Modeling end-users’ acceptance of a knowledge authoring tool
Abstract
Summary: Objectives: Knowledge bases comprise a vital component in the classic medical expert system model, yet the knowledge acquisition process by which they are created has been characterized as highly iterative and labor-intensive. The difficulty of this process underscores the importance of knowledge authoring tools that satisfy the demands of end-users. The authors hypothesize that the acceptability of a knowledge authoring tool for the creation of medical knowledge base content can be predicted by an accepted model in the information technology (IT) field, specifically the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Methods: An online survey was conducted amongst knowledge base authors who had previously established experience with the authoring tool software. The Likert-based questions in the survey were patterned directly after accepted TAM constructs with minor modifications to particularize them to the software being used. The results were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results: The TAM performed well in predicting end-users’ behavioral intentions to use the knowledge authoring tool. Five out of seven goodness-of-fit statistics indicate that the model represents the behavioral intentions of the authors well. All but one of the hypothesized relationships specified by the TAM were significant with p values less than 0.05. Conclusions: The TAM provides an adequate means by which development teams can anticipate and better understand what aspects of a knowledge authoring tool are most important to their target audience. Further research involving other behavioral models and an expanded user base will be necessary to better understand the scope of issues that factor into acceptability.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002 · Cited by 2,669 · see citing works
Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Voet, T., Adang, L., Vercruysse, J., & Duyck, P. (2008) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.3414/me0477 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Yen, P.-Y., Sousa, K. H., & Bakken, S. (2014) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001811 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Information technology acceptance in health information management
Abdekhoda, M., Dehnad, A., Hosseini, A. F., & Ahmadi, M. (2014) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.3414/me13-01-0079 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Evaluation of a flowchart-based EHR query system: A case study of RetroGuide
Huser, V., Narus, S. P., & Rocha, R. A. (2009) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.06.001 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Self-citationSchnall, R., & Henry, S. B. (2011) · Informatics for Health and Social Care · doi:10.3109/17538157.2011.584998 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Health information technology usability evaluation: methods, models, and measures
Yen, P. (n.d.) · ProQuest Demo Repository · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Wills, M. J., Sarnikar, S., El-Gayar, O., & Deokar, A. V. (2010) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.02626 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Chung, M., Ho, C.-H., & Wen, H. (2016) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.08.004 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Present Situation and Prospect of Medical Knowledge Based Systems in German-speaking Countries
Spitzer, K., Honekamp, W., & Spreckelsen, C. (2012) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.3414/me11-01-0084 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Yan, Y., Xu, Z., Yang, B., Jiang, N., He, S., Sheng, H., & Fu, W. (2023) · Polish Journal of Environmental Studies · doi:10.15244/pjoes/158907 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Yen, P., Jia, H., Currie, L. M., & Henry, S. B. (2009) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/ncn.0b013e31819753cd · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Del Fiol, G., Rocha, R. A., & Hulse, N. C.
- Affiliations
- Intermountain Healthcare (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hulse, N. C.
- ORCID
- Hulse, N. C.
- Venue
- Methods of Information in Medicine
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2006
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 05
- Pages
- 528-535
- ISSN
- 0026-1270 (ISSN-L)
- 2511-705X
- OpenAlex
- W2187422900
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Methods of Information in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (2T15 LM07124, T15LM007124)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- technology acceptance model, end-user acceptance, knowledge acquisition, medical expert systems, knowledge base, behavioral intention
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Data Collection, Expert Systems, Humans, Medical Informatics, Software, United States, Knowledge Bases
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
