The DOI matches its Crossref record; 134 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 55 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Open accessAbstract
ABSTRACT Prior research has provided valuable insights into how and why employees make a decision about the adoption and use of information technologies (ITs) in the workplace. From an organizational point of view, however, the more important issue is how managers make informed decisions about interventions that can lead to greater acceptance and effective utilization of IT. There is limited research in the IT implementation literature that deals with the role of interventions to aid such managerial decision making. Particularly, there is a need to understand how various interventions can influence the known determinants of IT adoption and use. To address this gap in the literature, we draw from the vast body of research on the technology acceptance model (TAM), particularly the work on the determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and: (i) develop a comprehensive nomological network (integrated model) of the determinants of individual level (IT) adoption and use; (ii) empirically test the proposed integrated model; and (iii) present a research agenda focused on potential pre‐ and postimplementation interventions that can enhance employees' adoption and use of IT. Our findings and research agenda have important implications for managerial decision making on IT implementation in organizations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
52 Own result · 36 Own interpretation · 21 No full text of the sources · 13 Sources not found · 7 Own method · 5 Not checked yet · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Venkatesh and Speier (1999) investigated the effect of mood during training on user acceptance and found that mood during training played an important role in forming individuals' perceptions of a new IT.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Venkatesh & Speier, 1999 source
The Short-Term Mood Effects section links mood during computer training to perceptions of enjoyment in using the technology. The Discussion reports that negative mood during training reduced intrinsic motivation and intentions to use it, supporting the citing sentence’s broad characterization of the finding. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plainstates a cause- 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.
- Supported
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
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgedstates an association- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
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
“we found that experience moderated the effect of computer anxiety on perceived ease of use such that the effect became weaker with increasing experience (CANX × EXP).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates a cause- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
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
“experience moderated the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness such that with increasing experience the effect became stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates a cause- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
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
“Overall, TAM3 was able to explain between 52% and 67% of the variance in perceived usefulness across different time periods and models (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
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
“we found that job relevance and output quality had an interactive effect on perceived usefulness such that with increasing output quality, the effect of job relevance on perceived usefulness was stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
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
“We found that experience, in fact, moderated the effect of perceived ease of use (PEOU × EXP) on behavioral intention such that with increasing experience the effect became weaker.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
plainstates a cause- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
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
“The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was higher than the correlations across constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
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.
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
“As Table 4 shows, internal consistency reliabilities (ICRs) were greater than .70 for all constructs at all points of measurement.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
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.
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
“Table 3 shows that the item loadings were greater than or at least equal to .70 for all constructs at all time periods.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
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. 25
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Further, incentive alignment, and an important extrinsic reward, may reduce anxiety and increase perceived enjoyment as extrinsic rewards are considered important drivers of intrinsic motivations (Vallerand, 1997;Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;Ryan & Deci, 2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vallerand, 1997 source
- Partly supportedcites Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that verbal rewards (positive feedback) enhanced self-reported interest, which offers limited support for the possibility that an extrinsic reward could increase enjoyment. But the paper does not assess incentive alignment or anxiety, and its Concluding Comments (pp. 658–659) say tangible rewards generally diminish rather than promote intrinsic motivation. The cited source therefore does not support the proposed effect of incentive alignment. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan & Deci, 2000 source
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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.
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
“we found that perceived ease of use, subjective norm, image, and result demonstrability were significant predictors of perceived usefulness at all time periods (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
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
“While perceived ease of use was significant at T1 and T2, it was not significant at T3, suggesting a moderating effect of experience in the relationship between perceived ease of use and behavioral intention.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgedstates a cause- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
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
“the adjustments-that is, perceived enjoyment and objective usability-were not significant at T1, but they were significant at both T2 and T3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
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.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
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
“OU × EXP | | | | .20 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- 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.
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
“Objective Usability (OU) | .04 | .19 * * | .23 * * * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- 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 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
“CANX × EXP | | | | .21 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- 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.
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
“Subjective Norm (SN) | .40 * * * | .32 * * * | .13 * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- 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 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
“SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- 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 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 Enjoyment (ENJ) | .02 | .22 * * * | .24 * * * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- 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 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
“Result Demonstrability (RES) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .28 * * * | .26 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: fails — The authors may not 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 authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no 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
“CPLAY × EXP | | | | -.22 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- 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
“Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .33 * * * | .08”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- 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 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
“ENJ × EXP | | | | .18 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- 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.
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 Ease of Use (PEOU) | .24 * * * | .17 * | .05 | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- 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
“Although longitudinal studies were conducted, the specific moderating role by experience was not tested in Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 2000
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
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
“For example, in the context of enterprise systems, if an individual perceives that his or her use of the system does not benefit the members of his or her work units but rather benefits members from other work units, the user will perceive a lack of incentive alignment that may lead to low user acceptance and use of the system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
“we conducted Harmon's single factor test and marker variable test (we used job satisfaction as a marker variable) and did not find any significant common method bias.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
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.
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
“We used validated items from prior research to test TAM3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
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
“Our research design allowed us to collect the use data separate from its determinants (e.g., behavioral intention, perceived usefulness, etc.).Particularly, there was at least a 1-month gap between the collection of survey data and the measurement of use.”
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
“Such a design approach helped us overcome the problems associated with common method biases.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
plainstates a cause- 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.
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
In the paper
“Operationalization of the determinants of perceived ease of use (i.e., computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, computer playfulness, computer anxiety, objective usability, and perceived enjoyment) was consistent with Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh (2000)
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 claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It posits that individuals' behavioral intention to use an IT is determined by two beliefs: perceived usefulness, defined as the extent to which a person believes that using an IT will enhance his or her job performance and perceived ease of use, defined as the degree to which a person believes that using an IT will be free of effort.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
plainstates a cause- 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
“Ba et al. (2001) argued that while aspects of software engineering (e.g., system characteristics) and technology acceptance (e.g., perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, user satisfaction) are important considerations for system development processes, organizations may fail to gain expected benefits from employees' effective utilization of a system unless employees find that the system fe”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a possible cause- 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
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
“All constructs at each time period exhibited strong psychometric properties and satisfied the criteria of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
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
“According to Ba et al. (2001), incentive alignment does not necessarily mean organizational rewards for using a system.It is a broad concept that entails an individual's perception that the IT fits with his or her job requirements and value system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) noted that PLS has minimal restrictions in terms of distributional assumptions and sample size.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) 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
“Mean-centering helps limit potential multicollinearity, evidenced by the low variation inflation factors (VIFs) for all constructs in our model.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
plainstates a cause- 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.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived usefulness is an instrumental belief that is conceptually similar to extrinsic motivation and is a cognition (as opposed to emotion) regarding the benefits of using a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Crossover Effects
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
“It further theorizes that the effect of external variables (e.g., design characteristics) on behavioral intention will be mediated by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davis et al., 1989 source
plainstates a cause- 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
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.Further, the types of ITs were different across the sites.Such variability in organizational settings and types of technologies adds to the potential generalization of our findings.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > METHOD
plainstates a cause- 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
“TAM constructs-that is, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), and behavioral intention (BI)-were operationalized using items adapted from Davis (1989) and Davis et al. (1989).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
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.
In the paper
“Incentive alignment has been suggested as the third dimension in systems design (Ba, Stallaert, & Whinston, 2001).The other two dimensions are software engineering and technology acceptance (Ba et al., 2001).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
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
“Second, the modification and enhancement activities performed by peers will increase job relevance of a system, improve the output quality of a system, and reduce anxiety related to system use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Peer support
plainstates a cause- 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“The implementation of interventions is, of course, not a silver bullet for greater IT adoption and effective utilization.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
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.
In the paper
“He also found that the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention to use a system was stronger for individuals who received game-based training.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- 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
“If we can develop a rich understanding of the determinants of IT adoption and use and interventions that can favorably influence these determinants, managers can proactively decide on implementing the right interventions to minimize resistance to new ITs and maximize effective utilization of ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
- Rests on an assumption: Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
In the paper
“Training has been suggested as one of the most important postimplementation interventions that leads to greater user acceptance and system success (see Sharma & Yetton, 2007).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharma & Yetton, 2007 source
hedgedstates a cause- 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.
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
“Organizational support captures the role of both internal and external experts who can help users deal with the complexity associated with new systems as well as business processes.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
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.
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
“Implementation of interventions can increase system development costs substantially.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plainstates a cause- 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.
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
“TAM3 emphasizes the unique role and processes related to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use and theorizes that the determinants of perceived usefulness will not influence perceived ease of use and vice versa.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“Prior research has suggested that employees' perceptions regarding organizational support-that is, facilitating conditions or perceptions of external control (Taylor & Todd, 1995;Venkatesh, 2000;Venkatesh et al., 2003)-will lead to greater user acceptance of new systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
What the sources say
hedgedstates a cause- 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.
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
“Our key argument in this article is that unless organizations can develop effective interventions to enhance IT adoption and use, there is no practical utility of our rich understanding of IT adoption.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
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
“We suggest that interventions discussed in this article can help organizations generate favorable individuals' reactions toward business process changes and process standards implementation.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“For example, while self-efficacy may have weak influence on perceived usefulness as shown in Agarwal and Karahanna (2000), we argue that this influence will become nonsignificant in the presence of other important social and cognitive constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Agarwal and Karahanna (2000) source
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
“TAM3 posits that perceptions of external control are important and stable determinants of perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- 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.
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
“Organizational support is a key source of perceptions of external control.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- 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.
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
“For example, experts can help employees modify certain aspects of a new system, thus increasing job relevance, output quality, and results demonstrability of a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- 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
“Due to the complexity of ITs, it is increasingly difficult for employees to make effective decisions about adoption, utilization, and coping with new ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plainstates a cause- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
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
“Some employees may react favorably to these changes, while the others may perceive these changes as a threat to their well-being (Orlikowski, 2000;Boudreau & Robey, 2005).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Postimplementation Interventions
What the sources say
hedgedstates a possible cause- 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
“TAM3 posits that with increasing experience, while the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention will diminish, the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness will increase.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plainstates a cause- 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
“We suggest that the role of training will be even more important in the context of complex systems (e.g., enterprise systems) that are more central to employees' work life.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
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
“As these systems are more likely to invoke negative reactions from employees because of their disruptive nature, effective training interventions can mitigate these negative reactions and help employees form favorable perceptions toward these systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgedstates a cause- 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.
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
“Out of 50 potential users of the system who participated in the training, 39 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system who attended the training, 43 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system, 36 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
“Data were collected from four different organizations-sites A through D-implementing new ITs.”
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Management support in individual-level IT adoption literature has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance.
“While management support has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance, particularly in the individual-level IT adoption literature, we suggest that there is a need to develop a richer conceptualization of management support to enhance our understanding of its role in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.
“There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
“However, much of the prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.
“While peer support is potentially an important intervention that can lead to greater user acceptance, there is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
“However, there is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.
“There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In many cases, users stopped using an enterprise system because they saw no benefits of using the new system.
“In many cases, the users stopped using an enterprise system, as they saw no benefits of using the new system.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts, are prevalent.
“Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts are also prevalent.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
“ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
“Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.”
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“the extensive focus of TAM on technology to the neglect of social and psychological parameters (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998;Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) limits its explanatory and predictive utilities, and therefore demands its integration with other frameworks”
From Using T-O-E theoretical framework to study the adoption of ERP solution (2016) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A technology that provides information quickly and easily will lead to improvements in job performance, which in turn will encourage greater use of a given technology (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The adoption of new technologies is shaped by user perceptions and usage patterns (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) as well as student characteristics and experiences (Abdaljaleel et al., 2023; Tiwari et al., 2024).”
From “ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that perceived enjoyment is positively related to perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The scales applied have been verified in preceding studies [12, 28].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, it is proposed that perception of external control is an element that conditions perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that result demonstrability is an antecedent of perceived usefulness [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“which explains that users’ decisions to accept and use a technology are influenced by perceived usefulness, ease of use, and social influence of others.”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Some of the themes identified in this review overlap with previous models conceptualizing engagement with digital health interventions, as well as general technology acceptance and health behavior, such as the Efficiency Model of Support [251], Technology Acceptance Model [253], and Health Belief Model [249].”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our findings are in line with the Technology Acceptance Model”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Information-related characteristics of a system can impact its PU as they can improve productivity and performance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Firstly, considering usability , a reliable, flexible and user-friendly system is more likely to create a positive user experience (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A typical criticism of the TAM is in relation to its lack of practical managerial guidance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) present four generic antecedents to the TAM: i ndividual differences , system characteristics , social influence , and facilitating conditions .”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala (2008)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The model explains approximately 40% of the variance in individuals’ intention to use a new technology and actual use [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It theorizes that individuals’ intention to use new technology is determined by perceived usefulness, defined as “the extent to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will enhance his or her job performance,” and perceived ease of use, defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will be free of effort” [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“TAM's assertion that perceived usefulness is a primary determinant of technology acceptance and subsequent usage behaviors (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
From The impact of AI-assisted pair programming on student motivation, programming anxiety, collaborative learning, and programming performance: a comparative study with traditional pair programming and individual approaches (2025) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
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 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
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
“Specifically the measurements of use and its determinants were separated by 1 month (T1-T2), 3 months (T2-T3) and 2 months (T3-T4).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Procedure
“after initial training (T1), 1 month after implementation (T2), and 3 months after implementation (T3).We also measured self-reported usage at T2, T3, and 5 months after implementation (T4).”
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
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“a All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (where 1: strongly disagree; 2: moderately disagree, 3: somewhat disagree, 4: neutral (neither disagree nor agree), 5: somewhat agree, 6: moderately agree, and 7: strongly agree), except computer self-efficacy, which was measured using a 10-point Guttman scale.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“Use (USE) USE1 On average, how much time do you spend on the system each day?”
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
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
“| SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03 |”
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
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-citation(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3352 · Cited by 36,647
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709
Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions
Aiken, L., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1037/10520-147 · Cited by 24,912
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Self-citationIntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Beach L. R., 1996, Decision making in the workplace: A unified perspective, 1
- Cohen D. S., 2005, Why change is an affair of the heart, CIO Magazine
- Gross G., 2005, Standards a must for adoption for health‐care IT, CIO Magazine
- Koch C., 2004, Nike rebounds: How (and why) Nike recovered from its supply chain disaster, CIO Magazine
- Mennecke B. E., 1998, Discovering and overcoming the hidden profile bias in group decision making: The influence of group history and use of a group support system, Journal of MIS, 15, 173
- Overby S., 2002, How to win friends and influence users, CIO Magazine
- Saga V. L., 1994, Diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology, 67
- Vallacher R. R., 1996, The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior, 260
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,100 of 8,089
Agyekumhene, C., de Vries, J. R., van Paassen, A., et al. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12114580 · Cited by 56
Mascret, N., Delbes, L., Voron, A., Temprado, J.-J., & Montagne, G. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/20691 · Cited by 58
“In line with these theories, the technology acceptance model (TAM) [25-27] is the most frequently used theoretical framework to study acceptance of technologies in general and of eHealth technologies in particular [28].”
BackgroundMäkipää, J.-P. (2023) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00196 · Cited by 52
Dang, Y. M., Zhang, Y., Brown, S. A., & Chen, H. (2018) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-018-9879-y · Cited by 63
“According to UTAUT, facilitating conditions (FC) is defined as an individual ’ s belief on the existence of organizational and technical support of using an information system (Venkatesh et al. 2003; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundSaadatzi, M. N., Logsdon, M. C., Abubakar, S., Das, S. K., Jankoski, P. E., Mitchell, H., Chlebowy, D. O., & Popa, D. O. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/17509 · Cited by 55
“The TAM3 was composed of four constructs: perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, use behavior, and behavior intention [15,16], although it has not found widespread use [17].”
BackgroundMethodYaacob, Z., & Saad, N. H. M. (2020) · TEM Journal · doi:10.18421/tem94-54 · Cited by 55
“Social influence refers to the social mechanism that contributes to an individual perception towards a technology [5].”
BackgroundHuang, F., Sánchez‐Prieto, J. C., Teo, T. P., García‐Peñalvo, F. J., Migueláñéz, S. O., & Zhao, C. (2021) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-021-09941-2 · Cited by 69
Rüth, M., Birke, A., & Kaspar, K. (2022) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13201 · Cited by 55
Zabukovšek, S. S., Bobek, S., Zabukovšek, U., Kalinić, Z., & Tominc, P. (2022) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math10091379 · Cited by 61
Zhang, T., Feng, C., Chen, H., & Xian, J. (2022) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-022-00596-2 · Cited by 64
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) captured it as a user’s state construct describing a person’s general belief or attitude toward the new technology.”
BackgroundInfluentialPynoo, B., Devolder, P., Duyck, W., van Braak, J., Sijnave, B., & Duyck, P. (2011) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.10.007 · Cited by 55
“The main difference between UTAUT and TAM3 is that social influence and facilitating conditions are modeled as direct predictors of acceptance in UTAUT, whereas in TAM3 they are modeled as antecedents to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [18,21].”
BackgroundInfluentialMacpherson, C. F., Linder, L. A., Ameringer, S., Erickson, J. M., Stegenga, K. A., & Woods, N. F. (2014) · Pediatric Blood & Cancer · doi:10.1002/pbc.25152 · Cited by 55
“Items addressed perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, which are central to future adoption [32].”
BackgroundKim, Y. (2010) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551510377709 · Cited by 62
“As a result of SN, users, who otherwise may not have a chance to evaluate a technology, may be able to evaluate one and gauge its usefulness; subsequently, SN has been found to have a positive relationship with usefulness [27, 73, 81].”
BackgroundDeterminants of knowledge management systems success in the banking industry
Cham, T., Lim, Y. M., Cheng, B. L., & Lee, T. H. (2016) · VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems · doi:10.1108/vjikms-03-2014-0021 · Cited by 58
Hein, D. W. E., & Rauschnabel, P. A. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-12652-0_5 · Cited by 59
“Thus, various scholars have refined the original TAM and related theories (e.g., Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2007; Venkatesh and Bala 2008), or adopted it to specific contexts (e.g., Giannopoulos 2004; Lee and Lehto 2013; Osswald et al. 2012).”
BackgroundPirkkalainen, H., Pawlowski, J., Bick, M., & Tannhauser, A.-C. (2018) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.09.006 · Cited by 60
“The items measuring the intention to exchange knowledge were adapted from Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
BackgroundMethodKnowledge content quality, perceived usefulness, KMS use for sharing and retrieval
Jahmani, K., Fadiya, S. O., Abubakar, A. M., & Elrehail, H. (2018) · VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems · doi:10.1108/vjikms-08-2017-0054 · Cited by 56
Student satisfaction with learning management systems: A growth model of belief and use
Yuen, A. H. K., Cheng, M., & Chan, F. H. F. (2019) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12830 · Cited by 55
Revealing the Influential Factors Driving Social Commerce Adoption
Al‐Adwan, A. S. (2019) · Interdisciplinary Journal of Information Knowledge and Management · doi:10.28945/4438 · Cited by 72
Alamri, M. M. (2021) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci11050207 · Cited by 69
“Therefore, results suggest that the PBL approach helps to better engage students in learning, as they are highly motivated by the perception that they can improve their academic achievements [44].”
BackgroundConceptualizing the Implications of Mobile App Usage and Stickiness: A Research AgendaPreprint
Racherla, P., Furner, C. P., & Babb, J. S. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2187056 · Cited by 56
Adoption of E-Book for University Students
Salloum, S. A., & Shaalan, K. F. (2018) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99010-1_44 · Cited by 59
Loske, D., & Klumpp, M. (2021) · The International Journal of Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/ijlm-03-2020-0149 · Cited by 64
A model of adoption of AR-based self-service technologies: a two country comparison
Maria Jose Castillo, S., & Bigne, E. (2021) · International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management · doi:10.1108/ijrdm-09-2020-0380 · Cited by 60
Smart city technologies from the perspective of technology acceptance
Dirsehan, T., & van Zoonen, L. (2022) · IET Smart Cities · doi:10.1049/smc2.12040 · Cited by 55
The development of digital payments – Past, present, and future – From the literature
Panetta, I. C., Leo, S., & Foglie, A. D. (2022) · Research in International Business and Finance · doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101855 · Cited by 68
Jang, H.-W., Yoo, J., & Cho, M. (2023) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-09-2022-1127 · Cited by 61
Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., RANA, O. F., & Ranjan, R. K. (2023) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-12-2021-0931 · Cited by 67
Cruz‐Jesus, F., Figueira-Alves, H., Tam, C., Pinto, D. C., Oliveira, T., & Venkatesh, V. (2023) · Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.tra.2023.103626 · Cited by 57
Self-citationA Review of the Technology Acceptance Model in Electronic Health Records
Al-Momani, A. M., & Ramayah, T. (2023) · International Journal of Business and Technology Management · doi:10.55057/ijbtm.2023.5.2.2 · Cited by 58
Being ready for digital transformation: How to enhance employees’ intentional digital readiness
Höyng, M., & Lau, A. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100314 · Cited by 111
Mapping Theories, Models, and Frameworks to Evaluate Digital Health Interventions: Scoping Review
Rouleau, G., Wu, K., Ramamoorthi, K., Boxall, C., Liu, R. H., Maloney, S., Zelmer, J., Scott, T., Larsen, D., Wijeysundera, H. C., et al. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/51098 · Cited by 61
“One way of facilitating the systematic understanding and explanation of the complex interactions between users, practices, technology, and health system factors that underpin research questions [20,21] is to use theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs).”
Kamoun, F., El Ayeb, W., Jabri, I., Sifi, S., & Iqbal, F. (2024) · Journal of Information Technology Education: Research · doi:10.28945/5239 · Cited by 54
Wistedt, U. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104015 · Cited by 77
“Despite the fact that scholars have proposed different extensions of the TAM (e.g., Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), this paper adopts perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness for two reasons.”
Shrivastava, P. (2025) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1565927 · Cited by 66
“Prior research has consistently shown that technologies perceived as user-friendly and beneficial are more likely to be embraced by users (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
Adnan, A., Irvine, R. E., Williams, A., Harris, M. J., & Antonacci, G. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/66432 · Cited by 75
“Then in 2008, TAM3 included a series of anchors and adjustments accounting for increasing understanding and penetration of modern technologies into the market [18].”
A practical reputation system for pervasive social chatting
Yan, Z., Chen, Y., & Shen, Y. (2012) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2012.11.003 · Cited by 53
“Our interview was designed based on the TAM model (Technology Acceptance Model) and its extension, which indicates that usefulness, ease of use and playfulness lead to user acceptance [14,15].”
MethodFernandes, G., Ward, S. C., & Araújo, M. (2014) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1002/pmj.21441 · Cited by 54
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) tested TAM3 in longitudinal field studies conducted at four different organizations using Partial Least Squares, a component-based structural equation modeling technique used to analyze the data. empirical evidence obtained, and a multitude of organizational contexts.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHuman and organizational error data challenges in complex, large-scale systems
Grabowski, M., You, Z., Zhou, Z., Song, H., Steward, M., & Steward, B. (2009) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2009.01.008 · Cited by 57
A Theoretical Model of Augmented Reality Acceptance
Dieck, M. T., Dieck, D. T., & Jung, T. H. (2014) · e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) · Cited by 54
Humanitarian supply chain use of cloud computing
Schniederjans, D. G., Özpolat, K., & Chen, Y. (2016) · Supply Chain Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/scm-01-2016-0024 · Cited by 54
Technology readiness, perceived ubiquity and M-commerce adoption
Roy, S., & Moorthi, Y. L. R. (2017) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-01-2016-0005 · Cited by 64
A model of mobile technologies acceptance for knowledge transfer by employees
Kuciapski, M. (2017) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-03-2016-0136 · Cited by 53
Peng, Z. C., Sun, Y., & Guo, X. (2017) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.11.007 · Cited by 54
Schmidt, L. I., & Wahl, H. (2018) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gny062 · Cited by 54
Simiyu, G., Bonuke, R., & Komen, J. (2019) · Journal of Marketing for HIGHER EDUCATION · doi:10.1080/08841241.2019.1678549 · Cited by 54
“The principles consider intention to use the system as the function of attitude towards individual behavior and subjective norms that were extended to the Theory of Planned Behavior (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundAdoption of internet of things among Malaysian halal agro-food SMEs and its challenges
Tarmizi, H. A., Kamarulzaman, N. H., Rahman, A. B. A., et al. (2020) · Food Research · doi:10.26656/fr.2017.4(s1).s26 · Cited by 54
“TAM3 proposed by Venkatesh and Bala (2008) discussed the general belief of technologies such as computer self - efficacy, perception of external control, computer anxiety, and computer playfulness.”
BackgroundLong-Term BCI Training of a Tetraplegic User: Adaptive Riemannian Classifiers and User Training
Benaroch, C., Sadatnejad, K., Roc, A., Appriou, A., Monseigne, T., Pramij, S., Mladenović, J., Pillette, L., Jeunet, C., & Lotte, F. (2021) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.635653 · Cited by 56
“Each part was divided into a series of questions related to different dimensions of acceptability and acceptance, mainly based on the Technology-Acceptance Model (TAM) 3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) questionnaire.”
MethodAlkhwaldi, A. F., & Abdulmuhsin, A. A. (2021) · Journal of International Education in Business · doi:10.1108/jieb-01-2021-0001 · Cited by 61
Chen, T., Chen, J., Or, C. K., & Lo, F. P. (2022) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2022.103360 · Cited by 52
Battery and hydrogen-based electric vehicle adoption: A survey of Australian consumers perspective
Loengbudnark, W., Khalilpour, K. R., Bharathy, G. K., Taghikhah, F. R., & Voinov, A. A. (2022) · Case Studies on Transport Policy · doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2022.11.007 · Cited by 56
Gemesi, K., Winkler, S., Schmidt-Tesch, S., Schederecker, F., Hauner, H., & Holzapfel, C. (2023) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/s41366-023-01415-0 · Cited by 62
Network externalities and the perception of innovation characteristics: mobile banking
Ewe, S. Y., Yap, S. F., & Lee, C. K. C. (2015) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/mip-01-2014-0006 · Cited by 52
Web‐Based Delivery of a Preventive Parent Training Intervention: A Feasibility Study
Breitenstein, S. M., & Gross, D. A. (2013) · Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing · doi:10.1111/jcap.12031 · Cited by 57
How is technology accepted by users? A review of technology acceptance models and theories
Alomary, A., & Woollard, J. (2015) · ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · Cited by 54
Brandl, C., Mertens, A., & Schlick, C. M. (2016) · Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries · doi:10.1002/hfm.20675 · Cited by 54
“Acceptance is generally positively influenced by a high level of perceived usefulness (Davis, 1993; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundElderly and technology tools: a fuzzyset qualitative comparative analysis
Mostaghel, R., & Oghazi, P. (2016) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-016-0390-6 · Cited by 56
“In Spain, TAM has been used for the elderly and use of the Internet with two additional constructs: perceived enjoyment from TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala 2008) and result demonstrability from TAM2 (Ramo´n-Jero´nimo et al. 2013).”
MethodZhou, D., & Abdullah (2017) · Cogent Food & Agriculture · doi:10.1080/23311932.2017.1280882 · Cited by 53
“…by several models, including the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975), TAM (Davis, 1989), the technology acceptance model 2 (TAM 2) (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM 3) (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) and the UTAUT (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).”
Enhancing awareness on green consumption of electronic devices: The application of Augmented Reality
Bekaroo, G., Sungkur, R. K., Ramsamy, P., Okolo, A., & Moedeen, W. (2018) · Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments · doi:10.1016/j.seta.2018.10.016 · Cited by 57
Perceptions About Generative AI and ChatGPT Use by Faculty and College Students
Petricini, T., Wu, C., & Zipf, S. T. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/jyma4 · Cited by 54
An empirical study on the commercial adoption of digital currencies
Roussou, I., Stiakakis, E., & Sifaleras, A. (2019) · Information Systems and E-Business Management · doi:10.1007/s10257-019-00426-7 · Cited by 52
“Besides, some TAM3 anchor determinants (i.e. computer self-efficacy and computer anxiety) are not so contemporary anymore, as the use and familiarity with computers have increased since the appearance of TAM3.”
BackgroundInfluentialJain, V., & Jain, P. (2021) · Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1108/jarhe-10-2020-0378 · Cited by 52
Factors associated with nurses' user resistance to change of electronic health record systems
Cho, Y., Kim, M., & Choi, M. (2021) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-021-01581-z · Cited by 73
Sulaiman, T. T., Mahomed, A. S. B., Rahman, A. B. A., & Hassan, M. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15031885 · Cited by 69
Technology adoption at individual level: toward an integrated overview
Granić, A. (2023) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-023-00974-3 · Cited by 62
“To understand how various interventions can influence the known determinants of technology adoption and use, Venkatesh and Bala [64] combined TAM2 [65] and MDPEU [63], and developed an integrated model known as TAM3.”
Bellet, T., & Banet, A. (2023) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2023.10.007 · Cited by 52
Factors Influencing eHealth Literacy Worldwide: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Hua, Z., Song, Y., Qianwen, L., & Chen, H. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/50313 · Cited by 55
“This study combined the Literacy and Health Conceptual Framework [1] and TAM [17,18] to synthesize and present factors that influence eHealth literacy, as identified in the literature review.”
InfluentialBuilding a Model of Technology Preference: The Case of Channel Choices
Muthitcharoen, A., Palvia, P., & Grover, V. (2011) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00306.x · Cited by 50
“Examples of those models can be found in the following studies: Taylor and Todd (1995); Agarwal and Prasad (1997), Venkatesh and Davis (2000), Venkatesh et al. (2003), and Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
BackgroundLee, G., & Xia, W. (2011) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2011.09.003 · Cited by 52
Information Systems Appraisal and Coping: The Role of User Perceptions
Fadel, K. J., & Brown, S. A. (2010) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.02606 · Cited by 55
Use and Attitude towards Learning Management Systems (LMS) in Saudi Arabian Universities
Bayaga, A., & Alghamdi, S. R. (2016) · Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education · doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1281a · Cited by 56
“Prior studies have found TAM as a highly predictive model of technology adoption (Fathema et al., 2015; Cigdem & Topcu, 2015; Motaghian et al., 2013; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Ma, Anderson, & Streith, 2005), and hence relevant for LMS adoption and usage in this study.”
BackgroundFathema, N., & Sutton, K. L. (2014) · Cited by 52
Faulkner, N., Jorgensen, B. S., & Koufariotis, G. (2018) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2018.10.009 · Cited by 52
Acceptance of a flipped smart application for learning: a study among Thai university students
Khlaisang, J., Teo, T. P., & Huang, F. (2019) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1612447 · Cited by 59
“Similar with image suggested in the previous study (e.g. Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), reputation (REPU) was also reported as an important predictor of ATU, indicating that when students perceive the use of these technologies as improving their recognition and reputation, they are more likely to like…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialAssisted phase and step annotation for surgical videos
Lécuyer, G., Ragot, M., Martin, N., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11548-019-02108-8 · Cited by 52
Graf, B., & Antoni, C. H. (2023) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2022.2118051 · Cited by 52
“All those factors are determinants of the perceived ease of use and could therefore explain a negative relation (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundArtificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration
Bezrukova, K., Griffith, T. L., Spell, C., Rice, V., & Yang, H. E. (2023) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011231160574 · Cited by 51
“Some research theorizes mandatory use as an independent variable (Chen et al., 2015; Hester, 2011; Higgins et al., 2007), but other models see it as a moderator (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) affecting behavior.”
Hossain, S. F. A., Nurunnabi, M., Hussain, K., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1108/ijge-03-2019-0054 · Cited by 51
Wang, S., Tlili, A., Zhu, L., & Yang, J. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13169104 · Cited by 53
“Venkatesh and Bala [35] believe that the external social environment will affect the individual’s participation intention to use the information system.”
BackgroundBarteit, S., Boudo, V., Ouedraogo, A., Zabré, P., Ouremi, L., Sié, A., Munga, S., Obor, D., Kwaro, D., Huhn, S., et al. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257170 · Cited by 51
“The questionnaire items are grouped according to the employed Technology Acceptance Model constructs [43].”
MethodInfluentialHan, S., & Nam, S. I. (2021) · Educational Gerontology · doi:10.1080/03601277.2021.1988448 · Cited by 53
“In addition, the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in numerous existing literatures using extended TAM have been demonstrated to mediate personal and social dimensions and intention to use (Guner & Acarturk, 2020; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWijnen, F., van der Molen, J. H. W., & Voogt, J. M. (2021) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2021.1991864 · Cited by 74
“Do I really need it?”: An explorative study of acceptance and usage of in-vehicle technology
Stiegemeier, D., Bringeland, S., Kraus, J., & Baumann, M. R. K. (2021) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2021.11.011 · Cited by 52
The Myth of Contactless Hospitality Service: Customers’ Willingness to Pay
Hao, F., Qiu, R. T. R., Park, J., & Chon, K. (2022) · Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research · doi:10.1177/10963480221081781 · Cited by 51
“…introducing various contactless services, user training, as the most important post-implementation of new systems for enhancing customer acceptance (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) and accumulating positive experiences may address the current challenges of hotel contactless service (i.e., contactless…”
BackgroundPapinutto, M., Boghetti, R., Colombo, M., et al. (2022) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112176 · Cited by 51
Sánchez, J. D. A., & Albesa, J. G. (2023) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer18030062 · Cited by 76
“While a TAM model suggests that behavioral intention is solely influenced by perceived usefulness and effort expectancy, with other relevant factors such as social influence (or subjective norm) impacting behavioral intention mediated by these basic constructs [26], UTAUT postulates that these constructs, including so…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialIslam, H., Rana, M., Saha, S., Khatun, T., Ritu, M. R., & Islam, M. R. (2023) · Technological Sustainability · doi:10.1108/techs-07-2023-0025 · Cited by 62
Zheng, H., Han, F., Huang, Y., Wu, Y., & Wu, X. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13299-2 · Cited by 84
“This finding suggested that the perceived ease of use becomes less critical as users gain experience with the technology (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Ziefle, M., Himmel, S., & Wilkowska, W. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25364-5_43 · Cited by 51
“Yet there is increased research awareness that acceptance for medical technology differs in some aspect from the traditional technology acceptance concept [29].”
BackgroundTarhini, A., Scott, M., Sharma, S. K., & Abbasi, M. S. (2015) · The Electronic Journal of e-Learning · Cited by 51
Dynamic Support of Government in Online Shopping
Hai, L. C., & Kazmi, S. H. A. (2015) · Asian Social Science · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n22p1 · Cited by 53
“The model structure is simple and its ability to explain is acceptable (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Kazmi, 2015a; 2015b).”
BackgroundWhy do we blog? From the perspectives of technology acceptance and media choice factors
Chang, Y.-S., & Yang, C. (2012) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2012.656326 · Cited by 57
“Overthe previous two decades, the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis 1989, Davis et al. 1989) has been widely used to explain and predict the acceptance behaviours of information systems (e.g. Adams et al. 1992, Agarwal and Karahanna 2000, Karahanna et al. 2006, Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
MethodDrivers of context-specific ICT use across work and nonwork domains: A boundary theory perspective
Tennakoon, K. L. U. S., da Silveira, G. J. C., & Taras, D. G. (2013) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.03.002 · Cited by 52
“This study added to the substantial prior empirical work that dealt with rational calculations of the utility of ICT in determining subsequent ICT adoption and usage (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; King & He, 2006; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundResultLiu, C.-F., & Cheng, T. (2015) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-014-0125-3 · Cited by 51
“Later, Venkatesh and Davis [27] proposed TAM 2, and Venkatesh and Bala [29] proposed TAM 3.”
BackgroundImproving and embedding project management practice in organisations — A qualitative study
Fernandes, G., Ward, S. C., & Araújo, M. (2015) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.012 · Cited by 51
“• The technology acceptance model3 (TAM3) from Venkatesh and Bala (2008), which is a combination of the model of the determinants of ‘perceived ease of use’ from Venkatesh (2000) and TAM2, which presents the determinants of ‘perceived usefulness’ (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialZaremohzzabieh, Z., Samah, B. A., Muhammad, M., Omar, S. Z., Bolong, J., Hassan, S., & Shaffril, H. A. M. (2016) · Information Technology for Development · doi:10.1080/02681102.2015.1128384 · Cited by 51
“According to Venkatesh and Bala (2008), the prognostic power of the TAM model makes it easy to relate variables predicting ICT acceptance.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe Enriched UTAUT Model for the Acceptance of Software Engineering Tools in Academic Education
Wrycza, S., Marcinkowski, B., & Gajda, D. (2016) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2017.1254446 · Cited by 53
“Apart from the UTAUT, the following models are considered significant: TAM (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) along with its subsequent major releases (i.e., TAM2; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; and TAM3; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008); Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991); Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT; Moore & Benbasa…”
BackgroundAdkins, E. C., Zalta, A. K., Boley, R. A., Glover, A., Karnik, N. S., & Schueller, S. M. (2017) · Psychological Services · doi:10.1037/ser0000120 · Cited by 52
“Formative work is required to ensure that programs will meet the needs of this population, particularly given evidence that perceived usefulness is critical determinant of the uptake of technological systems (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundKeszey, T., & Zsukk, J. K. (2017) · Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review · doi:10.14267/veztud.2017.10.05 · Cited by 51
Technology acceptance model and social network sites (SNS): a selected review of literature
Weerasinghe, S., & Hindagolla, B. M. M. C. B. (2018) · Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication · doi:10.1108/gkmc-09-2017-0079 · Cited by 54
“Moreover, the TAM is capable of explaining approximately 40 per cent of variance in users’ intention towards using a technology (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Venkatesh, Viswanath
- Bala, Hillol
- Venue
- Decision Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 273-315
- ISSN
- 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5915
- OpenAlex
- W2112042732
- Cited by
- 8,159
- References
- 135
- Citations by year
- 2026: 909 · 2025: 912 · 2024: 780 · 2023: 746 · 2022: 717 · 2021: 645 · 2020: 556 · 2019: 499 · 2018: 396 · 2017: 379 · 2016: 320 · 2015: 324 · 2014: 287 · 2013: 266 · 2012: 186
- FWCI
- 175.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Decision Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
- Keywords
- technology acceptance model, information technology adoption, information technology use, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, management interventions, IT implementation, organizational decision-making, nomological network
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 2026-09-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-30 (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
