Cited by 226Technology Adoption and User BehaviourGender and Technology in EducationEducation and Technology Integration

Examining the influence of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: a structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model

Teo, Timothy·2010·Asia Pacific Education Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12564-009-9066-4

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teo, T.
Affiliations
Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Corresponding author
Teo, Timothy
Venue
Asia Pacific Education Review
Published
2010-01-28
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
253-262
ISSN
  • 1598-1037 (ISSN-L)
  • 1876-407X
OpenAlex
W2086395587
Cited by
226
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Asia Pacific Education Review (publishedVersion)
  • Murdoch University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
Keywords
pre-service teachers, intention to use technology, technology acceptance model, subjective norms, facilitating conditions, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, educational technology adoption

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