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 1,701–1,800 of 8,090
Internationalisation through digital platforms: a systematic review and future research agenda
Gong, C., He, X., & Lengler, J. (2024) · International Marketing Review · doi:10.1108/imr-08-2023-0213 · Cited by 25
Chakraborty, D., Troise, C., & Bresciani, S. (2025) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103189 · Cited by 32
Hamdy, A., Diab, A., & Eissa, A. M. (2025) · International Journal of Financial Studies · doi:10.3390/ijfs13010030 · Cited by 30
“This is considered crucial for an effective adoption of technological innovations (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Understanding Diversity – The Impact of Personality on Technology Acceptance
Behrenbruch, K., Söllner, M., Leimeister, J. M., & Schmidt, L. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_23 · Cited by 30
“Contrary to Venkatesh and Bala [18] we do not expect computer self-efficacy to influence PEOU directly, but to moderate the effect of PEOU on intention to use.”
InfluentialFactors Influencing the Adoption of ICT by Teachers in Primary Schools in Saudi Arabia
Alshmrany, S., & Wilkinson, B. (2017) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2017.081218 · Cited by 30
Objetos de Realidad Aumentada: percepciones del alumnado de Pedagogía
Pérez, S. M., & Róbles, B. F. (2018) · Pixel-Bit Revista de Medios y Educación · doi:10.12795/pixelbit.2018.i53.14 · Cited by 30
Tripathi, S. (2018) · Journal of international technology and information management · doi:10.58729/1941-6679.1373 · Cited by 29
“Another important extension of TAM was carried out by Venkatesh and Bala (2008), which is referred to as TAM3.”
BackgroundCultural influences moderating learners’ adoption of serious 3D games for managerial learning
Siala, H., Kutsch, E., & Jagger, S. (2019) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-08-2018-0385 · Cited by 37
The Routledge Handbook of Hospitality Marketing
Gürsoy, D. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315445526 · Cited by 35
Flow in VR: A Study on the Relationships Between Preconditions, Experience and Continued Use
Hassan, L., Jylhä, H., Sjöblom, M., & Hamari, J. (2020) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2020.149 · Cited by 31
“Recent extensions of TAM reflect these findings and include affective aspects as important dimensions in technology acceptance and continued use [46, 47, 48].”
BackgroundEvans, N., Boyd, H. C., Harris, N. D., Noonan, K. A., Ingram, T. A., Jarvis, A., Ridgers, J., & Cheston, R. (2020) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2020.1745145 · Cited by 33
Why do University Teachers use E-Learning Systems?
Goh, C. F., Hii, P. K., Tan, O. K., & Rasli, A. (2020) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v21i2.3720 · Cited by 31
“Second, the internalization effect occurs because people tend to have the same opinion on whether important referents perceive a particular system as useful (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialAl-Qaysi, N., Nordin, N. M., & Al‐Emran, M. (2020) · Studies in systems, decision and control · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47411-9_31 · Cited by 33
Exploring the Factors Influencing Big Data Technology Acceptance
Rahman, N., Daim, T., & Basoglu, N. (2021) · IEEE transactions on engineering management · doi:10.1109/tem.2021.3066153 · Cited by 25
“Subsequently, this factor along with the TAM2 model was validated by many other researchers [29], [129].”
BackgroundMao, C., & Hovick, S. R. A. (2020) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2020.1838106 · Cited by 30
“Practitioners could benefit from knowledge of the factors that influence perceived usefulness and ease of use, to assist in the development of interventions to enhance health technologies’ adoption and use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodOkabe‐Miyamoto, K., Durnell, E., Howell, R. T., & Zizi, M. (2021) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1002/hbe2.317 · Cited by 35
Augmented reality smart glasses use and acceptance: Α literature review
Koutromanos, G., & Kazakou, G. (2023) · Computers & Education X Reality · doi:10.1016/j.cexr.2023.100028 · Cited by 40
Peng, R., Razak, R. A., & Halili, S. H. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286112 · Cited by 30
“TAM 3 is a theoretical approach that investigates the reasons for and processes of acceptance and practical use of new technology by various people [15].”
BackgroundElbanna, A. R., & Linderoth, H. C. J. (2014) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9513-6 · Cited by 34
“However, most of the developed models are variables-centred and predict users ’ acceptance and potential use of systems (Legris et al. 2003; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Nan 2011) on the basis of mandatory use of systems.”
Factors Affecting Internet Banking Pre-usage Expectation Formation
Montazemi, A. R., & Qahri‐Saremi, H. (2013) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2013.231 · Cited by 36
“TAM2 [62] shows that three mechanisms— compliance, identification and internalization— facilitate social influence on the adoption of ICT.”
BackgroundFactors Influencing the Decision of Technology Adoption in Construction
Sepasgozar, S. M. E., & Bernold, L. E. (2012) · International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering, and Construction (ICSDEC) · doi:10.1061/9780784412688.078 · Cited by 32
Esmaeilpour, M., Hoseini, S. Y., & Jafarpour, Y. (2016) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 30
Alcántara-Pilar, J., del Barrio-García, S., Porcu, L., & Crespo‐Almendros, E. (2017) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.1656 · Cited by 28
Renal transplant patient acceptance of a self-management support system
Wang, W., van Lint, C. L., Brinkman, W.-P., Rövekamp, T. J. M., van Dijk, S., van der Boog, P. J. M., & Neerincx, M. A. (2017) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0456-y · Cited by 30
“The most well-known models or theories that have been used to explain peoples’ acceptance of technology are the theory of reasoned action (TRA) [10], the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) [11], the technology acceptance model (TAM) [12], and their extensions, such as TAM2 [26], the unified theory of acceptance and use…”
BackgroundWakefield, B. J., Turvey, C., Nazi, K. M., Holman, J. E., Hogan, T. P., Shimada, S. L., & Kennedy, D. R. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7638 · Cited by 32
“The most common constructs addressed by this set of measures were effectiveness, efficiency, hardware and software, perceived ease of use, satisfaction, and usability [19-23] (Tables 2 and 3).”
BackgroundZhang, M., Xia, Y., Li, S., Wu, W., & Wang, S. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11020451 · Cited by 34
“This scale has been widely used in measuring ease of use and it was validated in the empirical study [58,59].”
MethodDevelopment and validation of a social robot anthropomorphism scale (SRA) in a french sample
David, D., Hayotte, M., Thérouanne, P., d’Arripe-Longueville, F., & Milhabet, I. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102802 · Cited by 29
Shehri, W. A. A., Almalki, J., Alshahrani, S. M., Alammari, A., Khan, Z. F., & Alangari, S. (2022) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.886 · Cited by 29
“Although, several UTAUT-based studies, including those by Motaghian, Hassanzadeh & Moghadam (2013) , Ong, Lai & Wang (2004) and Venkatesh & Bala (2008) , have confirmed that technology acceptance is significantly affected by performance expectancy (PE), effort & Limayem (2000) found that SI was not…”
Chen, C.-C., Liu, C.-C., Chiu, T.-H., Lee, Y.-W., & Wu, K.-C. (2022) · International journal of human computer interactions · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2082017 · Cited by 30
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) modified the TAM to TAM3, pointing out that PU is functional and more likely extrinsic-ally motivated whereas PEOU is emotional and intrinsically motivated.”
BackgroundInfluentialARAM: A Technology Acceptance Model to Ascertain the Behavioural Intention to Use Augmented Reality
Marto, A., Gonçalves, A., Melo, M., Bessa, M., & Silva, R. (2023) · Journal of Imaging · doi:10.3390/jimaging9030073 · Cited by 31
“Despite its significance in some research [36,37,42,44,67], it has been demonstrated not to be significant when predicting BI in several studies [43–45,64,65,68], to the point of even being omitted in some approaches [46].”
BackgroundResultDavis, F. D., & Granić, A. (2024) · Human-computer interaction series · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45274-2_2 · Cited by 53
Factors influencing older adults’ acceptance of voice assistants
Cao, X., Zhang, H., Zhou, B., Wang, D., Cui, C., & Bai, X. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1376207 · Cited by 32
“Although this contradicted the conclusions of TAM, which indicated that self-efficacy was not considered as a predictor of behavioral intention (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), TAM’s samples mainly consisted of young individuals, who generally possessed higher levels of self-efficacy in using technology…”
Understanding the Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Journalism: An Empirical Study in Vietnam
Trang, T. T. N., Thắng, P. C., Hai, L. D., Thi, P., & Quý, T. Q. (2024) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440241255241 · Cited by 40
“Interventions, including training, can be studied to evaluate their effects on adoption and use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Improving Students’ Argumentation Skills Using Dynamic Machine-Learning–Based Modeling
Wambsganß, T., Janson, A., Söllner, M., Koedinger, K. R., & Leimeister, J. M. (2024) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2021.0615 · Cited by 46
“In the postsurvey, we measured perceived usefulness, intention to use, and ease of use, following the technology acceptance model (Venkatesh et al. 2003, Venkatesh and Bala 2008), and captured the demographics.”
MethodSingh, S. K., & Kumar, A. (2024) · Vilakshan – XIMB Journal of Management · doi:10.1108/xjm-03-2024-0046 · Cited by 32
Wohlfart, O., & Wagner, I. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12954-y · Cited by 31
“Modified frameworks like TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) or TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) show the interaction between the core TAM variables (PEOU, PU, ATU) and external factors, such as self-efficacy, university support, and social influences (Scherer & Teo, 2019).”
Factors influencing educators' AI adoption: A grounded meta-analysis review
Taheri, R., Nazemi, N., Pennington, S. E., Clark, J. A., & Dadgostari, F. (2025) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100464 · Cited by 63
Nasir, M. A., Wu, J., Yago, M., & Li, H. (2015) · International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues · Cited by 28
A Composite Framework for Behavioral Compliance with Information Security Policies
Aurigemma, S. (2013) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2013070103 · Cited by 29
Howardson, G. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.057 · Cited by 27
Ramírez-Correa, P., Cataluña, F. J. R., & Arenas-Gaitán, J. (2010) · Journal of technology management & innovation · doi:10.4067/s0718-27242010000300010 · Cited by 29
Online banking information systems acceptance: a structural equation modelling analysis
Chandio, F. H., Abbasi, M. S., Nizamani, H. A., & Nizamani, Q. U. A. (2013) · International Journal of Business Information Systems · doi:10.1504/ijbis.2013.052050 · Cited by 29
“Consistent with previous studies in technology and IS acceptance (e.g., Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Abbasi et al., 2011), a quantitative, cross-sectional approach was adopted to test the proposed hypothetical model as shown in Figure 3.”
BackgroundResultA Cultural Model of Online Banking Adoption
Huang, L. K. (2016) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2017010101 · Cited by 29
“However, the literature argues that the social influence antecedent of perceived usefulness may affect perceived ease of use via a crossover effect (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodTAM-based external factors related to ERP solutions acceptance in organizations
Zabukovšek, S. S., & Bobek, S. (2022) · International journal of information systems and project management · doi:10.12821/ijispm010402 · Cited by 29
“Meanwhile, Venkatesh and Bala [29] exposed four different types of determinants of PU and PEOU: individual differences, system characteristics, social influence, and facilitating conditions.”
BackgroundNota, I., Drossaert, C. H. C., Melissant, H. C., Taal, E., Vonkeman, H. E., HAAGSMA, C. J., & van de Laar, M. A. F. J. (2017) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0433-5 · Cited by 28
“These elements are based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [40, 41].”
BackgroundAlkali, A. U., & Mansor, N. N. A. (2017) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs7030047 · Cited by 35
Are you technologically prepared for mobile shopping?
Prodanova, J., San-Martín, S., & Jiménez, N. H. (2018) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2018.1492561 · Cited by 28
Acceptabilité de la réalité virtuelle : une revue de la littérature
Sagnier, C., Loup‐Escande, É., & Valléry, G. (2019) · Le travail humain · doi:10.3917/th.823.0183 · Cited by 45
How to Measure Teachers' Acceptance of AI-driven Assessment in eLearning
Sánchez‐Prieto, J. C., Cruz-Benito, J., Therón, R., & García‐Peñalvo, F. J. (2019) · Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) · doi:10.1145/3362789.3362918 · Cited by 31
“and is present both in TAM2 [57] and TAM3 [58].”
BackgroundEzcan, V., Goulding, J. S., & Arif, M. (2020) · Building Research & Information · doi:10.1080/09613218.2019.1709786 · Cited by 32
“…focus of considerable attention over the years (Ajzen, 1985; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Bandura, 1986; Davis, 1989; Venkatesh, 2000;Venkatesh & Bala, 2008); observing that new technology diffusion is often a complex process that is affected by several factors, not just with the…”
BackgroundA study of Chinese consumers’ adoption behaviour toward virtual fitting rooms
Ai-lin, L., & Xu, Y. (2020) · International Journal of Fashion Design Technology and Education · doi:10.1080/17543266.2020.1758798 · Cited by 30
“Existing scales were adopted and/or modi fi ed to measure the variables pertaining to VFRs. Based on the study of Venkatesh and Bala (2008), fi ve measurement items for perceived usefulness, three measurement items for perceived ease of use and four measurement items for perceived enjoyment were modi…”
MethodSafsouf, Y., Mansouri, K., & Poirier, F. (2020) · International Conference on Electrical and Information Technologies · doi:10.1109/iceit48248.2020.9113189 · Cited by 29
“Developed in 1986 by Warshaw, Bagozzi and Davis [7], and last updated in 2008 by Venkatesh and Bala [8] named TAM3.”
BackgroundInfluentialTeaching and learning transformation in the time of the Coronavirus crisis
Dick, G. N., Akbulut, A. Y., & Matta, V. (2020) · Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research · doi:10.1080/15228053.2020.1861420 · Cited by 29
Parikh, A., Patel, J. D., & Jaiswal, A. (2021) · DECISION · doi:10.1007/s40622-020-00266-2 · Cited by 33
An exploratory study of the adoption of artificial intelligence in Burgundy's wine industry
Atwal, G., Bryson, D., & Williams, A. (2021) · Strategic Change · doi:10.1002/jsc.2413 · Cited by 29
Liu, Y., Sun, J. C., & Chen, S. (2021) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.1955271 · Cited by 29
Perceived benefits and post-adoption usage of education management information system
Stamenkov, G., & Zhaku-Hani, R. (2021) · Library Hi Tech · doi:10.1108/lht-06-2021-0185 · Cited by 36
Mishra, A., Baker-Eveleth, L. J., Gala, P., & Stachofsky, J. (2021) · Health Marketing Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07359683.2021.1994170 · Cited by 32
“The ubi-quitousness of technology reduces the perceived effort one puts in using technology (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialDeterminants of continuance intention to use mobile self-scanning applications in retail
Ferreira, A., Silva, G. M., & Dias, Á. (2021) · International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management · doi:10.1108/ijqrm-02-2021-0032 · Cited by 29
Mara, M., & Meyer, K. (2021) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77726-5_3 · Cited by 33
Klaic, M., Fong, J., Crocher, V., Davies, K., Brock, K. A., Sutton, E., Oetomo, D., Tan, Y., & Galea, M. P. (2022) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2022.2060356 · Cited by 29
“The technology acceptance model was developed more than 30years ago as a framework to identify factors that determine adoption of technology [16].”
BackgroundMethodDas Technologieakzeptanzmodell
Jockisch, M. (2010) · Gabler eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-8349-8484-5_11 · Cited by 30
Nadeem, M., Lal, M., Cen, J., & Sharsheer, M. (2022) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci12080555 · Cited by 29
Antecedents of students’ e-learning continuance intention during COVID-19: An empirical study
Amin, M. A., Alam, M. R., & Alam, M. Z. (2022) · E-Learning and Digital Media · doi:10.1177/20427530221103915 · Cited by 38
“Studies reported some external factors, contextual factors, or situation variables accompanying the original TAM constructs (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundSackstein, S. L., Matthee, M. C., & Weilbach, L. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11345-5 · Cited by 38
“Subsequently, Venkatesh & Bala (2008) further developed TAM, referred to as TAM 3, by adding individual differences , system characteristics , social influence , and facilitating conditions as determinants, and experience as a moderating variable (Wibowo, 2019; Lai, 2017).”
BackgroundBenchmarking Teamwork of Humans and Cobots—An Overview of Metrics, Strategies, and Tasks
Riedelbauch, D., Höllerich, N., & Henrich, D. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3271602 · Cited by 30
“When using more recent extensions of these models, as proposed by Venkatesh et al. [156], [157], it must be taken into account that interaction with technology can be mandatory rather than voluntary in industrial settings [158], [159].”
Yazıcı, S. Ç., & Nakıboğlu, C. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11985-1 · Cited by 29
“The image refers to the degree to which an individual perceives that the use of innovation will enhance his or her status in his or her social system (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
InfluentialWhy drivers use in-vehicle technology: The role of basic psychological needs and motivation
Stiegemeier, D., Kraus, J., & Baumann, M. R. K. (2023) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2023.11.014 · Cited by 25
Pervasive Intelligent Decision Support System – Technology Acceptance in Intensive Care Units
Portela, F., Aguiar, J., Santos, M. F., et al. (2013) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36981-0_27 · Cited by 29
“For a better perception of the answers made by each respondent, one analysis (average and mode) was carried out by the person questioned and TAM construct (fig 1 to 4).”
MethodInfluentialKnowledge Co-Creation Process Based on Informal Learning Competences Tagging and Recognition
García‐Peñalvo, F. J., Conde, M. Á., Johnson, M. S., et al. (2013) · International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals · doi:10.4018/ijhcitp.2013100102 · Cited by 29
Admiraal, W., Lockhorst, D., Smit, B. H. J., et al. (2013) · International Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v2n4p172 · Cited by 29
“These expansions led to TAM2 and TAM3.”
BackgroundRaleting, T., & Nel, J. (2011) · AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT · doi:10.5897/ajbm10.1018 · Cited by 29
Michel-Verkerke, M. B. (2012) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.07.006 · Cited by 29
“The items in the questionnaire are partially based on the esearch of Garrity and Sanders [18] and TAM3 [19] and are eformulated to fit the case of nurses using a NIS.”
MethodStrategic and bonding effects of enhancing the student feedback process
Robinson, N. M., & Celuch, K. G. (2016) · Journal of Marketing for HIGHER EDUCATION · doi:10.1080/08841241.2016.1146386 · Cited by 29
“Further, perceived ease has been found to be positively related to perceived usefulness (Davis et al., 1989; Liu et al., 2010; Park, 2009; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundClicks intended: An integrated model for nuanced social feedback system uses on Facebook
Shao, C., & Kwon, K. H. (2018) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.12.003 · Cited by 29
López, L., Martínez‐Fernández, S., Gómez, C., et al. (2018) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92901-9_17 · Cited by 28
“We measured usability, ease of use, and relevance using the Likert-scales defined in [7] and [8].”
MethodMondellini, M., Arlati, S., Gapeyeva, H., Lees, K., Märitz, I., Pizzagalli, S. L., Otto, T., Sacco, M., & Teder-Braschinsky, A. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22218249 · Cited by 31
“TAM3 is a questionnaire based on an information systems theory that models how individuals perceive a technology, and, eventually, accept and use it in daily life [48].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBhattacharyya, S. S. (2023) · Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management · doi:10.1108/jstpm-05-2022-0087 · Cited by 28
Islam, S., Islam, M. F., & Zannat, N.-E. (2023) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440231197495 · Cited by 34
“…to the TAM, the linkages exist among all individual and environmental elements, and their usage is influenced by the behavioral intention, which is stated as the intensity of an individual’s desire to conduct any behavior (Davis et al., 1989; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundWibowo, A., Saptono, A., Narmaditya, B. S., Effendi, M. S., Mukhtar, S., Suparno, S., & Shafiai, M. H. M. (2024) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2024.2314253 · Cited by 48
“…that individuals who perceive digital entrepreneurship as easy to use have higher self-efficacy in starting and managing their ventures. for instance, venkatesh and Bala (2008) stated that peOU positively affects an individual’s self-efficacy in digital entrepreneurship. they mentioned that…”
Mukred, M., Mokhtar, U. A., Hawash, B., AlSalman, H., & Zohaib, M. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26315 · Cited by 50
“…’ s intention towards technology use and in the case of LAT, the model is useful to understand the way teachers and students view usefulness and ease of use of LAT and the influence of both on their intentions towards adoption and use of the system within the teaching and learning realm [35].”
BackgroundExamining user behavior with machine learning for effective mobile peer-to-peer payment adoption
Antonio, B.-O., Juan, L.-R., Ana, I.-D., & Francisco, L.-C. (2024) · Financial Innovation · doi:10.1186/s40854-024-00625-3 · Cited by 41
“…from Davis et al. (1989), theory of planned behavior from Ajzen (1991), extended TAM, namely TAM 2 from Venkatesh and Davis (2000) and TAM 3 from Venkatesh and Bala (2008), unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) from Venkatesh et al. (2003), UTAUT2 from Venkatesh et al.…”
BackgroundEmpirically Understanding the Potential Impacts and Process of Social Influence in Human-AI Teams
Flathmann, C., Duan, W., McNeese, N. J., Hauptman, A. I., & Zhang, R. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637326 · Cited by 39
AI in education: The mediating role of perceived trust in adoption decisions of school leaders
Abdelazim, A., Breiki, M. A., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13596-4 · Cited by 38
“In schools, the influence of colleagues, superiors, and the broader educational community can significantly impact the adoption of AI tools (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Uludağ, F., Kılıç, E., & Çelik, H. E. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05641-x · Cited by 41
“At the same time, the obtained result aligns with the theory that the perceived entertainment factor plays a motivational role in the technology adoption processes and affects the perceived ease of use (Compeau and Higgins 1995; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
Responsive Open Learning Environments
Kroop, S., Mikroyannidis, A., & Wolpers, M. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02399-1 · Cited by 30
Der Mensch in der Industrie – Innovative Unterstützung durch Augmented Reality
Jost, J., Kirks, T., Mättig, B., et al. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45279-0_86 · Cited by 28
Sadık, A. (2016) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9556-z · Cited by 28
“According to the technology acceptance model (TAM), which was originally proposed by Davis (1989) and updated by Venkatesh and Bala (2008), when students are presented with a new application or system, their decisions about how and when they will use it are influenced by factors such as perceived…”
MethodA vibrotactile wristband to help older pedestrians make safer street-crossing decisions
Cœugnet, S., Dommès, A., Panëels, S., Chevalier, A., Vienne, F., Dang, N., & Anastassova, M. (2017) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.09.024 · Cited by 28
Going keyless for a seamless experience: Insights from a unified hotel access control system
Lim, W. M., Teh, P., Ahmed, P. K., Cheong, S.-N., Ling, H.-C., & Yap, W.-J. (2018) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.03.014 · Cited by 28
Systematic Review of Commercially Available Mobile Phone Applications for Prostate Cancer Education
Owens, O. L., Beer, J. M., Reyes, L. I., & Thomas, T. L. (2018) · American Journal of Men s Health · doi:10.1177/1557988318816912 · Cited by 28
“Following these, or similar guidelines, could mitigate the many usability limitations discovered in this review, as well as increase the possibility that men will adopt a given app for regular use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundInformation Technology in Nursing Education: Perspectives of Student Nurses
Singh, F., & Masango, T. (2020) · The Open Nursing Journal · doi:10.2174/1874434602014010018 · Cited by 30
Determinants of behavioral intention to use e-textbooks: A study in Iran’s agricultural sector
Faham, E., & Asghari, H. (2019) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2019.104935 · Cited by 27
The Impact of Perceived Security on Intention to use E-Learning Among Students
Farooq, A., Ahmad, F., Khadam, N., Lorenz, B., & Isoaho, J. (2020) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt49669.2020.00115 · Cited by 30
“Among the several adoption and acceptance models in the literature, TAM has been proven to be the most robust and parsimonious model for technology acceptance [15].”
BackgroundThe Hidden Cost of Using Amazon Mechanical Turk for Research
Saravanos, A., Zervoudakis, S., Zheng, D., Stott, N., Hawryluk, B., & Delfino, D. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90238-4_12 · Cited by 29
“The second questionnaire reflected the instrument for the third version of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM3) [42] and was comprised of 74 questions.”
MethodDOMUS: a domestic ontology managed ubiquitous system
Spoladore, D., Mahroo, A., Trombetta, A., et al. (2021) · Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing · doi:10.1007/s12652-021-03138-4 · Cited by 28
Al-Tahitah, A. N., Al-Sharafi, M. A., & Abdulrab, M. (2021) · Studies in systems, decision and control · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-67716-9_21 · Cited by 27
Kang, Y., Nakbum, C., & Kim, S. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18115593 · Cited by 32
“Venkatesh and Bala [46] elaborated on facilitating conditions that are related to individuals’ control beliefs regarding the availability of organizational resources and support structures to facilitate system use.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAdegoke, A. S., Oladokun, T. T., Ayodele, T. O., et al. (2021) · Smart and Sustainable Built Environment · doi:10.1108/sasbe-09-2020-0135 · Cited by 28
Problems of adoption of solar power and subsequent switching behavior: an exploration in India
Roy, S., & Mohapatra, S. (2021) · International Journal of Energy Sector Management · doi:10.1108/ijesm-08-2020-0015 · Cited by 31
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
