CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,409Technology Adoption and User BehaviourTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

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

Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach

Chau, Patrick Y. K., Hu, Paul Jen‐Hwa·2001·Decision Sciences
DOI 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The proliferation of innovative and exciting information technology applications that target individual “professionals” has made the examination or re‐examination of existing technology acceptance theories and models in a “professional” setting increasingly important. The current research represents a conceptual replication of several previous model comparison studies. The particular models under investigation are the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and a decomposed TPB model, potentially adequate in the targeted healthcare professional setting. These models are empirically examined and compared, using the responses to a survey on telemedicine technology acceptance collected from more than 400 physicians practicing in public tertiary hospitals in Hong Kong. Results of the study highlight several plausible limitations of TAM and TPB in explaining or predicting technology acceptance by individual professionals. In addition, findings from the study also suggest that instruments that have been developed and repeatedly tested in previous studies involving end users and business managers in ordinary business settings may not be equally valid in a professional setting. Several implications for technology acceptance/adoption research and technology management practices are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x

Cites

51 of 51 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

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bashshur R. L., 1997, Telemedicine: Theory and practice
  2. Nunnally J. C., 1994, Psychometric theory
  3. Rogers E. M., 1995, The diffusion of innovation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
  • Chau, Patrick Y. K.
  • Hu, Paul Jen‐Hwa
ORCID
Venue
Decision Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-12
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
699-719
ISSN
  • 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5915
DOI
10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x
OpenAlex
W2078518420
Cited by
1,409
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 98 · 2013: 78 · 2012: 81
FWCI
31.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 2014 d)
Locations
  • Decision Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
technology acceptance, technology acceptance model, theory of planned behavior, model comparison, telemedicine, physicians, healthcare workers, technology adoption, conceptual replication

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