Parviz Sabahi, Linguistic Editor: Seyed Hossein Tabatabaei, Semnan: Semnan University Press.
14. Marefat, R., (2017). Identifying and developing a textural micromodel of information literacy for psychology students. (PhD thesis in Information Science. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Kharazmi University). [In Persian].
15. McCann T, Polacsek M. Understanding, choosing and applying grounded theory: part 1. Nurse Researcher. 2023 Dec 7;31(4). doi:10.7748/nr.2023.e2136.
16. Moradi, N.(2005). Reference Studies: Understanding Reference Services and Books. Tehran, Contemporary Culture. [In Persian].
17. Ruzbahani M, Riahinia N.(2016). Identifying Credibility Criteria in Scholarly Communication (Reading and Citing) form the Standpoints of Faculty Members of Kharazmi University. Human Information Interaction, 3 (2). [In Persian]. URL: http://hii.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2536-fa.html
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
