Comprehensive model of information seeking
Open-knowledge reference entry
The comprehensive model of information seeking, or CMIS, is a theoretical construct designed to predict how people will seek information. It was first developed by J. David Johnson and has been utilized by a variety of disciplines including library and information science and health communication.
The CMIS has been empirically tested in health and organizational contexts. It has inherent strengths for studying how people react to health problems such as cancer. It specifies "antecedents" that explain why people become information seekers, "information carrier characteristic" that shape how they go about looking for information, and "information seeking actions" that reflect the nature of the search itself.
Design
The CMIS has been quantitatively tested and performs well when it comes to health information seeking behaviors. There are three main schemas in the CMIS. These are: Antecedents, information field, and information seeking actions. The antecedents are those factors that determine how an information consumer will receive the information. Those factors are: Demographics, personal experience, salience, and beliefs. These factors are fluid and can change during the health information seeking process.
The public source identifies “Comprehensive model of information seeking” as open-knowledge reference entry. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Comprehensive, model and information.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Comprehensive model of information seeking”, the useful work is to connect “open-knowledge reference entry” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 23, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q25051499. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Comprehensive model of information seeking”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Comprehensive model of information seeking primary sources, Comprehensive model of information seeking archive and Comprehensive research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Comprehensive model of information seeking”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Comprehensive model of information seeking” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.