Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 458

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using Davis's Perceived Usefulness and Ease‐of‐use Instruments for Decision Making: A Confirmatory and Multigroup Invariance Analysis

Doll, William J., Hendrickson, Anthony, Deng, Xiaodong·1998·Decision Sciences
DOI 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb00879.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As key components of Davis's technology acceptance model (TAM), the perceived usefulness and perceived ease‐of‐use instruments are widely accepted among the MIS research community as tools for evaluating information system applications and predicting usage. Despite this wide acceptance, a series of incremental cross‐validation studies have produced conflicting and equivocal results that do not provide guidance for researchers or practitioners who might use the TAM for decision making. Using a sample of 902 “initial exposure” responses, this research conducts: (1) a confirmatory factor analysis to assess the validity and reliability of the original instruments proposed by Davis, and (2) a multigroup invariance analysis to assess the equivalence of these instruments across subgroups based on type of application, experience with computing, and gender. In contrast to the mixed results of prior cross‐validation efforts, the results of this confirmatory study provide strong support for the validity and reliability of Davis's sixitem perceived usefulness and six‐item ease‐of‐use instruments. The multigroup invariance analysis suggests the usefulness and ease‐of‐use instruments have invariant true scores across most, but not all, subgroups. With notable exemptions for word processing applications and users with no prior computing experience, this research provides evidence that the item‐factor loadings (true scores) are invariant across spread sheet, database, and graphic applications. The implications of the results for managerial decision making are discussed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb00879.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Doll, W. J., Hendrickson, A., & Deng, X.
Venue
Decision Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-09
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
839-869
ISSN
  • 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5915
DOI
10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb00879.x
OpenAlex
W2059549509
Cited by
458
References
6
FWCI
24.33
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

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.