在本研究中，將從「使用者策略」、「資訊品質」與「網路概念」三個向度來進行可信度的探討，從網路使用者如何去搜尋並判斷可信度作為研究主題。而本研究共分兩個階段，分別為「質性訪談」與「問卷開發」。
　　質性訪談的階段中，本研究共訪談二十位在學碩士生，分析結果發現可信度評估可從三個向度來探討：「使用者策略」、「資訊品質」與網路概念。
　　1. 在「使用者策略」向度中發現，網路使用者很可能會傾向使用「個體策略」與「群體策略」。個體策略是指網路使用者認為自己搜尋而來的內容或是經過自己判斷過的內容才是具有可信度的；而群體策略是指網路使用者傾向認為其他網路使用者所提供的資訊或是其他網路使用者判斷過的內容才是具有可信度的；兩者有可能以相輔相成的情況同時存在。2. 在「資訊品質」向度中發現，網路使用者很可能會傾向注重「資訊本質」與「附加資訊」。「資訊本質」是指資訊生成當下即具備的特性，例如作者、發佈日期等等；「附加資訊」則是指資訊生成後，所衍伸的資訊，例如他人的回應或建議、針對該資訊的實驗結果等等；兩者也可能會同時被注重。3. 在「網路概念」向度中發現，網路使用者可能會具備「Web 1.0」與「Web 2.0」的概念。「Web 1.0」是指認為網路上的資訊無法由網路使用者所提供，僅能夠搜尋與閱讀；「Web 2.0」是指認為網路上的資訊可由網路使用者提供或編輯，網路使用者之間的互動性增加。
　　問卷開發的階段中，共取得388份有效問卷，包含大學生、碩士生與博士生，經過因素分析後獲得具有六個構念的正式問卷，分別為「個體策略」、「群體策略」、「資訊本質」、「附加資訊」、「Web 1.0」、「Web 2.0」。且在統計分析中發現，可信度評估不具有性別差異，然而在網路使用時間、學級、研究領域的比較下發現在某些構念中具有差異性，例如碩士生會比大學生更易傾向使用個體策略。
　　未來的研究方向可以考慮藉由教學提升學習者的網路資訊可信度評估能力，避免學習者在網路上吸收到錯誤的訊息。

This study aimed to examine how internet users assess online information credibility first by a qualitative inquiry and then by an empirical survey. In the former stage, twenty graduate students were first interviewed and then three dimensions were constructed based on their responses to analyze how they assess the online information credibility. These three dimensions are (1) the user’s strategy, (2) the information quality, and (3) the conception of internet. In the first dimension, the user’s strategy, we found the participants used two different strategies, the individual and collective ones, to assess online information credibility. While the participants who used the individual strategy considered online information to be credible only when the information was searched or verified by the participants themselves, the participants who used collective strategy considered the online information to be credible only when the information was provided or verified by other internet users. However, some participants might use both strategies at the same time. In the second dimension, the information quality, the participants might emphasize two different qualities of the information, the nature and the outgrowth of information. The nature of information refers to the attributes accompanying with the information, such as the author and the publishing date of the information. In contrast, the outgrowth of information is defined as the resultant information generated by other readers, such as others’ responses, suggestions and experimental tests of the original information. In the third dimension, the conception of internet, participants held two different conceptions of internet, Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. The participants who possessed Web 1.0 conception thought that online information can only be passively searched and read, but cannot be provided by internet users. On the contrary, the participants who possessed Web 2.0 conception believed that internet users can provide as well as edit online information.

In the latter stage, a questionnaire developed from the results of the qualitative inquiry was administrated to 388 students, including undergraduate and graduate ones. Results from factor analysis indicated that the questionnaire included six categories: (1) the individual strategy, (2) the collective strategy, (3) the nature of information, (4) the outgrowth of information, (5) the Web 1.0 conception, and (6) the Web 2.0 conception. Results also showed that online information credibility assessment significantly related to the respondents’ educational levels, their majors, and the amount of time they used the internet per week. However, there was no difference in online information credibility assessment between female and male students.

中文部份
邱皓政 (2006) 。量化研究與統計分析。台北：五南。
邱皓政 (2007) 。量化研究法(二):統計原理與分析技術。台北：雙葉。
吳明隆 (2007) 。SPSS操作與應用:問卷統計分析實務。台北：五南。

英文部分
Chuang, H. H. (2008). Perspectives and issues of the creation for weblog-based electronic portfolios in teacher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 170-174.
Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key Differences between Web1.0 and Web2.0. Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://www.research.att.com/~bala/papers/web1v2.pdf
Denning, P., Horning, J., Parnas, D., & Weinstein, L. (2005). Wikipedia risks. Communications of the ACM, 48(12), 152-152.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515-540.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2003). The perceived credibility of personal Web page information as influenced by the sex of the source. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 683-701.
Fogg, B. J. (2003a). Persuasive technology : using computers to change what we think and do. Amsterdam ; Boston: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Fogg, B. J. (2003b). Prominence-interpretation theory: explaining how people assess credibility online. Paper presented at the CHI '03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems.
Fogg, B. J., Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., et al. (2001). What makes Web sites credible? A report on a large quantitative study. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Gil, Y., & Artz, D. (2007). Towards content trust of web resources. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 5(4), 227-239.
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should We Trust Web-Based Studies? A Comparative Analysis of Six Preconceptions About Internet Questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93-104.

Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 478–482.
He, W., & Wei, K. K. (2009). What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and -seeking beliefs. Decision Support Systems, 46, 826-838.
Hilligoss, B., & Rieh, S. Y. (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing and Management, 44, 1467-1484.
Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion : psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Huang, W. T., Zhao, Y., Yang, S. Q., & Lu, Y. C. (2008). Analysis of the user behavior and opinion classification based on the BBS. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 205, 668-676.
Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the Blog: how reliance on traditional media and the Internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622-642.
Kirsch, S. M., Gnasa, M., & Cremers, A. B. (2006). Beyond the web: Retrieval in social information spaces.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust, . . .’- pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901.
Lai, L. S. L., & Turban, E. (2008). Groups formation and operations in the Web 2.0 environment and social networks. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(5), 387-402.
Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). The information commitments toward web information among medical students in Taiwan. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 162-172.
Lin, M. J., Hung, S. W., & Chen, C. J. (2009). Fostering the determinants of knowledge sharing in professional virtual communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 929-939.
Liu, Z. M. (2004). Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the web. Information Processing & Management, 40(6), 1027-1038.
Liu, Z. M., & Huang, X. B. (2005). Evaluating the credibility of scholarly information on the web: A cross cultural study. International Information & Library Review, 37(2), 99-106.
Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2007). Using Web 2.0 for learning in the community. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 196-203.
Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., Gumbrecht, M., & Swartz, L. (2004). Why we blog. Communication of the ACM, 47(12), 41-46.
Notess, G. R. (2006). The terrible twos: Web 2.0, library 2.0, and more. Online, 30(3), 40-42.
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0-Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved November, 19, 2008, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1
Raymond, E. S. (2000). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Retrieved June, 10, 2009, from http://manaviat.persiangig.com/document/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar.pdf
Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145-161.
Rieh, S. Y. (2004). On the web at home: Information seeking and web searching in the home environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(8), 743-753.
Rieh, S. Y., & Belkin, N. J. (1998). Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the WWW. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 35, 279-289.
Rieh, S. Y., & Belkin, N. J. (2000). Interaction on the Web: Scholars’ Judgment of Information Quality and Cognitive Authority. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the ASIS, 25-38
Rieh, S. Y., & Danielson, D. R. (2007). Credibility: A Multidisciplinary Framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, 307-364.
Rieh, S. Y., Hilligoss, B., & Jiyeon, Y. (2007). Toward an integrated framework of information and communication behavior: College students’ information resources and media selection. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
Stvilia, B., Twidale, M. B., Smith, L. C., & Gasser, L. (2008). Information quality work organization in Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 983-1001.
Sundar, S. S. (1999). Exploring receivers' criteria for perception of print and online news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 373-386.
Thompson, J. (2008). Don't be afraid to explore Web 2.0. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(10), 711-778.

Tsai, C. C. (2004). Information commitments in Web-based learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 105-112.
Tsai, M. J. (2009). Online Information Searching Strategy Inventory (OISSI): A quick version and a complete version. Computers & Education, 53(2), 473-483.
Tseng, S., & Fogg, B. J. (1999). Credibility and Computing Technology. Communication of the ACM, 42(5), 39-44.
Waters, N. L. (2007). Why you can't cite Wikipedia in my class. Communications of the ACM, 50(9), 15-17.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2005). Information commitments: evaluative standards and information searching strategies in web-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(5), 374-385.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). Developing an Information Commitment Survey for assessing students' web information searching strategies and evaluative standards for web materials. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 120-132.