Determinants of User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: An Empirical Examination of Individual Differences and System Characteristics
Open accessAbstract
The explosion in Internet usage and huge government funding initiatives in digital libraries have drawn attention to research on digital libraries. Whereas the traditional focus of digital library research has been on the technological development, there is now a call for user-focused research. Although millions of dollars have been spent on building "usable" systems, research on digital libraries has shown that potential users may not use the systems in spite of their availability. There is a need for research to identify the factors that determine users' adoption of digital libraries. Using the technology acceptance model (TAM) as a theoretical framework, this study investigates the effect of a set of individual differences (computer self-efficacy and knowledge of search domain) and system characteristics (relevance, terminology, and screen design) on intention to use digital libraries. Based on a sample of 585 users of a university's award-winning digital library, the results strongly support the utilization of TAM in predicting users' intention to adopt digital libraries, and demonstrate the effects of critical external variables on behavior intention through perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. All of the individual differences and system characteristics have significant effects on perceived ease of use of digital libraries. In addition, relevance has the strongest effect on perceived usefulness of digital libraries.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Hong et al. [58] indicated that perceived usefulness could be significantly predicted based on screen design in an e-Library system.
“Similarly, Hong et al. [58] indicated that in using the e-Library system under consideration, perceived usefulness could be significantly predicted based on screen design.”
From Determinants of user acceptance of a specific social platform for older adults: An empirical examination of user interface characteristics and behavioral intention (2017) · cites this paper as Hong et al. [58]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 73 · Cited by 827
- Authors
- Hong, W., Thong, J. Y. L., Wong, W.-M., & Tam, K.-Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- Hong Kong Metropolitan University (HK)
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 97-124
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W2158283301
- Cited by
- 827
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 50 · 2012: 53
- FWCI
- 58.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- autopapers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
- Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Keywords
- digital libraries, user acceptance, technology acceptance model, intention to use, computer self-efficacy, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, system characteristics, relevance, screen design, terminology, individual differences
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