The DOI matches its Crossref record; 160 of the 160 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring the perceived benefits of implementing blockchain technology in the banking sector
Abstract
Abstract This study aims to measure the perceived business benefits of blockchain technology implementation in the banking sector and establish factors to measure these benefits. Concerns regarding security, values, and standards are essential to banking operations. Data was collected from 291 respondents who are either blockchain consultants, blockchain marketing experts, or CEOs/business heads of banks that are in the process of advising, consulting, or implementing blockchain technology. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to assess the reliability and validity of the proposed instrument. The results support the proposed instrument and its five constructs. The scale emerging from this study indicates a good degree of reliability, validity and unidimensionality in each of its constructs. Technologies like blockchain are in their initial stages, and recent advances in blockchain technology may impact our findings. The developed instrument could help give decision makers a foundational view to measure the benefits of implementing blockchain technology before they choose to integrate it in their existing system. The scientific and societal significance of the study based on its practical and theoretical applications is presented at the end.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
(2017) · Cited by 16,319
An Index of Factorial Simplicity
Kaiser, H. F. (1974) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291575 · Cited by 14,898
The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education
Taber, K. S. (2018) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 · Cited by 10,679
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/jyj1-4868 · Cited by 10,297
Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed
Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., Black, W. C., & Hair, J. F. (2006) · Cited by 9,807
Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.00407 · Cited by 6,416
Practical issues in structural modeling
BENTLER, P. M., & CHOU, C.-P. (1987) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124187016001004 · Cited by 5,804
An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends
Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress) · doi:10.1109/bigdatacongress.2017.85 · Cited by 4,515
Metadata
- Authors
- Garg, P., Gupta, B., Chauhan, A. K., Sivarajah, U., Gupta, S., & Modgil, S.
- Venue
- Technological Forecasting and Social Change
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-02
- Volume
- 163
- Pages
- 120407
- ISSN
- 0040-1625 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3093843511
- Cited by
- 320
- References
- 160
- FWCI
- 37.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring the perceived benefits of implementing blockchain technology in the banking sector. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120407
- The paper
- Garg, P., Gupta, B., Chauhan, A. K., Sivarajah, U., Gupta, S., & Modgil, S. (2021). Measuring the perceived benefits of implementing blockchain technology in the banking sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120407
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.
