Cited by 43Technology Adoption and User BehaviourTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesInformation Systems Education and Curriculum Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating the actual use of cloud computing in higher education through information management factors: a cross-cultural comparison

Arpaci, Ibrahim, Masrek, Mohamad Noorman, Al-Sharafi, Mohammed A., Al-Emran, Mostafa·2023·Education and Information Technologies

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-023-11594-y

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Proceedings of the Joint International Conference, Monastier di Treviso, Italy, 24-27 May 2017 (pp. 135-139). University of Primorska Press.
  2. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: planning conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative approaches to research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson Education.
  3. Granić, A. (2022). Educational Technology Adoption: a systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9725–9744. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-022-10951-7/TABLES/2. · DOI
  4. Karimi-Alaghehband, F., & Rivard, S. (2019). Information technology outsourcing and architecture dynamic capabilities as enablers of organizational agility. Journal of Information Technology, 34(2), 129–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962188162. · DOI
  5. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063860120040. · DOI
  6. Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: a Meta-Analytic evaluation of UTAUT2. Information Systems Frontiers, 23(4), 987–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10796-020-10007-6/FIGURES/4. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Arpaci, I., Masrek, M. N., Al-Sharafi, M. A., & Al-Emran, M.
Affiliations
  • Universiti Teknologi MARA System (MY)
  • University of Technology Malaysia (MY)
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Published
2023-03-04
Volume
28
Issue
9
Pages
12089-12109
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
OpenAlex
W4323050153
Cited by
43
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10
FWCI
11.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion)
  • Bursa Uludag University - AVESIS (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Systems Education and Curriculum Development
Keywords
cloud computing adoption, information management, national culture, cross-cultural comparison, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, behavioral intention, technology acceptance, higher education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review