[Purpose/Significance] This paper aims to investigate the relationship between library users' information literacy and their library visits and borrowing behaviors, in order to rich our understanding of how users' information literacy affects their information behaviors.[Method/Process] A new scale of information literacy had been developed by incorporating recent studies on the topic. Data were collected by a survey of 258 library users, with a questionnaire covering the new scale of information literacy and user data including user reading and borrowing behaviors. PLS-SEM was used to examine the structure of the newly developed scale and the relationships between users' information literacy, library visits, and library reading and borrowing behaviors.[Result/Conclusion] An 8-dimension and 26-item scale of information literacy is developed by confirmatory factor analysis. The measurement model of and all paths connecting information literacy have been significantly affected by social desirability, a common source of common methods bias. Meanwhile, after controlling user characteristics and social desirability, users' total number of borrows from library is positively related to their information literacy, with a standardized path coefficient β=0.211, p=0.006, whereas user's library visits mediate this relationship, with an indirect effect of 0.05, accounting for 19.16% of the total effect, and the bias corrects bootstrapping confidence interval of[0.019, 0.093]. Therefore, our research provides empirical evidence on understanding how user's information literacy affects their information behaviors as well as the necessity of libraries to provide social education on information literacy. Methodologically, our study validates a new and reliable instrument to measure information literacy. Meanwhile, our study also provides empirical evidence on understanding and controlling the impacts of common methods bias in empirical studies in the field of library, information and archives.
[1] 陈文勇,杨晓光.国外信息素养的定义和信息素养标准研究成果概述[J].图书情报工作,2000(2):19-20,60.
[2] 黄如花,李白杨.MOOC背景下信息素养教育的变革[J].图书情报知识,2015(4):14-25.
[3] 周剑,王艳, XIE I.世代特征,信息环境变迁与大学生信息素养教育创新[J].中国图书馆学报,2015,41(4):25-39.
[4] 于良芝,王俊丽.从普适技能到嵌入实践——国外信息素养理论与实践回顾[J].中国图书馆学报,2020,46(2):38-55.
[5] 张倩苇.信息素养与信息素养教育[J].电化教育研究,2001(2):9-14.
[6] 张义兵,李艺."信息素养"新界说[J].教育研究,2003(3):78-81.
[7] 马费成,丁韧,李卓卓.案例研究:武汉地区高校学生信息素养现状分析[J].图书情报知识, 2009(1):24-29.
[8] 娜日,吴晓伟,吕继红.国内外信息素养标准研究现状与展望[J].图书情报工作,2010,54(3):32-35.
[9] 钟志贤.面向终身学习:信息素养的内涵、演进与标准[J].中国远程教育,2013(8):21-29,95.
[10] 黄如花,冯婕,黄雨婷,等.公众信息素养教育:全球进展及我国的对策[J].中国图书馆学报,2020,46(3):50-72.
[11] 韩丽风,王茜,李津,等.高等教育信息素养框架[J].大学图书馆学报,2015,33(6):118-126.
[12] ACRL.Framework for information literacy for higher education[EB/OL].[2022-05-07].https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/infolit/framework1.pdf.
[13] LLOYD A. Information literacy landscapes:an emerging picture[J]. Journal of documentation,2006, 62(5):570-583.
[14] 明桦,林众,罗蕾,等.信息素养内涵与结构的国际比较[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2019(2):59-65.
[15] 张长海.基于批判性思维和创造力的我国大学生信息素养教育模式研究[J].中国图书馆学报,2016,42(4):102-116.
[16] 初景利,刘敬仪,张冬荣,等.从信息素养教育到泛信息素养教育——中国科学院大学15年的实践探索[J].图书情报工作,2020,64(6):3-9.
[17] 陈晓红,高凡.近五年国内外信息素养教育研究进展及展望[J].图书情报工作, 2018,62(10):136-142.
[18] 张久珍.图书馆:培育全民数字素养的阵地[J].图书馆论坛,2021,41(12):6-7.
[19] 吴晓伟,娜日,李丹.大学生网络信息素养能力量表设计研究[J].情报理论与实践,2009, 32(12):84-88.
[20] 张莉,宋小康,孙霄凌,等.社会化搜索情境下用户信息素养量表构建研究[J].现代情报,2021,41(11):57-68.
[21] MAHMOOD K. Reliability and validity of self-efficacy scales assessing students' information literacy skills:a systematic review[J]. Electronic library, 2017,35(5):1035-1051.
[22] MARSHALL R K. An instrument to measure information competency[J]. Information technology, education and society, 2004, 5(2):5-19.
[23] COTE J A, BUCKLEY M R. Estimating trait, method, and error variance:generalizing across 70 construct validation studies[J]. Journal of marketing research, 1987,24(3):315-318.
[24] LINDELL M K, WHITNEY D J. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs[J]. Journal of applied psychology, 2001,86(1):114-121.
[25] PODSAKOFF P M, MACKENZIE S B, LEE J, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research:a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies[J]. Journal of applied psychology, 2003,88(5):879-903.
[26] MALHOTRA N K, KIM S S, PATIL A. Common method variance in IS research:a comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research[J]. Management science, 2006,52(12):1865-1883.
[27] MACKENZIE S B, PODSAKOFF P M. Common method bias in marketing:causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies[J]. Journal of retailing,2012,88(4):542-555.
[28] FULLER C M, SIMMERING M J, ATINC G, et al. Common methods variance detection in business research[J]. Journal of business research, 2016,69(8):3192-3198.
[29] REYNOLDS W M. Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale[J]. Journal of clinical psychology, 1982,38(1):119-125.
[30] GEFEN D, RIGDON E E, STRAUB D. An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research[J]. MIS quarterly, 2011,35(2):III-XIV.
[31] RINGLE C M, SARSTEDT M, STRAUB D W. Editor's comments:a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in "MIS quarterly"[J]. MIS quarterly, 2012,36(1):iii-xiv.
[32] HAIR J F, HULT G T M, RINGLE C M, et al. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)[M]. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks:Sage,2022.
[33] DAVISON A C, HINKLEY D V. Bootstrap methods and their application[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1997.
[34] ZHAO X, LYNCH J G, CHEN Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny:myths and truths about mediation analysis[J]. Journal of consumer research,2010,37(2):197-206.
[35] HAYES AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:a regression-based approach[M]. New York:Guilford,2013.
[36] RINGLE C M, WENDE S, BECKER J. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt:SmartPLS[EB/OL].[2022-05-07].https://www.smartpls.com.
[37] FORNELL C G, LARCKER D F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error[J]. Journal of marketing research, 1981,18(1):39-50.
[38] HAIR J F, ANDERSON R E, TATHAM R L, et al. Multivariate data analysis[M]. 5th ed. New York:Prentice Hall,1998.
[39] HENSELER J, DIJKSTRA T K, SARSTEDT M, et al. Common beliefs and reality about partial least squares:comments on Rönkkö & Evermann[J]. Organizational research methods,2013,17(2):182-209.
[40] RÖNKKÖ M, EVERMANN J. A critical examination of common beliefs about partial least squares path modeling[J]. Organizational research methods, 2013,16(3):425-448.
[41] HENSELER J, RINGLE C M, SARSTEDT M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling[J]. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 2015,43(1):115-135.
[42] KLINE R B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling[M]. New York:Guilford, 2011.
[43] CAMPBELL D T, FISKE D W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix[J]. Psychological bulletin, 1959, 56(2):81-105.
[44] 梁兴堃.图情档研究中的回归分析:常见问题[J].图书情报知识,2021,38(3):165-176.
[45] 赖茂生,屈鹏.大学生信息检索能力调查分析[J].大学图书馆学报,2010,28(1):96-104.
[46] 刘咏梅,谢阳群."搜索即学习"视角下大学生信息素养行动研究[J].情报理论与实践,2019,42(8):97-103.
[47] KHANUM A, BASHIR F. Information competencies and information seeking behavior in digital paradigms:a case of Urdu literature[J]. SAGE open, 2021, 11(4):215824402110544.
