Purpose: This paper seeks to discuss reliability problems associated with questionnaires, commonly employed in library and information science. It aims to focus on the effects of “common method variance” (CMV), which is a form of bias, and ways of countering these effects.Design/methodology/approach: The paper critically reviews the use of existing tools for demonstrating reliability in questionnaire‐based studies. In particular, it focuses on Cronbach's alpha, “Harman's single factor test” and Lindell and Whitney's “marker variable” approach. The paper introduces an illustrative case study based on the work on metacognition and web searching. It goes on to make recommendations for researchers considering using a questionnaire‐based approach.Findings: CMV is a problem affecting questionnaire‐based studies in different disciplines across social and information science. Where questionnaire items are more abstract, CMV has been found to be more of a problem. The widely used Cronbach alpha measure, of the reliability of a questionnaire, may often be affected by CMV. Where method bias dominates the results, a high alpha score may do no more than indicate that the questionnaire consistently allows participants to accede to their biases. “Harman's single factor test” is criticised as lacking sufficient foundation, and it is concluded that it should not be used. The marker variable approach is a useful option but must be applied with caution.Practical implications: A number of practical implications for researchers are drawn. Questionnaire‐based work investigating abstract constructs should be assumed to carry a high likelihood of CMV, and therefore should attempt to avoid it and demonstrate the degree of success in this regard. Otherwise, interpretation of the results should assume CMV. A number of approaches to assessing and isolating CMV are discussed.Originality/value: The paper draws attention to a problem that is arguably often overlooked in questionnaire‐based studies, namely method bias. It discusses a number of approaches whereby it may be identified and controlled.

Purpose: A common criticism of research into information seeking on the internet is that information seekers are restricted by the demands of the researcher. Another criticism is that the search topics, are often imposed by the researcher, and; particularly when working with children, domain knowledge could be as important as information‐seeking skills. The research reported here attempts to address both these problems.Design/methodology/approach: A total of 15 children, aged 11 to 16, were each set three “think aloud” internet searches. In the first, they were asked to recall the last time they had sought information on the internet, and to repeat the search. For the second, they were given a word, asked to interpret it, then asked to search for their interpretation. For the third, they were asked to recall the last time they had been unsuccessful in a search, and to repeat the search. While performing each task, the children were encouraged to explain their actions.Findings: The paper finds that the factors that determined a child's ability to search successfully appeared to be: the amount of experience the child had of using the internet; the amount of guidance, both from adults and from peers; and the child's ability to explore the virtual environment, and to use the tools available for so doing.Originality/value: Many of the searches performed by participants in this paper were not related to schoolwork, and so some of the search approaches differed from those taught by teachers. Instead, they evolved through exploration and exchange of ideas. Further studies of this sort could provide insights of value to designers of web environments.

One difficulty faced by students on many information management courses is the lack of any attempt to teach concepts of information. Therefore, if a core module does not fit in with a student’s existing concept of information, it can make it hard for the student to recognise the relevance of that module. This paper addresses that problem by summarising concepts of information, and by presenting a simple model that attempts to unite the various concepts listed. The model is based on the idea that the meaning in a message depends on the context in which the message originated (the authorial context), and the context in which it is interpreted (the readership context). Characteristics of authors, readers and messages are discussed. The impact of the ‘knowledge’ of ‘information’ users, and of their community, is considered. Implications of the model are discussed. A definition of information is suggested, which attempts to encapsulate the nature of information implied by the model.