Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 533

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and Measurement Validity of a Task‐Technology Fit Instrument for User Evaluations of Information System

Goodhue, Dale L.·1998·Decision Sciences

Abstract

Although many researchers have raised concerns about the lack of theoretical underpinnings for the user evaluation construct and the lack of measurement validity for specific instruments measuring it, the construct is still widely used in IS research. This paper reports on the development and measurement validity of a diagnostic tool used in recently published research to evaluate an organization's overall information systems and services. A distinctive feature of this instrument is that it is conceptually based on the task‐technology fit theory in which the correspondence between information systems functionality and task requirements leads to positive user evaluations, and positive performance impacts. Specifically, the instrument development was guided by a task model of managerial decision making using recorded organizational information. This model suggested the different information systems functionalities required by users for that task, which then serve as the basis for a “task‐technology fit” (TTF) instrument. The instrument thus measures the degree to which an organization's information systems and services meet the information needs of its managers. An extensive test of the measurement validity of the instrument is conducted using a sample of 357 users in 10 companies. It is found to have excellent reliability and discriminant validity for 12 dimensions of TTF, and also exhibits strong predictive validity. Finally, the instrument is compared to two other well‐known user evaluation instruments. Though no single instrument can meet all needs, the instrument presented here should be considered an attractive option for researchers and practitioners seeking to measure the effectiveness of organizational information systems.

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.tb01346.x

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 533

Metadata

Authors
Goodhue, D. L.
Venue
Decision Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-01
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
105-138
ISSN
  • 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5915
OpenAlex
W2046349551
Cited by
533
References
5
FWCI
20.86
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: Development and Measurement Validity of a Task‐Technology Fit Instrument for User Evaluations of Information System. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01346.x
The paper
Goodhue, D. L. (1998). Development and Measurement Validity of a Task‐Technology Fit Instrument for User Evaluations of Information System. Decision Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01346.x

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.