Cited by 827Technology Adoption and User BehaviourLibrary Science and InformationLibrary Science and Information Literacy

Determinants of User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: An Empirical Examination of Individual Differences and System Characteristics

Open access
Hong, Weiyin, Thong, James Y.L., Wong, Wai-Man, Tam, Kar-Yan·2002·Journal of Management Information Systems

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1080/07421222.2002.11045692

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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
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