Cited by 383Technology Adoption and User BehaviourUsability and User Interface DesignHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Understanding the impact of m-banking on individual performance: DeLone & McLean and TTF perspective

Tam, Carlos, Oliveira, Tiago·2016·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.016

Cites

77 of 77 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.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tam, C., & Oliveira, T.
Affiliations
Universidade Nova de Lisboa (PT)
Corresponding author
Tam, Carlos
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
61
Pages
233-244
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2494974994
Cited by
383
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5
FWCI
35.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
mobile banking, individual performance, DeLone and McLean IS success model, task-technology fit, user satisfaction, mobile commerce, system quality, information quality, service quality, moderating effect, 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