Avaliação de fontes de informação disponíveis na web: um estudo do Banco de Teses e Dissertações da Capes e da Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações do Ibict

Abstract

Este trabalho tem por objetivo avaliar comparativamente o Banco de Teses da Capes (BTC) e Biblioteca Digital Brasileira de Teses e Dissertações do Ibict (BDTD), com base em critérios de avaliação de fontes de informação disponíveis na Internet. A partir de revisão de literatura da área, selecionou-se o conjunto de dez critérios de avaliação propostos por Tomaél et al (2001) para avaliar as fontes de informação objeto desta pesquisa. Com base no detalhamento dos itens a serem observados em cada critério, conforme proposto pelos autores supracitados, foram definidos 43 subcritérios para a avaliação do BTC e da BDTD. A avaliação foi realizada por meio de consultas aos sites das duas fontes de informação realizadas no período de maio a outubro de 2014. Para possibilitar comparar as fontes de informação, foi atribuída pontuação de 0 a 2 para cada subcritério, sendo que 0 equivale a subcritério não atendido, 1 a subcritério parcialmente atendido e 2 a subcritério atendido. Com a análise do atendimento ou não aos subcritérios de avaliação, foi possível identificar semelhanças e diferenças entre o BTC e a BDTD. Verifica-se que as duas fontes de informação são de tipologias diferentes, a primeira é referencial e a segunda disponibiliza o texto completo, mas a comparação entre elas foi possível, pois disponibilizam produtos semelhantes que são as teses e dissertações defendidas em território nacional. Após análise dos dados observouse que a BDTD atende a um número maior de critérios de qualidade, no contexto desta pesquisa. Vale ressaltar que ambas as fontes carecem de requisitos de acessibilidade, pois não apresentam auxílio para os usuários com deficiência visual. Os critérios propostos por Tomael et al (2001) e a pontuação por critérios proposta nesta pesquisa possibilitaram avaliar de maneira objetiva a qualidade das duas fontes de informação.

This work aims to to comparatively evaluate the Bank Theses Capes (BTC) and the Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations of Ibict (BDTD), based on evaluation criteria of sources of information available on Internet. From review of the literature of the area, selected to carry on the set of ten evaluation criteria proposed by Tomaél et al (2001) to evaluate the sources of information object of this research. Based on the detailing of items to be observed in each criterion, as proposed by the abovementioned authors were defined 43 sub-criteria for evaluation of BTC and BDTD. The evaluation was performed through consultation with sites of the two sources of information carried out between from May to October 2014. order to enable to compare the sources of information, was attributed 0-2 score for every subcriteria, whereas 0 is equivalent to sub-criterion not met, partially met the first sub-criterion and 2 to subcriterion met. With the analysis of attendance or not to sub-criteria evaluation, it was possible to identify similarities and differences between the BTC and the BDTD. It is verified that the two sources of information are of different types, the first is reference and the second is the full text, but the comparison between them was possible as offer similar products that are theses and dissertations in the country. After analyzing the data, it was observed that the BDTD attends a greater number of quality criteria, in the context of this research. It is noteworthy that both sources they lack of accessibility requirements, since they have no help for visually impaired users. The criteria proposed by Tomael et al (2001) and the score for proposal criteria in this study made it possible to evaluate objectively the quality of the two sources of information.This work aims to to comparatively evaluate the Bank Theses Capes (BTC) and the Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations of Ibict (BDTD), based on evaluation criteria of sources of information available on Internet. From review of the literature of the area, selected to carry on the set of ten evaluation criteria proposed by Tomaél et al (2001) to evaluate the sources of information object of this research. Based on the detailing of items to be observed in each criterion, as proposed by the abovementioned authors were defined 43 sub-criteria for evaluation of BTC and BDTD. The evaluation was performed through consultation with sites of the two sources of information carried out between from May to October 2014. order to enable to compare the sources of information, was attributed 0-2 score for every subcriteria, whereas 0 is equivalent to sub-criterion not met, partially met the first sub-criterion and 2 to subcriterion met. With the analysis of attendance or not to sub-criteria evaluation, it was possible to identify similarities and differences between the BTC and the BDTD. It is verified that the two sources of information are of different types, the first is reference and the second is the full text, but the comparison between them was possible as offer similar products that are theses and dissertations in the country. After analyzing the data, it was observed that the BDTD attends a greater number of quality criteria, in the context of this research. It is noteworthy that both sources they lack of accessibility requirements, since they have no help for visually impaired users. The criteria proposed by Tomael et al (2001) and the score for proposal criteria in this study made it possible to evaluate objectively the quality of the two sources of information.