Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 285

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of individual differences on e-learning users’ behaviour in developing countries: A structural equation model

Tarhini, Ali, Hone, Kate, Liu, Xiaohui·2014·Computers in Human Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.020
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.020

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Agarwal, 1999, Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?, Decision Sciences, 30, 361, 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01614.x · DOI · Paper page
  2. Akhter, 2003, Digital divide and purchase intention: Why demographic psychology matters, Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 321, 10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00171-X · DOI
  3. Bagozzi, 2007, The legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a proposal for a paradigm shift, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 3, 10.17705/1jais.00122 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Burton-Jones, 2006, The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model, Information & Management, 43, 706, 10.1016/j.im.2006.03.007 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Calisir, 2009, Predicting the behavioral intention to use enterprise resource planning systems: An exploratory extension of the technology acceptance model, Management Research News, 32, 597, 10.1108/01409170910965215 · DOI
  6. Carmines, 1981, Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures, Social Measurement, 65
  7. Castañeda, 2007, Web Acceptance Model (WAM): Moderating effects of user experience, Information & Management, 44, 384, 10.1016/j.im.2007.02.003 · DOI
  8. Chang, 2008, An empirical investigation of students’ behavioural intentions to use the online learning course websites, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 71, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00742.x · DOI · Paper page
  9. Chung, 2010, Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: An extension of the technology acceptance model, Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1674, 10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.016 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Clay, 2009, Improving undergraduate online retention through gated advisement and redundant communication, Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 10, 93, 10.2190/CS.10.1.g · DOI
  11. Cohen, 1990, Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 128, 10.2307/2393553 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Davis, 1989, User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science, 982, 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Dishaw, 1999, Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs, Information & Management, 36, 9, 10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00101-3 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Dodge, 2009, Student retention in athletic training education programs, Journal of Athletic Training, 44, 197, 10.4085/1062-6050-44.2.197 · DOI
  15. Fletcher, 2005, Self-efficacy as an evaluation measure for programs in support of online learning literacies for undergraduates, The Internet and Higher Education, 8, 307, 10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.09.004 · DOI
  16. Gefen, 1997, Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension to the Technology Acceptance Model, MIS Quarterly, 389, 10.2307/249720 · DOI
  17. He, 2010, Are men more technology-oriented than women? The role of gender on the development of general computer self-efficacy of college students, Journal of Information Systems Education, 21, 203
  18. Hoffmann, 1980, Early childhood experiences and women’s achievement motives, Communication Research & Broadcasting
  19. Hu, 1999, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1, 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Karahanna, 1999, Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs, MIS Quarterly, 183, 10.2307/249751 · DOI
  21. King, 2006, A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model, Information & Management, 43, 740, 10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Lewis, 2003, Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers, MIS Quarterly, 657, 10.2307/30036552 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Liu, 2010, Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community, Computers & Education, 54, 600, 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.009 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Lucas, 1999, Technology use and performance: A field study of broker workstations∗, Decision Sciences, 30, 291, 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01611.x · DOI · Paper page
  25. Lymperopoulos, 2005, Factors affecting acceptance of the internet as a marketing-intelligence tool among employees of Greek bank branches, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 23, 484, 10.1108/02652320510619602 · DOI
  26. Mahmood, 2001, Factors affecting information technology usage: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 11, 107, 10.1207/S15327744JOCE1102_02 · DOI
  27. Matar, N., Hunaiti, Z., Halling, S., & Matar, Š. (2011). E-Learning acceptance and challenges in the Arab region. ICT Acceptance, Investment and Organization: Cultural Practices and Values in the Arab World, 184. · DOI
  28. McCarthy, 2006, Measuring students perceptions of blackboard using the technology acceptance model: A PLS approach, E-learning, 26, 18
  29. McCoy, 2005, An examination of the technology acceptance model in Uruguay and the U.S.: A focus on culture, Journal of Global Information Technology, 8, 27, 10.1080/1097198X.2005.10856395 · DOI
  30. Nasser, 2000, Attitudes and concerns towards distance education: The case of Lebanon, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3, 1
  31. Nasser, 2008, University students’ knowledge of services and programs in relation to satisfaction: A case study of a private university in Lebanon, Quality Assurance in Education, 16, 80, 10.1108/09684880810848422 · DOI
  32. Ngai, 2007, Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM, Computers & Education, 48, 250, 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.11.007 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Park, 2009, An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning, Educational Technology & Society, 12, 150
  34. Park, 2012, University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model, British Journal of Educational Technology, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x · DOI · Paper page
  35. Patterson, 2009, Attrition in online and campus degree programs, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12
  36. Peng, 2009, Ubiquitous knowledge construction: Mobile learning re-defined and a conceptual framework, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 171, 10.1080/14703290902843828 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Rovai, 2007, In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs, The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 1, 10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00158-6 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Saadé, 2005, The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model, Information & Management, 42, 317, 10.1016/j.im.2003.12.013 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Saeed, 2008, Examining the effects of information system characteristics and perceived usefulness on post adoption usage of information systems, Information & Management, 45, 376, 10.1016/j.im.2008.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Srite, 2006, Culture as an explanation of technology acceptance differences: An empirical investigation of Chinese and US users, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 14, 10.3127/ajis.v14i1.4 · DOI
  41. Straub, 2004, Validation guidelines for IS positivist research, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 380, 10.17705/1CAIS.01324 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Straub, 1997, Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study, Information & Management, 33, 1, 10.1016/S0378-7206(97)00026-8 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Sun, 2006, The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance, International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 64, 53, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.013 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Tarhini, 2013, Factors affecting students’ acceptance of e-learning environments in developing countries: A structural equation modeling approach, International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3, 54, 10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.233 · DOI
  45. Tarhini, 2013, User acceptance towards web-based learning systems: Investigating the role of social, organizational and individual factors in European higher education, Procedia Computer Science, 17, 189, 10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.026 · DOI
  46. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2013c). Extending the TAM model to empirically investigate the students' behavioural intention to use e-learning in developing countries. In: Science and Information Conference (SAI) (pp. 732–737). IEEE.
  47. Tarhini, 2014, A cross-cultural examination of the impact of social, organisational and individual factors on educational technology acceptance between British and Lebanese university students, British Journal of Educational Technology
  48. Taylor, 1995, Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 137, 10.1016/0167-8116(94)00019-K · DOI · Paper page
  49. Teo, 2009, The impact of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on pre-service teachers' attitude toward computer use: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40, 89, 10.2190/EC.40.1.d · DOI
  50. Teo, 2011, Assessing the cross-cultural validity study of the E-learning Acceptance Measure (ElAM): A structural equation modeling approach, International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 8, 43
  51. Teo, 2008, A cross-cultural examination of the intention to use technology between Singaporean and Malaysian pre-service teachers: An application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 11, 265
  52. Terzis, 2011, Computer based assessment: Gender differences in perceptions and acceptance, Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2108, 10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.005 · DOI
  53. Venkatesh, 2000, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies, Management Science, 186, 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Venkatesh, 2000, Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior, MIS Quarterly, 115, 10.2307/3250981 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Walker, 2008, Faculty intentions to use components for Web-enhanced instruction, International Journal on E Learning, 7, 133
  56. Wang, 2009, Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning, British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 92, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00809.x · DOI · Paper page
  57. Yousafzai, 2007, Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1, Journal of Modelling in Management, 2, 251, 10.1108/17465660710834453 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Zakour, A. B. (2004). Cultural differences and information technology acceptance (pp. 156–161).
  59. Zhang, 2008, Extending TAM for online learning systems: An intrinsic motivation perspective, Tsinghua Science & Technology, 13, 312, 10.1016/S1007-0214(08)70050-6 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-12
Volume
41
Pages
153-163
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.020
OpenAlex
W2509019740
Cited by
285
References
13
FWCI
36.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.