The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 45 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
E-banking in Colombia: factors favouring its acceptance, online trust and government support
Open accessAbstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the adoption of e-banking in Colombia, including a comprehensive analysis of consumer trust in this type of transaction and of the impact of the current government policy to promote e-commerce. Design/methodology/approach An empirical investigation based on the UTAUT2 model collected data from throughout the country to develop 600 online questionnaires. Findings The proposed model was validated in that the factors hypothesised to build trust in the use of electronic banking were shown to be significant: trust, performance expectancy and effort expectancy had a positive impact on the use of financial websites in Colombia, while government support did not have a significant impact. Research limitations/implications The study explains the antecedents to trust, as well as the government support variable, and concludes by producing a model that is highly successful in predicting financial customers’ online behaviour. Practical implications The results can help Colombia’s Government and private banks to further develop trust and other conditions necessary for e-banking. Social implications Studies on the adoption of electronic banking provide users of these services solutions for their needs. Government policies to support the development of e-banking are not viewed favourably by Colombians. Originality/value This study is one of the first to present empirical findings on the acceptance of e-banking in Latin America; it further presents a model that integrates the most important variables needed for an analysis of the acceptance of e-banking.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study applies UTAUT2 to e-banking acceptance in Colombia using 600 valid online surveys. It finds performance expectancy and trust drive intention and use, while government support and effort expectancy are not significant predictors.
Key findings
- Performance expectancy had a strong positive effect on intention to use e-banking (β=0.679), whereas effort expectancy did not (β=-0.182) and government support was not significant (β=0.019).
- Trust positively influenced both intention (β=0.301) and actual use (β=0.181); intention positively influenced use (β=0.326). Among trust antecedents, information quality (β=0.506) and perceived security (β=0.408) were significant, while perceived privacy was reported as β=0.054; the text calls this significant, but Table 5 labels H7 rejected (p=0.069).
- The model explained variance for intention (R²=0.774), trust (R²=0.853), and use (R²=0.215).
Methods
- Empirical UTAUT2-based study using an online questionnaire distributed nationally in Colombia, with data collected from November 2015 to May 2016; 734 questionnaires were returned, 134 were excluded, leaving 600 valid responses.
- Stratified sampling with geographic quotas across five zones; zones 1–3 were intended to provide 80% of the sample but ultimately accounted for more than 90%. The sample was 54% men and 46% women, 70% aged 18–34, 88% university educated, and 79% earning above the national average.
- Constructs used at least three indicators each and 7-point Likert scales; the instrument was pretested with 30 teachers. Analysis used PLS regression in SmartPLS 3.0, with a two-stage measurement and structural model assessment and bootstrapping based on 1,000 subsamples.
Limitations
- The authors state the model may omit other variables that could better describe e-banking acceptance, and that the unexpected government support result leaves uncertainty about its direct or indirect influence; they call for further studies in similar countries.
- The authors note that sampling targets for zones 4 and 5 were not met, with over 90% of the sample concentrated in zones 1–3.
- Evident from the text: the sample skews toward younger, highly educated, higher-income respondents, limiting generalizability; the inconsistent reporting of the perceived privacy hypothesis also weakens confidence in that finding.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 Own result · 17 Sources not found · 13 Own interpretation · 11 No full text of the sources · 9 Own method · 4 No basis given · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Empirical research about the relation of government support to e-banking acceptance is limited to a few studies of Asian countries (Chong et al., 2010;Tan & Teo, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chong et al., 2010 source
- Partly supportedcites Tan & Teo, 2000 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Research Design and Findings and Analysis sections establish that this is an empirical study of internet banking adoption in Singapore and that it examined government support. The Internet Banking in Singapore section says few earlier studies addressed consumer acceptance, but our copy does not establish that research specifically on government support was limited to a few studies of Asian countries. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypothesis 1 (H1: B=-0.182) was not significant, as users do not perceive effort expectancy with regard to the use of e-banking.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“First, the effort expectancy variable was found to have no significant impact on the intention to use e-banking in Colombia.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypothesis 8 (H8: B=0.408) was significant, indicating that the perceived security of financial websites positively affects perceptions of the bank's trustworthiness.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypothesis 3 (H3: B=0.019) was not significant”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“government support did not have a significant impact”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypothesis 6 (H6: B=0.506) was significant, finding that the perceived quality of information positively affects the perception of trust.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypothesis 5 (H5: B=0.181) was significant, showing that perceived trustworthiness positively affects the actual use of e-banking.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypothesis 4 (H4: B=0.301) was significant, showing that perceived trustworthiness positively affects the intention to use e-banking.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypothesis 7 (H7 7: B=0.054) was significant, showing that perceived privacy in banking websites positively affects the perception of their trustworthiness.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypothesis 9 (H9: B=0.326) was significant, confirming that intention to use directly and positively affects the actual use of e-banking in Colombia (Table 5).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived privacy is the next important aspect for developing a perception of ebanking as trustworthy.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The quote only partly states this claim. 8
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hypothesis 2 (H2: B=0.679) was significant, showing that performance expectancy is highly influential in users' intention to use e-banking.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“H2: B = 0.679**”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With regard to perceived trustworthiness, the study validates the strong influence of this factor on both the intention to use and the actual use of e-banking”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“demonstrating that users place high importance on a number of security features and that these bolster users' confidence in banking websites (Chong et al., 2010;Yousafzai et al., 2003).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chong et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Yousafzai et al., 2003 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“H4: B=0.301**”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“H9: B = 0.326**”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“H6: ** B = 0.506”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“H8: B = 0.408**”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“H5: B = 0.181*”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“H7: B = 0.054”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Finally, convergent validity was again analysed taking variance into account, i.e., that indicators and their construct have similar variance, which should be greater than 0.50 of the variability explained by the indicators”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fornell & Larcker, 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A test of the significance of the model's parameters was performed using 1,000 sub-samples from the study data”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although randomly selected, the sample was distributed equally between men and women, 70% of whom were between 18 and 34 years of age, 88% of whom were university educated, and 79% of whom earned more than the national average”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The internal consistency for all indicators in relation to their corresponding variables was measured using Dillon-Goldstein's test; this is known as the composite reliability coefficient, and all values were greater than the minimum acceptable level of 0.70”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“table * shows that the loadings for each indicator were significant, and all are validated.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Discriminant validity was tested by comparing each variable's AVE with the correlation of each construct of each variable squared; the values obtained from the square root of the AVE were greater than the constructs, showing that each variable was more closely associated with its own items than with those of other variables”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fornell & Larcker, 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 734 questionnaires were returned, of which 134 were excluded due to inconsistent responses, leaving a final sample of 600 valid questionnaires.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The questionnaire was built and pre-tested with a group of 30 teachers to rule out language and comprehension problems”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Oliveira et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The final questionnaire contained at least three indicators per variable”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most important characteristic of the sample is that it did not achieve the sampling objectives for areas 4 and 5, as more than 90% of the sample was concentrated in areas 1, 2 and 3”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The sample was determined using the methodology of stratified sampling with geographic quotas”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hoe, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“When users of a financial website are aware of these factors, they tend to believe that the site will guarantee their security during the online transaction, which serves as an antecedent to trusting the site (Escobar-Rodríguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Escobar-Rodríguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Trust is one of the most important variables in a user's decision to online purchase; it is defined as the psychological state of a client's perception of the seller's integrity and benevolence (Zhu et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhu et al., 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, this model can be used to predict the online behaviour of financial clients.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition, government policies and public programmes to develop the digital sector, including e-banking, are limited throughout Latin America (Katz et al., 2015)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Katz et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the business sector (in this case, financial institutions), this study determines which variables are most important to their clients and analyses their needs and behaviour with regard to the use of financial websites.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“these figures are consistent with the profile of e-banking and financial service users in Colombia (Rodríguez-Raga & Riaño Rodríguez, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rodríguez-Raga & Riaño Rodríguez, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is believed the approval of e-banking in Colombia is tied to improvements in website security, as well as to the fact that banks have taken steps to raise clients' awareness about the proper use of their confidential information”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Other authors (Afshan & Sharif, 2016) analyse different antecedents for trust and integrate other technological constructs, allowing them to analyse differences between men and women to determine the moderating effect of gender (Oliveira et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study is one of the first to present empirical findings on the acceptance of e-banking in Latin America”
- Also stated in: § Implications, limitations and future research directions · plain
“This study is one of the first to present empirical findings on the acceptance of ebanking in Latin America.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Implications, limitations and future research directions · plain
In the paper
“these accounted for 313,888,272 operations by 2015, representing only 13.10% of total monetary transactions.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Superintendence of Finance (2016)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The limitation of this study is that despite its high degree of prediction, the proposed model may be missing other variables that would improve the description of the acceptance of e-banking.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“However, these studies indicate that it improves acceptance of ebanking, finding that all government policies designed to foster the use of this channel are meaningful”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chong et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Tan & Teo, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“it has been demonstrated that the clients' perception regarding the protection of privacy directly influences their level of confidence (D.J. Kim et al., 2008) in online transactions”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites D.J. Kim et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“these results differ from other studies that found this variable to be highly significant, especially in Asian countries (Chong et al., 2010;Tan & Teo, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chong et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Tan & Teo, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The quality of information variable is very important to the study of the acceptance of web information as it relates to decision-making (Erkan & Evans, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Erkan & Evans, 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Efforts to reduce the digital divide and the consequent positive effect on Internet usage have also been extensively studied (Ghobadi & Ghobadi, 2013;Landau, 2012;White, Gunasekaran, Shea, & Ariguzo, 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ghobadi & Ghobadi, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Landau, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites White, Gunasekaran, Shea, & Ariguzo, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result stems from the development and adoption of electronic encryption, and the adaptation of high-level global security for online transactions and highly secure personal access by all financial institutions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results reinforce the importance of key variables in the use of ebanking.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It presents a model that integrates the most important variables for an analysis of the acceptance of e-banking, especially in countries or regions where development is recent, making an original contribution by explaining the antecedents of trust as well as the government support variable.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This unexpected finding may indicate that users have already developed expertise in managing e-banking operations, rendering this variable insignificant”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“not all citizens have access to financial services and banking due to social gaps, such as education and economic level (Landau, 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Landau, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“the website's information is related to the degree of trust it inspires in the user (Escobar-Rodríguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Escobar-Rodríguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Other indicators such as the low rate of credit card use (just 10%) and the high cost of financial services reveal widespread scepticism of e-banking in this country (Rodríguez-Raga & Riaño Rodríguez, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rodríguez-Raga & Riaño Rodríguez, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The UTAUT and UTAUT2 models have been widely used to study acceptance of e-banking, indicating that performance expectancy, facilitating conditions and trust are important to the acceptance of e-banking”
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“it has been amply validated with regard to e-commerce and e-banking in that users perceive economic benefits, satisfaction and convenience from e-banking (Oliveira et al., 2014;Zhu, Lee, O'Neal, & Chen, 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Oliveira et al., 2014 source
- Not matchedcites Zhu, Lee, O'Neal, & Chen, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, the negative result could also indicate precisely the opposite, denoting a lack of user experience and the novelty of Internet access in this country that leads to doubts and negative expectations about the use of e-banking.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the government support variable is found to be not significant, so it is not possible to determine its direct impact on the acceptance of e-banking.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The results of the performance expectancy variable are consistent with the theory (Oliveira et al., 2014;Yousafzai et al., 2003) and indicate that users in Colombia have high expectations regarding the benefits that e-banking use will bring”
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it further presents a model that integrates the most important variables needed for an analysis of the acceptance of e-banking.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
The government has implemented a series of policies over the past decade focusing on developing the digital sector.
“the government has implemented a series of policies over the past decade focusing on developing the digital sector.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Additional information
“| H1 H2 H3 | Accept Accept Reject |”
§ 4.2. Validation of the structural model
“Hypothesis 1 (H1: B=-0.182) was not significant”
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Abstract
“trust, performance expectancy and effort expectancy had a positive impact on the use of financial websites in Colombia”
§ 4.2. Validation of the structural model
“Hypothesis 1 (H1: B=-0.182) was not significant”
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ 4.2. Validation of the structural model
“Hypothesis 7 (H7 7: B=0.054) was significant, showing that perceived privacy in banking websites positively affects the perception of their trustworthiness.”
§ Additional information
“| H6 H7 | Accept Reject | quality of information -> trust perceived privacy -> trust | | 0.506* 0.054 | Use of e-banking R= 0.215 | 0.063 0.030 | 7,965 0.000 1,819 0.069 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Sample and data collection
“the sample was distributed equally between men and women”
§ Implications, limitations and future research directions
“Gender: Men 54% Women 46%”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 4.2. Validation of the structural model
“Hypothesis 3 (H3: B=0.019) was not significant, indicating that government support does affect the intention to use e-banking.”
§ Discussion
“Users of e-banking in Colombia did not feel that government support of Internet use had any effect on their intention to use online banking;”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| H4 H5 | Accept Accept | trust -> intention to use e-banking trust -> use of e-banking | | 0.301** 0.181* | Trust: R= 0.853 | 0.061 0.065 | 4,978 0.000 1,936 0.017 |”
Reported 1.936 · recomputed 2.784615
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
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
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,670
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1978) · Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4 · Cited by 10,586
Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 · Cited by 8,815
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- 2004, Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations
- 2014, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Long Range Planning
- 2008, Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique, Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3, 76
- 2015, Users satisfaction towards online banking in Malaysia, International Business Management, 9, 15
- 2015, Users satisfaction towards online banking in Malaysia, International Business Management, 9, 15
- 2013, The antecedents of travellers’ e-satisfaction and intention to buy airline tickets online, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 26, 624, 10.1108/JEIM-07-2013-0040 · DOI
- 1995, Diffusion of Innovations
- Superintendencia Financiera, 2016, Informe de operaciones: Segundo semestre de 2015
- 2011, Mr Risk! Please trust me: Trust antecedents that increase online consumer purchase intention, Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 16, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhong-qing, H., Ding, S., Li, S., Chen, L., & Yang, S. (2019) · Symmetry · doi:10.3390/sym11030340 · Cited by 746
Variables Influencing Cryptocurrency Use: A Technology Acceptance Model in Spain
Arias-Oliva, M., Borondo, J. P., & Clavero, G. M. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00475 · Cited by 359
Factors affecting intention to use e-banking in Jordan
Anouze, A. L., & Alamro, A. S. (2019) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-10-2018-0271 · Cited by 232
Adoption of digital banking channels in an emerging economy: exploring the role of in-branch efforts
Kaur, S. J., Ali, L., Hassan, M. K., & Al-Emran, M. (2021) · Journal of Financial Services Marketing · doi:10.1057/s41264-020-00082-w · Cited by 236
“2016; Sánchez-Torres 2018) and factors affecting the acceptance of digital banking services (Montazemi and Qahri-Saremi 2015; Szopiński 2016; Alalwan et al.”
BackgroundBehavioral intention to use cryptocurrency in Malaysia: an empirical study
Ji-Xi, J. T., Salamzadeh, Y., & Teoh, A. P. (2021) · The Bottom Line Managing Library Finances · doi:10.1108/bl-08-2020-0053 · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- Sánchez-Torres, J. A., Canada, F.-J. A., Sandoval, A. V., & Alzate, J.-A. S.
- Affiliations
- Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
- Institución Universitaria Esumer (CO)
- Venue
- International Journal of Bank Marketing
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2018-02-05
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 170-183
- ISSN
- 0265-2323 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2777064774
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 6.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- International Journal of Bank Marketing (publishedVersion)
- Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion)
- RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
- Keywords
- electronic banking, technology acceptance, online trust, UTAUT2, government support, e-commerce policy, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, financial websites, consumer behavior, Colombia, Latin America
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
