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
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.
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
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249689 · Cited by 6,006
Self-citationReliability and Validity Assessment
Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1979) · doi:10.4135/9781412985642 · Cited by 5,884
Representing and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392322 · Cited by 2,064
Developing a process model of problem recognition
Cowan, D. A. (1986) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258395 · Cited by 257
Cited by
WebQual: An Instrument for Consumer Evaluation of Web Sites
Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T., & Goodhue, D. L. (2007) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415110302 · Cited by 812
Self-citationPerceived information quality in data exchanges: Effects on risk, trust, and intention to use
Nicolaou, A. I., & McKnight, D. H. (2006) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0103 · Cited by 682
Understanding the impact of m-banking on individual performance: DeLone & McLean and TTF perspective
Tam, C., & Oliveira, T. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.016 · Cited by 383
Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., & John, R. (2005) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0044 · Cited by 350
Yen, D. C., Wu, C.-S., Cheng, F.-F., & Huang, Y.-W. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.005 · Cited by 319
A unified perspective on the factors influencing usage intention toward mobile financial services
Lee, Y.-K., Park, J.-H., Chung, N., & Blakeney, A. (2012) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.044 · Cited by 261
Exploring the influence of perceptual factors in the success of web-based spatial DSS
Jarupathirun, S., & Zahedi, F. “. (2007) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.024 · Cited by 145
Empirical evidence about the UML: a systematic literature review
Budgen, D., Burn, A. J., Brereton, O. P., Kitchenham, B. A., & Pretorius, R. (2011) · Software: Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/spe.1009 · Cited by 138
Influencing models and determinants in big data analytics research: A bibliometric analysis
Aboelmaged, M., & Mouakket, S. (2020) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102234 · Cited by 53
Organizational adoption of supply chain management system: A multi-theoretic investigation
Cao, Q., Gan, Q., & Thompson, M. A. (2013) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2013.02.003 · Cited by 39
Mobile Nursing Information System Utilization: The Task-Technology Fit Perspective
LIN, T.-C. (2014) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000000039 · Cited by 32
University of South Alabama, Howard, M. C., Hair, J. F., & University of South Alabama (2023) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00084 · Cited by 27
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
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.