Cited by 204E-Government and Public ServicesTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 111 of the 121 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 50 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Trust transfer in the continued usage of public e-services

Open access

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.im.2014.05.016

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

1 of 50 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 57 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 23
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 19
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
37 of 37
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample of users had sufficient knowledge about the e-service to respond to all the survey questions.

    “The resulting sample of users had sufficient knowledge about the e-service to respond to all the survey questions.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample of users of Spanish public e-services is comparable to online users in Europe.

    “Second, our analyses are based on a sample of users of Spanish public e-services, comparable to online users in Europe.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Public e-services are not a popular conversation topic.

    “Because public e-services are not a popular conversation topic, citizens who receive interpersonal recommendations may regard the endorsements as representative of a small or irrelevant user group.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Trust influences users' intentions to continue using e-services.

    “In modern society, where services have become increasingly electronic in nature, trust influences users' intentions to continue using e-services.”
4 of 4

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Fulfillment scale has four listed items, not three

    Minor

    The methods say each e-service-quality dimension used three items, but the appendix lists four fulfillment items, FUL1 through FUL4.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 121 references

10 of the 121 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Jorgensen, 2002, Facing the challenges of e-government: A case study of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, SAM Adv. Manage. J., 67, 15
  2. Oliver, 1981, Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction process in retailer selling, J. Retail., 57, 25

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Schepers, J.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Zaragoza (ES)
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
Schepers, Jeroen
Venue
Information & Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
627-640
ISSN
0378-7206 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1978270621
Cited by
204
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5
FWCI
49.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information & Management (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (AP2007-03817)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
trust transfer, e-government services, continued usage, continuance intention, trust in public administration, online trust, e-service quality, time consciousness, e-government

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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