CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 257Technology Adoption and User BehaviourGender and Technology in EducationInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: part 2

Yousafzai, Shumaila Y., Foxall, Gordon R., Pallister, John G.·2007·Journal of Modelling in Management
DOI 10.1108/17465660710834462
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: This paper is the second of two concerned with a meta‐analysis of the technology acceptance model (TAM). This part aims to present a rigorous and quantitative meta‐analytic review of 569 findings from 95 TAM studies as a basis for identifying gaps and providing guidelines for implementation management and conduct of future research. The paper also seeks to investigate the potential impact of methodological characteristics on the meta‐analytic findings. Design/methodology/approach: The approach consists of meta‐analysis following Hedges and Olkin's procedures, moderator‐analysis using homogeneity Q ‐values, analogue to ANOVA and weighted regression method. Findings: The dominant focus in empirical investigations of the TAM has been on modelling intention for its effect on self‐reported usage behaviour, while the attitudinal construct has been neglected. This raises three questions: whether the exclusion of attitude from the TAM is beneficial for understanding of technology usage behaviour in mandatory settings; whether the revised TAM holds equally for mandatory and voluntary settings; and whether the emphasis on measuring intentions and self‐report use rather than actual usage is warranted. An additional question answered in the meta‐analysis is about the relative importance of PU and PEOU. Originality/value: The paper provides a rigorous meta‐analysis to progress towards a unified view of the TAM.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/17465660710834462

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Cohen, J. (1977), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Science, Revised ed., Academic Press, New York, NY.
  2. Hedges, L. and Olkin, I. (1985), Statistical Methods for Meta‐analysis, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
  3. Rawstorne, P., Jayasuriya, R. and Caputi, P. (2000), “Issues in predicting and explaining usage behaviors with the TAM and the TPB when usage is mandatory”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on IS, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, pp. 35‐44.
  4. Rosenthal, R. (1994), “Statistically describing and combining studies”, in Cooper, H. and Hedges, L.V. (Eds), The Handbook of Research Synthesis, Sage, New York, NY, pp. 231‐44.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 257

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Modelling in Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2007-11-06
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
281-304
ISSN
1746-5664 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/17465660710834462
OpenAlex
W2915538221
Cited by
257
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
FWCI
9.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Modelling in Management (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
technology acceptance model, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, user intention, user attitudes

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