The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Empirical Assessment of a Modified Technology Acceptance Model
Abstract
:The technology acceptance model (TAM) is one of the most influential research models in studies of the determinants of information systems/information technology (IS/IT) acceptance. In TAM, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are hypothesized and empirically supported as fundamental determinants of user acceptance of a given IS/IT. A review of the IS and psychology literature, however, suggests that perceived usefulness can be of two distinct types: near-term usefulness and long-term usefulness. This paper reviews the concept of perceived usefulness and modifies TAM to include the two types of perceived usefulness. Data collected from nearly 285 administrative/clerical staff in a large organization were tested against the modified model using the structural equation modeling approach. The results of the study showed that, even though perceived near-term usefulness had the most significant influence on the behavioral intention to use a technology, perceived long-term usefulness also exerted a positive, though lesser, impact. No significant, direct relationship was found between ease of use and behavioral intention to use a technology. Implications of the findings and future research areas are discussed.
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:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
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
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150
Mathieson, K. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.173 · Cited by 4,216
Cited by
The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future
Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.01250 · Cited by 2,572
The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors
Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x · Cited by 2,207
Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology
Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y. K., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1999.11518247 · Cited by 1,951
Self-citationThe Relative Importance of Perceived Ease of Use in IS Adoption: A Study of E-Commerce Adoption
Drexel University, Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Georgia State University (2000) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00008 · Cited by 1,833
Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach
Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2001) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x · Cited by 1,409
Self-citationA Review of the Predictors, Linkages, and Biases in IT Innovation Adoption Research
Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J. W., & Lacity, M. C. (2006) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000056 · Cited by 1,136
Wu, I.-L., & Chen, J.-L. (2005) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.03.003 · Cited by 879
Understanding Web-based learning continuance intention: The role of subjective task value
Chiu, C.-M., & Wang, E. T. G. (2008) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.02.003 · Cited by 869
Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance
Ong, C.-S., & Lai, J.-Y. (2006) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.006 · Cited by 863
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y. L., Wong, W.-M., & Tam, K.-Y. (2002) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045692 · Cited by 827
Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM
Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.11.007 · Cited by 813
Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2002) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045699 · Cited by 707
Self-citationYang, S., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., Cao, Y., & Zhang, R. (2012) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.019 · Cited by 679
The Technology Acceptance Model: A Meta-Analysis of Empirical Findings
Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2004) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2004010104 · Cited by 660
Technology acceptance: a meta‐analysis of the TAM: Part 1
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007) · Journal of Modelling in Management · doi:10.1108/17465660710834453 · Cited by 624
It's all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance model
Yang, H.-D., & Yoo, Y. (2004) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(03)00062-9 · Cited by 578
A conceptual model for the process of IT innovation adoption in organizations
Hameed, M. A., Counsell, S., & Swift, S. (2012) · Journal of Engineering and Technology Management · doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.03.007 · Cited by 442
Technology Adaptation in E-commerce:
Chen, L.-D., & Tan, J. (2004) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2003.11.014 · Cited by 306
Gamal Aboelmaged, M. (2010) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/02635571011030042 · Cited by 240
Understanding ERP system adoption from the user's perspective
Chang, M.-K., Cheung, W., Cheng, C.-H., & Yeung, J. H. Y. (2008) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.08.011 · Cited by 236
Park, N. (2010) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01440.x · Cited by 141
Rosli, M. S., Saleh, N. S., Md. Ali, A., Abu Bakar, S., & Mohd Tahir, L. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su141811389 · Cited by 126
Adopting AI: how familiarity breeds both trust and contempt
Horowitz, M. C., Kahn, L., Macdonald, J., & Schneider, J. (2024) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-023-01666-5 · Cited by 135
Older Adults' Acceptance of Information Technology
Wang, L., Rau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2011) · Educational Gerontology · doi:10.1080/03601277.2010.500588 · Cited by 102
(2012) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 76
Awa, H. O., Eze, S. C., Urieto, J. E., & Inyang, B. J. (2011) · Journal of Systems and Information Technology · doi:10.1108/13287261111135981 · Cited by 61
Yeow, P. H. P., & Loo, W. H. (2009) · International Journal of Electronic Government Research · doi:10.4018/jegr.2009040103 · Cited by 53
Lee, W., Tyrrell, T., & Erdem, M. (2013) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/17579881311302329 · Cited by 48
Mastour, H., Yousefi, R., & Niroumand, S. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-90742-5 · Cited by 41
Kramer, W. S., Shuffler, M. L., & Feitosa, J. (2017) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.007 · Cited by 33
University of South Alabama, Howard, M. C., Hair, J. F., & University of South Alabama (2023) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00084 · Cited by 27
The use of the Internet in Hong Kong: Manufacturing vs. service
Cheng, C. H., Cheung, W., & Chang, M. K. (2002) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/s0925-5273(01)00179-7 · Cited by 25
Exploring Factors Impacting Users' Attitude and Intention towards Social Tagging Systems
Allam, H., Blustein, J., Bliemel, M., & Spiteri, L. (2012) · 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.267 · Cited by 19
What Guides Our Choices? Modeling Developers' Trust and Behavioral Intentions Towards Genai
Choudhuri, R., Trinkenreich, B., Pandita, R., Kalliamvakou, E., Steinmacher, I., Gerosa, M., Sanchez, C., & Sarma, A. (2025) · 2025 IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse55347.2025.00087 · Cited by 17
Mutoriq, A., & Purwinarko, A. (2024) · Journal of Advances in Information Systems and Technology · doi:10.15294/jaist.v5i2.71096 · Cited by 3
“The TAM method, developed by Davis in 1985 as an extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) method, is used to examine the acceptance of information technology (Chau, 1996).”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Chau, P. Y. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1996-09
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 185-204
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W1584824347
- Cited by
- 1,078
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 9.95
- 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
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.
