The DOI matches its Crossref record; 145 of the 145 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Determinants of Intention to Use ChatGPT for Educational Purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA
Abstract
ChatGPT can revolutionize education by enhancing student engagement and making learning more personalized. Drawing on UTAUT2, this study investigated determinants of intention to use ChatGPT for educational purposes. Data were gathered from 406 Malaysian students and analyzed using a hybrid approach including “partial least squares” (PLS) and “fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis” (fsQCA). PLS showed that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, hedonic motivation, and learning value significantly influence the intention to use ChatGPT. Furthermore, we found that personal innovativeness and information accuracy negatively moderate the associations between ChatGPT use and its determinants. While PLS demonstrated that social influence, facilitating conditions, and habit do not affect ChatGPT use, fsQCA revealed that all factors might affect the intention to use ChatGPT. fsQCA suggested that eight combinations of factors may lead to high ChatGPT use. The results hold various implications for ChatGPT developers, instructors, and universities and provide insights for accelerating ChatGPT adoption.
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
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
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
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 · Cited by 38,459
When to Use and How to Report the Results of PLS-SEM
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019) · European Business Review · doi:10.1108/ebr-11-2018-0203 · Cited by 27,541
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209376 · Cited by 6,020
Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research
Fiss, P. C. (2011) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.60263120 · Cited by 5,930
Cited by
The Influence of ChatGPT on Student Engagement: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda
Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105100 · Cited by 392
Hadi Mogavi, R., Deng, C., Juho Kim, J., Zhou, P., D. Kwon, Y., Hosny Saleh Metwally, A., Tlili, A., Bassanelli, S., Bucchiarone, A., Gujar, S., et al. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100027 · Cited by 369
A multinational study on the factors influencing university students’ attitudes and usage of ChatGPT
Abdaljaleel, M., Barakat, M., Alsanafi, M., Salim, N. A., Abazid, H., Malaeb, D., Mohammed, A. H., Hassan, B. A. R., Wayyes, A. M., Farhan, S. S., et al. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-52549-8 · Cited by 291
Dahri, N. A., Yahaya, N., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Aldraiweesh, A., Alturki, U., Almutairy, S., Shutaleva, A., & Soomro, R. B. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29317 · Cited by 239
“This was done per the well-established two-step approach suggested by other research [116,115,117,118].”
MethodChatGPT in the higher education: A systematic literature review and research challenges
Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102411 · Cited by 208
Metadata
- Authors
- Foroughi, B., Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Khanfar, A., Ghobakhloo, M., Annamalai, N., & Naghmeh-Abbaspour, B.
- Venue
- International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-06-29
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 4501-4520
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W4382560004
- Cited by
- 426
- References
- 145
- FWCI
- 110.71
- 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: Determinants of Intention to Use ChatGPT for Educational Purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10447318.2023.2226495
- The paper
- Foroughi, B., Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Khanfar, A., Ghobakhloo, M., Annamalai, N., & Naghmeh-Abbaspour, B. (2024). Determinants of Intention to Use ChatGPT for Educational Purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2226495
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.
