Table 2.
Criteria groups | Frequency (%) (n=165) |
---|---|
Content of site (includes quality, reliability, accuracy, scope, depth) | 30 (18) |
Design and aesthetics (includes layout, interactivity, presentation, appeal, graphics, use of media) | 22 (13) |
Disclosure of authors, sponsors, developers (includes identification of purpose, nature of organisation, sources of support, authorship, origin) | 20 (12) |
Currency of information (includes frequency of update, freshness, maintenance of site) | 14 (8) |
Authority of source (includes reputation of source, credibility, trustworthiness) | 11 (7) |
Ease of use (includes usability, navigability, functionality) | 9 (5) |
Accessibility and availability (includes ease of access, fee for access, stability) | 9 (5) |
Links (includes quality of links, links to other sources) | 5 (3) |
Attribution and documentation (includes presentation of clear references, balanced evidence) | 5 (3) |
Intended audience (includes nature of intended users, appropriateness for intended users) | 3 (2) |
Contact addresses or feedback mechanism (includes availability of contact information, contact address) | 2 (1) |
User support (includes availability of support, documentation for users) | 2 (1) |
Miscellaneous (includes criterion that lacked specificity or were unique) | 33 (20) |
Of five authors who assigned weights or priorities to their proposed criteria, four cited content and one cited peer review (categorised as miscellaneous) as most important criterion. Percentage total does not equal 100 owing to rounding-off.