The DOI matches its Crossref record; 135 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
51 Own result · 35 Own interpretation · 21 No full text of the sources · 13 Sources not found · 7 Own method · 5 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. 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 1,501–1,600 of 8,090
A review of the evolution of research on information Technology Acceptance Model
Tang, D., & Chen, L. (2011) · International Conference on Business Management and Electronic Information (BMEI) · doi:10.1109/icbmei.2011.5917980 · Cited by 41
“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 [2].”
BackgroundUnderstanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review
Ding, X., Wuerth, K., Sakakibara, B., Schmidt, J., Parde, N., Holsti, L., & Barbic, S. (2023) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/44951 · Cited by 30
“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].”
M-learning: aceptación tecnológica de dispositivos móviles en la formación online
Luna, J. C. Y., & Arias-Oliva, M. (2018) · Revista Tecnología Ciencia y Educación · doi:10.51302/tce.2018.193 · Cited by 34
Sajid, S., Rashid, R. M., & Haider, W. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.919334 · Cited by 35
Kim, K., Yang, E., & Ryu, J. (2022) · International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN) · doi:10.23919/ilrn55037.2022.9815996 · Cited by 35
Deng, G., & Fei, S. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107682 · Cited by 35
Shen, X., Mo, X., & Xia, T. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2024.2365959 · Cited by 43
“In existing research (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), the factor of AI anxiety has been used as an external variable in the TAM model to study the use of technology, and some have also compared it with learning motivation (Wang Y.-M. et al., 2022) to discuss the influencing factors.”
Acceptance of or resistance to facial recognition payment: A systematic review
Yu, T., Wang, C., Bian, Q., & Teoh, A. P. (2024) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.2385 · Cited by 35
PerContRep: a practical reputation system for pervasive content services
Yan, Z., Chen, Y., & Shen, Y. (2014) · The Journal of Supercomputing · doi:10.1007/s11227-014-1116-y · Cited by 34
“Our interview was designed based on the technology acceptance model (TAM) and its extension, which indicates that usefulness, ease of use and playfulness lead to user acceptance [42,43].”
MethodConsumer lifestyles: alternative adoption patterns for advanced mobile services
Bouwman, H., López‐Nicolás, C., Nicolá, P., Shweta, N. A., Molina‐Castillo, F., & van Hattum, P. (2012) · International Journal of Mobile Communications · doi:10.1504/ijmc.2012.045672 · Cited by 34
“First of all, while researchers who analyse the adoption of mobile services have relied mainly on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) model (Kulviwat et al., 2007; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), there are other avenues of research that may shed more light on this matter.”
BackgroundThe Key Factors Influencing Internet Finances Services Satisfaction: An Empirical Study in Taiwan
Chen, M.-C., Chen, S.-S., Yeh, H.-M., et al. (2016) · American Journal of Industrial and Business Management · doi:10.4236/ajibm.2016.66069 · Cited by 35
“This study adopted Venkatesh and Bala (2008) proposed Technology Acceptance Model (TAM3) to understand the key factors of the consumer acceptance of internet finance and its association with satisfaction.”
MethodÇelik, H. E., & Kocaman, R. (2017) · Journal of Systems and Information Technology · doi:10.1108/jsit-01-2017-0008 · Cited by 35
An empirical analysis on outsourcing decision: the case of e-banking services
Hanafizadeh, P., & Ravasan, A. Z. (2017) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-11-2016-0182 · Cited by 36
Ladan, M. A., Wharrad, H. J., & Windle, R. J. (2018) · BMJ Health & Care Informatics · doi:10.14236/jhi.v25i1.965 · Cited by 38
“This revision by Venkatesh and Bala 37 produced the TAM3 ( Figure 1 ), which was expected to pro - vide a ‘nomological network of determinants to individuals’ adoption and use of a technology’ (p. 301).”
BackgroundMethodAntecedents of continued use intention of e-hailing apps from the passengers' perspective
Jóia, L. A., & Altieri, D. (2018) · The Journal of High Technology Management Research · doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2018.09.006 · Cited by 35
Fauzi, A. F. A. A., Ali, K. N., & Amirudin, R. (2019) · International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability · doi:10.11113/ijbes.v6.n1.309 · Cited by 35
Intention to Use e-Learning: Aplikasi Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Rahmawati, R. N., & Narsa, I. M. (2019) · Owner · doi:10.33395/owner.v3i2.151 · Cited by 53
“Pengembangan TAM tersebut bertujuan untuk membentuk asumsi dasar yang mampu memprediksi, dan menjelaskan perilaku yang mendorong penggunaan teknologi yang terus berkembang (Alomary & Woollard, 2015; Surendran, 2013; Sung Youl, 2009; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundWirtz, B. W., Birkmeyer, S., & Langer, P. F. (2019) · International Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.1177/0020852319862349 · Cited by 36
“One of the founders of the TAM himself proposes this direct relation in his intervention-oriented version (see Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundCheng, M., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2020) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2020.1811378 · Cited by 38
“Though some studies were performed using a longitudinal approach (Ma and Yuen 2011; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003), these TAM studies simply tested the models at each usage stage, without considering dynamic changes and causal link among the modelled…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialModeling users’ acceptance of mobile social commerce: the case of ‘Instagram checkout’
Saprikis, V., & Avlogiaris, G. (2021) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-021-09499-4 · Cited by 37
Paganin, G., & Simbula, S. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18179366 · Cited by 37
“, TAM2 [40], TAM3 [41], UTAUT [42], UTAUT 2 [43]).”
Dudenhöffer, K. (2013) · Journal of Management Control · doi:10.1007/s00187-013-0174-2 · Cited by 34
“Thus, the construct subjective norm (SN) was included, as done in TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialThe After Times: College Students’ Desire to Continue with Distance Learning Post Pandemic
Clary, G., Dick, G. N., Akbulut, A. Y., & Slyke, C. V. (2022) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.05003 · Cited by 36
Guo, J. (2022) · BioMed Research International · doi:10.1155/2022/9378860 · Cited by 35
“Behavioral intention has been shown to be the strongest determinant of the usage behavior of technology [55, 56].”
Garcia, M. B. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2163565 · Cited by 35
“Building on the framing of human decision-making ( anchoring and adjustment ), Venkatesh and Bala (2008) also conjectured the general determinants of PEOU using the constructs of Computer Self-Efficacy (SELF), Computer Playfulness (PLAY), Facilitating Conditions (FCON), Computer Anxiety (CANX), and…”
MethodInfluentialHuang, T. K. (2014) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.011 · Cited by 37
Message framing and acceptance of branchless banking technology
Kurila, J., Lazuras, L., & Ketikidis, P. H. (2016) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2016.02.001 · Cited by 36
Antecedents of intention and usage toward customers’ mobile commerce: Evidence in Vietnam
Han, S., Nguyen, T. P. T., & Nguyen, V. A. (2016) · Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science · doi:10.1080/21639159.2015.1116796 · Cited by 35
“…difference has a significant impact on consumers’ perceptions toward adoption of information technology (Deng, Lu, Deng, & Zhang, 2010; Dong & Zhang, 2011; Venkatesh & Morris, 2000; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Wang, Wu, & Wang 2009; Riquelme & Rios, 2010).”
An integrative adoption model of video-based learning
Mikalef, P., Pappas, I. O., & Giannakos, M. N. (2016) · International Journal of Information and Learning Technology · doi:10.1108/ijilt-01-2016-0007 · Cited by 35
Human–machine interaction theories and lane departure warnings
Navarro, J. (2016) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922x.2016.1243274 · Cited by 34
“This is exactly the assumption made in the most extended model of acceptance: the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, Davis 1989; Venkatesh et al. 2003; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Venkatesh and Davis 1996, 2000).”
Buettner, R. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 34
Mahmood, A., Imran, M., & Adil, K. (2023) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440221149718 · Cited by 43
“Likewise, four items scale of subjective norms was adopted from Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
MethodZhao, X., & Yan, D. (2023) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106127 · Cited by 33
Mutawa, A. M., Muttawa, J. A. K. A., & Sruthi, S. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13084983 · Cited by 50
“The research hypotheses based on the TAM model (Figure 1) [46,48,51] in the context of H5P and Moodle learning are: Hypothesis 1a (H1a).”
MethodRossetto, F., Borgnis, F., Isernia, S., Foglia, E., Garagiola, E., Realdon, O., & Baglio, F. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1154481 · Cited by 39
“Acceptability assessment The acceptability assessment was conducted through the Technology Acceptance Model 3 questionnaire [TAM3, (32)] and the Service User Technology Acceptance Questionnaire [SUTAQ, (18)].”
MethodThe Technology Acceptance on AR Memorable Tourism Experience—The Empirical Evidence from China
Li, S., & Jiang, S. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151813349 · Cited by 35
Zhang, X., & Zhang, Z. (2024) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102703 · Cited by 36
Bridging the Digital Divide: Unraveling the Determinants of FinTech Adoption in Rural Communities
Wu, G. Q., & Peng, Q. (2024) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440241227770 · Cited by 69
“Some items were adapted from previously validated studies (Kamal et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2020; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) with the consideration of the current context.”
Exploring the key factors influencing the actual usage of digital tax platforms
Abu-Silake, S. A., Alshurafat, H., Alaqrabawi, M., & Shehadeh, M. (2024) · Discover Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43621-024-00241-2 · Cited by 57
“Venkatesh and Bala [74] conducted integrated research on the use of information technologies”
Prakhar, P., Jaiswal, R., Gupta, S., & Gupta, S. K. (2024) · International Journal of Tourism Cities · doi:10.1108/ijtc-01-2024-0033 · Cited by 37
Guo, L., Burke, M., & Griggs, W. M. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123960 · Cited by 41
“In our study, we treat both trust and PR as independent variables, aiming to examine their non-linear impacts on users’ intention to use SAVs and other related predictors.”
Guo, S., Shi, L., & Zhai, X. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13338-6 · Cited by 35
“The Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) also removed AU and introduced other factors including self-efficacy and anxiety (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
InfluentialAdoption of security as a service
Senk, C. (2013) · Journal of Internet Services and Applications · doi:10.1186/1869-0238-4-11 · Cited by 34
“Hence, the expected performance of SECaaS systems is positively correlated with effort expectancies and trust, which supports previous empirical findings [22,55,56].”
ResultChandio, F. H., Irani, Z., Zeki, A. M., Shah, A., & Shah, S. C. (2016) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2017.1254450 · Cited by 37
“Although this method of data collection has been widely used in prior research (Abbasi et al., 2011; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), it is, however, anticipated that future research should use longitudinal data to examine factors that have an influence on consumers ’ perceptions regarding continuing to…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHospital information system user acceptance factors: User group perspectives
Handayani, P. W., Hidayanto, A. N., Pinem, A. A., Sandhyaduhita, P. I., & Budi, I. D. (2017) · Informatics for Health and Social Care · doi:10.1080/17538157.2016.1269109 · Cited by 35
Sejane, L. (2017) · NUL Research and Publication · Cited by 34
Empowering academics to be adaptive with eLearning technologies: An exploratory case study
Flavell, H. L., Harris, C. J., Price, C., Logan, E. L., & Peterson, S. (2018) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.2990 · Cited by 34
“Using 13 out of the 16 TAM subscales developed by Venkatesh and Bala (2008) participants were asked about their level of technology acceptance.”
MethodIzuagbe, R., Ibrahim, N. A., Ogiamien, L. O., Olawoyin, O. R., Nwokeoma, N. M., Ilo, P. I., & Osayande, O. (2019) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2019.100969 · Cited by 34
“The proposed model draws on the already established direct/indirect effect of PEOU on behavioural intention, hypothesised particularly in TAM (Davis, 1989) and other theoretical underpinnings (e.g. TAM2—Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; TAM3— Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; UTAUT—Venkatesh et al., 2003).”
MethodComfOnt: A Semantic Framework for Indoor Comfort and Energy Saving In Smart Homes
Spoladore, D., Mahroo, A., Trombetta, A., et al. (2019) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics8121449 · Cited by 34
“, inhabitants aged 65+ years old, will be tested in the following months using standard questionnaires such as the system usability scale (SUS) [80] and technology acceptance model (TAM) [81].”
MethodCritical determinants for electronic market adoption
Deng, H., Duan, S. X., & Luo, F. (2019) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-04-2019-0106 · Cited by 35
Acceptance of truck platooning by professional drivers on German highways. A mixed methods approach
Castritius, S.-M., Hecht, H., Möller, J., Dietz, C., Schubert, P., Bernhard, C., Morvilius, S., Haas, C. T., & Hammer, S. S. (2020) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103042 · Cited by 34
BIM: a technology acceptance model in Peru
Sanchís-Pedregosa, C., Vizcarra-Aparicio, J.-M., & Leal‐Rodríguez, A. L. (2020) · Journal of Information Technology in Construction · doi:10.36680/j.itcon.2020.006 · Cited by 38
“Originally, the first TAM model developed by ITcon Vol. 25 (2020), Sanchis-Pedregosa et al., pg. 102 at TAM3 model developed by Venkatesh and Bala (2008) which we have consider to develop our conceptual model (Fig.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe (in)credibility of algorithmic models to non-experts
Kolkman, D. (2020) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2020.1761860 · Cited by 36
Huang, F., Sánchez‐Prieto, J. C., Teo, T. P., García‐Peñalvo, F. J., Sánchez, E. M. T., & Zhao, C. (2020) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09806-0 · Cited by 46
Technology Acceptance Model 3 in Understanding Employee’s Cloud Computing Technology
TIRPAN, E. C., & Bakırtaş, H. (2020) · Global Business Review · doi:10.1177/0972150920957173 · Cited by 34
“The study used the scale of Venkatesh and Bala (2008) to measure participants’ perception of and intent to use cloud computing technology.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFactors Affecting the Adoption of e-Learning at University Level
Ejdys, J. (2021) · WSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS · doi:10.37394/23207.2021.18.32 · Cited by 34
“Among the most well-known models, the most prominent are the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, TAM2, TAM3), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and the Use of Technology (UTAUT) and DeLone and McLean Information Systems (D&M IS).”
MethodContrasting Internet Adoption in Early and Advanced Old Age: Does Internet Self-Efficacy Matter?
Jokisch, M. R., Scheling, L., Doh, M., & Wahl, H. (2021) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbab096 · Cited by 34
A trust model for collaborative redistribution platforms:A platform design issue
Hallem, Y., Abbes, I., Hikkerova, L., & Taga, M. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120943 · Cited by 26
Kundu, A., & Bej, T. (2021) · Quality Assurance in Education · doi:10.1108/qae-05-2020-0058 · Cited by 39
Khlaisang, J., Songkram, N., Huang, F., & Teo, T. P. (2021) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.1993933 · Cited by 38
“Given the widely acknowledged validity of the TAM in explaining technology users ’ acceptance of new technological tools, it has been favored by scholars in diverse research fi elds such as business (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) and education (Teo, 2009).”
BackgroundResultA Systematic Review of User Acceptance in Industrial Augmented Reality
Quandt, M., & Freitag, M. (2021) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.700760 · Cited by 38
“Over the past decades, Davis ’ model has been modi fi ed and extended, as, in TAM Extension (Jackson et al., 1997), TAM 2 (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), TAM 3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundModelling the crowdfunding technology adoption among novice entrepreneurs: an extended TAM model
Jaziri, R., & Miralam, M. S. (2019) · Journal of Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues · doi:10.9770/jesi.2019.7.1(26 · Cited by 34
What drives tourists to adopt self-driving cars?
Jászberényi, M., Miskolczi, M., Munkácsy, A., & Földes, D. (2022) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2022.07.013 · Cited by 34
Lukovics, M., Prónay, S., Majó-Petri, Z., Kovács, P. T., Ujházi, T., Volosin, M., Palatinus, Z., & Keszey, T. (2023) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2023.03.016 · Cited by 34
UNDERSTANDING THE FACTORS DRIVING NFC-ENABLED MOBILE PAYMENT ADOPTION: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
Li, H., Yong, L., & Heikkilä, J. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 34
Assessment of Internet Banking Adoption: An Empirical Analysis
Safeena, R., Kammani, A., & Date, H. (2013) · Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering · doi:10.1007/s13369-013-0707-x · Cited by 34
“TAM3 is an integrated model of determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use developed by Venkatesh and Bala [38].”
MethodVoluntary Use of Information Technology: An Analysis and Synthesis of the Literature
Tsai, H. P., Compeau, D., & Meister, D. B. (2016) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2016.6 · Cited by 34
“…as a direct in fl uence on behavior (e.g., Compeau et al. , 2007; Hester, 2010; Chen et al. , 2015), as a moderator of the in fl uence of subjective norms on behavior (e.g., Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Abbasi et al. , 2011) or as a boundary condition for attitude models (Igbaria et al. , 1997).”
BackgroundBaleghi-Zadeh, S., Ayub, A. F. M., Mahmud, R. B., & Daud, S. M. (2017) · Knowledge Management & E-Learning An International Journal · doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2017.09.004 · Cited by 35
“The present study proposed a model for explaining and predicting Learning Management System adoption among Malaysian undergraduate students based on Technology Acceptance Model.”
BackgroundInfluentialWANG, W. J. (2019) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-01-2018-0004 · Cited by 34
The rise of the machines and how they impact workers' psychological health: An empirical study
Stamate, A. N., Sauvé, G., & Denis, P. L. (2021) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1002/hbe2.315 · Cited by 44
Assessing Digital Transformation of Cost Accounting Tools in Healthcare
Vărzaru, A. A. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192315572 · Cited by 56
Degree of Acceptance of Virtual Reality by Health Sciences Students
Almenara, J. C., Cejudo, M. D. C. L., Palacios‐Rodríguez, A., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20085571 · Cited by 33
“This model has been adapted to new proposals, such as TAM2 [34], TAM3 [35], or the so-called “Unified Theory of Technology Acceptance” (UTAUT) [35], that add new variables to explain the acceptance of a given technology by people; such changes do not radically transform the original TAM model.”
MethodChang, H., Park, J., & Suh, J. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11988-y · Cited by 43
“TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and the model of variables of perceived ease of use were combined by Venkatesh and Bala (2008) to create the integrated model of technology acceptance known as TAM3 (Fig.”
Tilahun, M., Berhan, E., & Tesfaye, G. (2023) · Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1186/s13731-023-00323-x · Cited by 44
“A TAM 3 has also been proposed in the context of E-commerce with an inclusion of the effects of trust and perceived risk on system use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundUnpacking Human-AI Interaction in Safety-Critical Industries: A Systematic Literature Review
Bach, T. A., Kristiansen, J. K., Babić, A., & Jacovi, A. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3437190 · Cited by 46
Güneyli, A., Burgul, N. S., Dericioğlu, S., Cenkova, N., Becan, S., Şimşek, Ş. E., & Güneralp, H. (2024) · European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education · doi:10.3390/ejihpe14080156 · Cited by 65
“It makes the argument that people’s views toward adopting technology are greatly influenced by their perceptions of its perceived usefulness and simplicity of use [31].”
BackgroundSimanTov‐Nachlieli, I. (2024) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2023.17515 · Cited by 32
Kleine, A., Schaffernak, I., & Lermer, E. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100113 · Cited by 49
Abulail, R. N., Badran, O. N., Shkoukani, M., & Omeish, F. Y. (2025) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers14060230 · Cited by 65
Lifestyle orientations and the adoption of Internet-related technologies in Taiwan
Li, S. S. (2013) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2012.12.009 · Cited by 34
“This study investigated the adoption of nine Internet related technologies when adopters are voluntary, and thus this study considered that Rogers’ model is more suitable (Davis, 1989; Lin, 2009; Shin, 2009; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundEducational data mining acceptance among undergraduate students
Wook, M., Yusof, Z. M., & Nazri, M. Z. A. (2016) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9485-x · Cited by 33
“Based on related studies on computer anxiety, ANX is expected to have a negative relationship with the PEOU of this technology (Agudo-Peregrina et al. 2014; Hart et al. 2007; Huang et al. 2012; Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialYoong, S. L., Grady, A., Wiggers, J., Flood, V. M., Rissel, C. E., Finch, M., Searles, A., Salajan, D., O’Rourke, R., Daly, J., et al. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017498 · Cited by 33
“The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) posits that strategies to improve determinants of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are likely to increase end-users’ intentions to use a new information technology system.(53) Reviews of empirical studies report that TAM constructs account for over 50% of the varianc…”
BackgroundSuccessful digital transformations need a focus on the individual
Ancarani, A., & Mauro, C. D. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-16909-1_2 · Cited by 40
Kim, T. T., Karatepe, O. M., Lee, G., & Demiral, H. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10103509 · Cited by 34
“The current literature also presented several empirical studies which considered gender and experience as the two potential moderators [20,21].”
BackgroundSu, C.-H. (2019) · Journal of Baltic Science Education · doi:10.33225/jbse/19.18.450 · Cited by 36
“This model has been broadly applied to various studies on technology acceptance behavior, and the hypotheses in the model have been verified numerous times (Ahn, Ryu, & Han, 2007; Al-Gahtani, 2016; Mohammadi, 2015; Moon & Kim, 2001; Sánchez & Hueros, 2010; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
MethodResultInfluentialBehavioral Intention to Use IoT Technology in Healthcare Settings
Alanazi, M. H., & Soh, B. (2019) · Engineering Technology & Applied Science Research · doi:10.48084/etasr.3063 · Cited by 34
“This is due to the fact that TAM is the most common and cited model in the IS research [10] and healthcare domain [11, 12], because of its adequate explanatory power and parsimonious structure [13].”
BackgroundYoong, S. L., Grady, A., Wiggers, J. H., Stacey, F. G., Rissel, C. E., Flood, V. M., Finch, M., Wyse, R., Sutherland, R., Salajan, D., et al. (2020) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqaa025 · Cited by 33
“To increase uptake of the web-program, design features and strategies targeting the constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model were applied (29) (see Table 1).”
MethodInvestigating Factors Influencing the Behavioral Intention of Online Duty-Free Shop Users
Choi, Y., & Park, J.-W. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12177108 · Cited by 33
Exploring Tourists’ Behavioural Intentions Towards Use of Select Mobile Wallets for Digital Payments
Hasan, A., & Gupta, S. (2020) · Paradigm A Management Research Journal · doi:10.1177/0971890720959519 · Cited by 35
“Afterwards, work related to internet and mobile phones gained more attention (Bitner, 2001; Garfield, 2005; Im et al., 2011; Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005; Oye et al., 2014) which lead to development of several theoretical frameworks regarding users’ adoption of new technologies such as Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 19…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNurfadilah, D., & Samidi, S. (2021) · Journal of Islamic Monetary Economics and Finance · doi:10.21098/jimf.v7i0.1318 · Cited by 55
“In addition, Wang and Chen (2012) state that proactive governments will influence individuals’ perception that they exist to support a particular system. The empirical study conducted by Al Haderi (2014) found that government support has a positive impact on individuals’ perceived usefulness if they belief that the te…”
BackgroundRughoobur-Seetah, S., & Hosanoo, Z. A. (2021) · Quality Assurance in Education · doi:10.1108/qae-03-2021-0043 · Cited by 33
Stylios, I., Kokolakis, S., Thanou, O., & Chatzis, S. (2022) · Information and Computer Security · doi:10.1108/ics-08-2021-0124 · Cited by 33
Rohles, B., Backes, S., Fischbach, A., Amadieu, F., & Koenig, V. (2022) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09246 · Cited by 33
“, 2018), such as the technology acceptance model (TAM) tradition (Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
Zia, A., Alzahrani, M., Alomari, A., et al. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14116563 · Cited by 33
Apropiación tecnológica:Una visión desde los modelos y las teorías que la explican
Morales, K. F., Salas, L. M., & Casarín, A. V. (2015) · Perspectiva educacional · doi:10.4151/07189729-vol.54-iss.2-art.331 · Cited by 33
The impact of risk on the technological acceptance of mobile payment services
Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., Muñoz‐Leiva, F., & Sánchez‐Fernández, J. (2013) · Global Business Perspectives · doi:10.1007/s40196-013-0020-9 · Cited by 33
“…of a relationship between social image and intention (Venkatesh et al. 2003; Shin 2007; Lu et al. 2008) and between subjective norms and intention (Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Glass and Li 2010), which is why we propose the following research hypothesis: H1 External influences have a positive effect…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialYoong, S. L., Williams, C. M., Finch, M., Wyse, R., Jones, J. Z., Freund, M., Wiggers, J. H., Nathan, N., Dodds, P., & Wolfenden, L. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3639 · Cited by 33
“This model has also shown high validity when used in countries external to Northern America, where originally developed [41], including China [42] and Switzerland [43].”
InfluentialThe impact of use motives on politicians’ social media adoption
Hoffmann, C. P., Suphan, A., & Meckel, M. (2016) · Journal of Information Technology & Politics · doi:10.1080/19331681.2016.1169241 · Cited by 33
“Technology adoption models (TAMs), particularly, reliably predict ICT usage based on users’ subjective considerations of the ICT’s usefulness and ease of use (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Acceptance of E-learning in Higher Education
Mahmodi, M. (2017) · Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences · doi:10.5812/ijvlms.11158 · Cited by 33
“Venkatesh and Bala (26) proposed that when users develop strong beliefs that their access to corporate resources are made easier and they would be supported technically and managerially, their acceptance of the new technology increases.”
BackgroundConsumer intention and credit card adoption in Vietnam
Nguyen, O. D. Y., & Cassidy, J. F. (2018) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-01-2017-0010 · Cited by 36
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
