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)
plaindirect- 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
hedgedcorrelational- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaincorrelational- 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
plaincorrelational- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgedconditional- 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
plaincorrelational- 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
hedgeddirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgedconditional- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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.
plainconditional- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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.
plaincorrelational- 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
plainconditional- 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
hedgeddirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgeddirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgedconditional- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgedconditional- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgedconditional- 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
hedgeddirect- 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 101–200 of 8,090
Developing a Mobile Applications Customer Experience Model (MACE)- Implications for Retailers
McLean, G., Al‐Nabhani, K., & Wilson, A. M. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.018 · Cited by 340
Zhu, G., So, K. K. F., & Hudson, S. (2017) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-09-2016-0496 · Cited by 298
The acceptance of Tablet-PCs in classroom instruction: The teachers’ perspectives
Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.004 · Cited by 295
Industry 4.0 and the supply chain digitalisation: a blockchain diffusion perspective
Wamba, S. F., & de Queiroz, M. M. (2020) · Production Planning & Control · doi:10.1080/09537287.2020.1810756 · Cited by 334
“…years, various models have emerged (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989; Davis 1989; Warshaw and Davis 1985; Azjen and Fishbein 1980; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu 2012), and since then, they have influenced a vast majority of…”
BackgroundHauk, N., Hüffmeier, J., & Krumm, S. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.020 · Cited by 267
Blut, M., Durham University Business School, U., Chong, A. Y. L., Nottingham University Business School–Ningbo, C., Tsigna, Z., Nottingham University Business School–Ningbo, C., Venkatesh, V., & Pamplin College of Business, V. T. (2022) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00719 · Cited by 228
Self-citationFactors affecting adoption of online banking: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling study
Montazemi, A. R., & Qahri-Saremi, H. (2015) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.11.002 · Cited by 293
“Furthermore, there are empirical evidences that social influence positively influences perceived usefulness [90, 138], perceived ease of use [90, 92], and the trusting beliefs towards a new information technology [84].”
BackgroundChaouali, W., Yahia, I. G. B., & Souiden, N. (2016) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.10.007 · Cited by 277
Cao, D., Meadows, M., Wong, D. L., & Xia, S. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.025 · Cited by 384
“Prior studies have provided valuable insights about explanatory factors for a certain behavioural intention, such as adoption and use of information technology (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Choi, S., Jang, Y., & Kim, H. (2023) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2049145 · Cited by 294
“These TAM-measuring items were adopted from Venkatesh and Bala (2008), which were based on Davis (1989).”
MethodAutry, C. W., Grawe, S. J., Daugherty, P. J., & Richey, R. G. (2010) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.03.001 · Cited by 291
COVID-19 and e-wallet usage intention: A multigroup analysis between Indonesia and Malaysia
Aji, H. M., Berakon, I., & Husin, M. M. (2020) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2020.1804181 · Cited by 290
“Several earlier studies consistently found that perceived usefulness is a strong predictor of intention to use e-money (Aji & Dharmmesta, 2019), and in explaining why consumers accept a technology or application (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008;; Rauniar et al., 2014; Beldad & Hegner, 2017).”
BackgroundExplaining physicians’ acceptance of EHCR systems: An extension of TAM with trust and risk factors
Ortega Egea, J. M., & Román González, M. V. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.010 · Cited by 287
Tarhini, A., HONE, K. S., & Liu, X. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.020 · Cited by 285
Nuryyev, G., Wang, Y., Achyldurdyyeva, J., Jaw, B., Yeh, Y.-S., Lin, H.-T., & Wu, L. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12031256 · Cited by 338
“The following constructs influence technology acceptance: individual di ff erences [55,65–69], new technology characteristics [34,70,71], social influences [55,56,71–74] and organizational characteristics [70].”
BackgroundInfluentialKimiagari, S., & Malafe, N. S. A. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102567 · Cited by 329
Tarhini, A., HONE, K. S., & Liu, X. (2014) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.2190/ec.51.2.b · Cited by 283
“TAM has received extensive empirical support in the IS implementation area (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) including, for example, in e-government (Phang et al., 2006; Walker & Johnson, 2008), e-health (Lanseng & Andreassen, 2007), and e-learning (Arbaugh et al., 2009; Liu, Chen, Sun, Wible, & Kuo, 2010;…”
BackgroundFear from COVID-19 and technology adoption: the impact of Google Meet during Coronavirus pandemic
Al-Maroof, R. S., Salloum, S. A., Hassanien, A. E., & Shaalan, K. F. (2020) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1830121 · Cited by 279
“The relationship between SN and students ’ acceptance of GM is in line with previous studies such as (Song & Kong, 2017; V Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Viswanath Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Wong et al., 2012) where [ “ Country Y ” ] students are seen to be highly a ff ected with the behavior of their…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialKitsios, F., Giatsidis, I., & Kamariotou, M. I. (2021) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.3390/joitmc7030204 · Cited by 344
“Ref [40] stated that job relevance positively influences perceived utility.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFactors Influencing the Acceptance of Self-Service Technologies
Blut, M., Wang, C., & Schoefer, K. (2016) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670516662352 · Cited by 297
Digital-only banking experience: Insights from gen Y and gen Z
Windasari, N. A., Kusumawati, N., Larasati, N. A., & Amelia, R. P. (2022) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2022.100170 · Cited by 275
“The perceived ease of use variable has been discussed in the TAM and its extended theories (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
MethodKar, A. K. (2020) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-020-10045-0 · Cited by 320
Coronado, E., Kiyokawa, T., Ricardez, G. A. G., Ramírez-Alpizar, I. G., Venture, G., & Yamanobe, N. (2022) · Journal of Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.04.007 · Cited by 306
BIM Acceptance Model in Construction Organizations
Lee, S., Yu, J.-H., & Jeong, D. (2013) · Journal of Management in Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000252 · Cited by 290
“Further research on TAM led to the development of TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala 2008) (Fig.”
BackgroundMethodSánchez‐Prieto, J. C., Migueláñéz, S. O., & García‐Peñalvo, F. J. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.061 · Cited by 277
Consumer attitude and behavioural intention towards Internet banking adoption in India
Bashir, I., & Madhavaiah, C. (2015) · Journal of Indian Business Research · doi:10.1108/jibr-02-2014-0013 · Cited by 327
“The first stream of research advocates that influence of attitude on system usage is wiped out by PU and PEOU, which are considered to predict intention to adopt information system (Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundValtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Sormunen, K., Dillon, P., & Sointu, E. (2015) · Comput. Educ. · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.008 · Cited by 280
Güner, H., & Acartürk, C. (2018) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-018-0642-4 · Cited by 291
Personality, attitudes, and intentions: Predicting initial adoption of information security behavior
Shropshire, J., Warkentin, M. E., & Sharma, S. (2015) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.01.002 · Cited by 272
“Similarly, TAM2 and TAM3,which are expansions of Technology AcceptanceModel (TAM) show PU and PEOU both affecting the behavioral intention to use a technology (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundUsing T-O-E theoretical framework to study the adoption of ERP solution
Awa, H. O., Ukoha, O., & Emecheta, B. C. (2016) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2016.1196571 · Cited by 272
“…2001; Yoon & George, 2013; Zheng, Yen, & Tarn, 2011; Zhu, Kraemer, & Xu, 2003) and meets the contemporary scholarly demand (Barrett, Grant, & Wailes, 2006; Jacobsson & Linderoth, 2010; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) for more social interactive systems that address the ordeals of deterministic system.”
BackgroundAttitudes towards user experience (UX) measurement
Law, E. L., van Schaik, P., & Roto, V. (2013) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.006 · Cited by 273
Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., Sánchez-Fernández, J., & Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2014) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.12.006 · Cited by 269
Mital, M., Chang, V. I. C., Choudhary, P. K., Papa, A., & Pani, A. K. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.001 · Cited by 294
Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research?
Hew, K. F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C. K. (2019) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12770 · Cited by 264
Kim, S. J., Wang, R. J.-H., & Malthouse, E. C. (2015) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2015.05.004 · Cited by 285
Faqih, K. M. S. (2016) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.01.016 · Cited by 262
Camilleri, M. A. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123247 · Cited by 261
Srivastava, S. C., & Chandra, S. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/11914 · Cited by 268
Predicting information technology usage in the car
Osswald, S., Wurhofer, D., Trösterer, S., Beck, E., & Tscheligi, M. (2012) · International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI) · doi:10.1145/2390256.2390264 · Cited by 261
“Further work was put into developing and extending the TAM like with the TAM2 [26], the TAM3 [25], or the Uni.ed Theories of Technology Acceptance Model (UTAUT) that uni.es di.erent models of technology acceptance [28].”
MethodTsai, J.-M., Cheng, M.-J., Tsai, H.-H., Hung, S.-W., & Chen, Y.-L. (2019) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.003 · Cited by 257
A model of adoption determinants of ERP within T-O-E framework
Awa, H. O., & Ojiabo, O. U. (2016) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-03-2015-0068 · Cited by 301
“TAM focuses extensively on technology to the neglect of social and psychological parameters and thus, offers limited explanation and prediction to the phenomena of interest (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundObjective and Subjective Effects of a Passive Exoskeleton on Overhead Work
Maurice, P., Čamernik, J., Gorjan, D., Schirrmeister, B., Bornmann, J., Tagliapietra, L., Latella, C., Pucci, D., Fritzsche, L., Ivaldi, S., et al. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2019.2945368 · Cited by 250
“We created an ad-hoc questionnaire based on the TAM3 and UTAUT models (available in the supplementary material), since those models are not limited to usability, and are therefore more exhaustive.”
BackgroundSchroeder, T., Dodds, L., Georgiou, A., Gewald, H., & Siette, J. (2023) · JMIR Aging · doi:10.2196/44564 · Cited by 308
“A gamified web-based activity program Everyday technologies 8574105Home care QIsraelCohenMansfield et al [63] ———✓A digital health platform (ProACT) Remote or assistive care technologies 4074.2120Home care SIreland and Belgium Doyle et al [64] —✓—✓Smart home devices Remote or assistive care technologies 547713Home car…”
MethodInfluentialWhy Would I Use This in My Home? A Model of Domestic Social Robot Acceptance
de Graaf, M. M. A., Allouch, S. B., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2017.1312406 · Cited by 272
“Therefore, the creators of TAM expanded their original model, resulting in the introduction of a second edition of TAM (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and later a third edition (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMcLean, G., Osei-Frimpong, K., Al‐Nabhani, K., & Marriott, H. R. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.032 · Cited by 261
An empirical investigation on the adoption of cryptocurrencies among the people of mainland China
Shahzad, F., Xiu, G., Wang, J., & Shahbaz, M. (2018) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.05.006 · Cited by 264
Wu, Y., Cegielski, C. G., Hazen, B. T., & Hall, D. J. (2013) · Journal of Supply Chain Management · doi:10.1111/j.1745-493x.2012.03287.x · Cited by 265
Kuo, K.-M., Liu, C.-F., & Ma, C.-C. (2013) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-88 · Cited by 258
“Such results are in agreement with previous study [54].”
BackgroundResultMaruping, L. M., Bala, H., Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23699 · Cited by 292
“Intrinsic interest is captured through enjoyment and playfulness (Davis et al., 1992; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationAl-Azawei, A., Parslow, P., & Lundqvist, K. Ø. (2016) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.2741 · Cited by 270
“…unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003), and technology acceptance model 3 (TAM3) (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), TAM has been considered one of the most influential theories in information technology (IT) (Benbasat & Barki, 2007; Lee,…”
BackgroundExamining the role of anxiety and social influence in multi-benefits of mobile payment service
Park, J., Ahn, J., Thavisay, T., & Ren, T. (2018) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.11.015 · Cited by 277
Ketikidis, P. H., Dimitrovski, T., Lazuras, L., & Bath, P. A. (2012) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458211435425 · Cited by 250
A comparison of the different versions of popular technology acceptance models
Cataluña, F. J. R., Arenas-Gaitán, J., & Ramírez-Correa, P. (2015) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/k-09-2014-0184 · Cited by 324
“Like TRA, TAM maintains that the use of Other theories about technology acceptation: • Theory of Planned Behavior (1985) • Model of PC Utilization (1977) • Innovation Diffusion Theory (1995) • Social Cognitive Theory (1986) UTAUT TAM T R A F ishbein and A jzen (1975) TAM2 TAM3 UTAUT2 Venkatesh et al. (2003) Davis (198…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialElectronic health record acceptance by physicians: Testing an integrated theoretical model
Gagnon, M., Ghandour, E. K., Talla, P. K., Simonyan, D., Godin, G., Labrecque, M., Ouimet, M., & Rousseau, M. (2013) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2013.10.010 · Cited by 250
Iqbal, M. S., Hassan, M. U., & Habibah, U. (2018) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2018.1423770 · Cited by 315
“Technology adoption literature posits that actual behavior is generally outlined in terms of frequency or level of technology system usage (Demoulin & Djelassi, 2016; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012).”
BackgroundHess, T. J., McNab, A. L., & Basoglu, K. A. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.1.01 · Cited by 242
Tarhini, A., HONE, K. S., & Liu, X. (2014) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12169 · Cited by 240
“This study employs the TAM (Davis, 1989) due to its acceptable explanatory power and popularity in a number of application areas (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
MethodA conceptual framework to evaluate human-robot collaboration
Gervasi, R., Mastrogiacomo, L., & Franceschini, F. (2020) · The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · doi:10.1007/s00170-020-05363-1 · Cited by 241
Al-Sharafi, M. A., Al‐Emran, M., Iranmanesh, M., Al-Qaysi, N., Iahad, N. A., & Arpacı, İ. (2022) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2075014 · Cited by 276
“The scale used for measuring perceived usefulness (PU1 – PU3) was adapted from (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
MethodBanking “on-the-go”: examining consumers’ adoption of mobile banking services
Zhang, T., Lu, C., & Kizildag, M. (2018) · International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences · doi:10.1108/ijqss-07-2017-0067 · Cited by 239
Camilleri, M. A., & Falzon, L. (2020) · Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC · doi:10.1108/sjme-04-2020-0074 · Cited by 287
Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods
Ishizaka, A., & Siraj, S. (2017) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.05.041 · Cited by 236
“According to the technology acceptance model, the intention of users to adopt new technology has two main extrinsic drivers: perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
MethodEnjoy and learn with educational games: Examining factors affecting learning performance
Giannakos, M. N. (2013) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.005 · Cited by 234
“Watching the use of educational games through the lens of TAM related theories (Davis, 1993; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008); we can clearly see that the practical use of a computer game system is determined by the users’ intentions to use the game (to play), which is determined by the users’ attitude…”
Mindfulness in Information Technology Use: Definitions, Distinctions, and A New Measure1
Thatcher, J. B., Wright, R. T., Sun, H., Zagenczyk, T. J., & Klein, R. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/11881 · Cited by 263
Mishra, A. A., Shukla, A., & Sharma, S. K. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102413 · Cited by 236
Rajan, C. A., & Baral, R. (2015) · IIMB Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.iimb.2015.04.008 · Cited by 234
“…implementation is critical for the Please cite this article in press as: Christy Angeline Rajan, Baral, R., Ad usage of ERP and its impact on end user, IIMB Management Review (2 legitimacy of the implementation process and employee morale following the implementation (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundExplicating the influences that explain intention to use technology among English teachers in China
Teo, T. P., Huang, F., & Hoi, C. K. W. (2017) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2017.1341940 · Cited by 258
“Although the TAM has its origins from Information Sciences research (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), its validity to explain users ’ intentions to use technology in educational settings has been suggested by previous studies.”
BackgroundLanders, R. N., & Armstrong, M. B. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.031 · Cited by 289
Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2015) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2111 · Cited by 254
“Despite repeated calls for examining the impacts of IT implementation (Venkatesh and Bala 2008, Venkatesh et al. 2007), there has been limited research that examines the impacts of IT on job outcomes.”
BackgroundSelf-citationExploring User Adoption of ChatGPT: A Technology Acceptance Model Perspective
Ma, J., Wang, P., Li, B., Wang, T., Pang, X. S., & Wang, D. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2314358 · Cited by 308
“Meanwhile, extensive research has demonstrated the positive impact of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness on behavioral intention, which subsequently influences their actual use behavior (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T. A., & Venkatraman, S. (2013) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12008 · Cited by 244
“…intrinsic motivation and social influences, that impact individual adoption and use of ICTs both in the workplace (e.g. Thong et al ., 2002; 2006; Venkatesh et al ., 2003; 2007; 2010; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Sykes et al ., 2009) and homes (Venkatesh & Brown, 2001; Brown & Venkatesh, 2005).”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationSchlachter, S., McDowall, A., Cropley, M., & Inceoglu, I. (2017) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12165 · Cited by 276
“…attitude regarding the usefulness of voluntary ICT use, which is consequently proposed to predict future use, consistent with existing models highlighting the role of positive attitudes about ICTs in future usage intentions (Davis et al. 1989; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Venkatesh et al. 2003).”
Adapa, S., Fazal‐e‐Hasan, S. M., Balaji, M. S., Azeem, M. M., & Mortimer, G. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101901 · Cited by 256
Why different trust relationships matter for information systems users
Söllner, M., Hoffmann, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2016) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2015.17 · Cited by 223
“Thus, following approaches like TAM (Davis, 1989; Davis et al, 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), Trust-TAM (Gefen et al, 2003b) and UTAUT (Venkatesh et al, 2003), we focus on the user perceptions and their importance in the context of IS use.”
MethodMahroof, K. (2019) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.008 · Cited by 223
“Of the many, it is widely accepted that the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1986), and its subsequent developments (Venkatesh & Davis 2000; Venkatesh & Bala 2008), theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985), diffusion of innovation (DOI) (Rogers, 1995) and TOE (Tornatzky & Fleischer,…”
BackgroundA multi-analytical approach to peer-to-peer mobile payment acceptance prediction
Kalinić, Z., Marinković, V., Molinillo, S., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.016 · Cited by 235
Mobile payments adoption – introducing mindfulness to better understand consumer behavior
Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M., & Lu, Y. (2020) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-01-2020-0039 · Cited by 256
Chang, I., Liu, C., & Chen, K. (2014) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-02-2012-0025 · Cited by 230
“…many previous studies explored IS adoption such as acceptance (i.e. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)) (Koufaris, 2002; Lee, 2009; Lu et al., 2003; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), satisfaction (Au et al., 2008; Castañeda et al., 2007; Choi et al., 2008; Deng et al., 2010) and quality (Ahn et al.,…”
BackgroundAkour, I. A., Alshurideh, M. T., Kurdi, B. H. A., Ali, A. A., & Salloum, S. A. (2021) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/24032 · Cited by 219
“Therefore, hypothesis H3 was in line with the findings of various studies [41,43-45,49].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialPriyadarshinee, P., Raut, R. D., Jha, M. K., & Gardas, B. B. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.027 · Cited by 237
Kemp, A., Palmer, E., & Strelan, P. (2019) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12833 · Cited by 243
Learning Analytics in Higher Education
Lester, J., Klein, C., Rangwala, H., & Johri, A. (2017) · ASHE Higher Education Report · doi:10.1002/aehe.20121 · Cited by 217
Chen, Y.-C. (2019) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633119854036 · Cited by 216
“Playfulness is shaped by users’ experiences with the system (Al-Gahtani, 2016) and is considered to represent an intrinsic belief or motivation to use new systems in learning (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundChuah, S. H., Rauschnabel, P. A., Krey, N., Nguyen, B., Ramayah, T., & Lade, S. (2016) · Rowan Digitals Works (Rowan University) · Cited by 213
Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Zeki, A. M. (2017) · Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2016.09.002 · Cited by 214
“These perception have an exceptional role in increasing the level of satisfaction and future social media use (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Pelling and White, 2009).”
Alsyouf, A., Lutfi, A., Alsubahi, N., Alhazmi, F. N., Al‐Mugheed, K., Anshasi, R. J., Alharbi, N. I., & Albugami, M. A. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20021347 · Cited by 301
Mobile banking use: A comparative study with Brazilian and U.S. participants
Malaquias, R. F., & Hwang, Y. (2018) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.004 · Cited by 214
User acceptance of agile information systems: a model and empirical test
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y. L., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon, G. (2011) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222280108 · Cited by 212
“The IS adoption literature examines the situation where users with limited exposure to a system have to decide whether to adopt it [76, 86, 87, 88].”
BackgroundEnabling internet banking adoption
Marakarkandy, B., Yajnik, N., & Dasgupta, C. (2017) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-10-2015-0094 · Cited by 258
“…not require a lot of mental effort Venkatesh and Bala (2008) Using internet banking increases the quality of my banking services output with minimal efforts Venkatesh and Bala (2008) Internet banking is flexible to interact with Venkatesh and Bala (2008) Attitude (ATT) In general, I have a…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKanwal, F., & Rehman, M. (2017) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2017.2714379 · Cited by 209
Mishra, A. A., Shukla, A., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. (2020) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21436 · Cited by 190
Hassan, L., Dias, A., & Hamari, J. (2018) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.004 · Cited by 236
“…thus increasing possible perceived benefits from a system or service as has always been evident for a long time by the stream of research on systems’ perceived usefulness with regards to utilitarian systems (Daviss et al., 1989; Hsu et al., 2008; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2000).”
BackgroundRole of gender on acceptance of mobile payment
Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., Sánchez-Fernández, J., & Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2014) · Industrial management & data systems · doi:10.1108/imds-03-2013-0137 · Cited by 194
“Social image and subjective norms are the two classic variables used in the TAM model and its later adaptations (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
InfluentialSánchez-Prieto, J. C., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.002 · Cited by 205
“Computers in Human Behavior (2015), http://dx.d to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use have been formulated using Davis’ proposal (1989), and the items for behavioral intention were formulated using the TAM3.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGo, H., Kang, M., & Suh, S. (2020) · Tourism Review · doi:10.1108/tr-02-2019-0062 · Cited by 230
Extracting Business Value from IT: A Sensemaking Perspective of Post-Adoptive Use
Hsieh, J. J. P.-A., Rai, A., & Xu, S. X. (2011) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1398 · Cited by 210
“First, we are motivated by the call for research to develop theoretical perspectives to detail the pre-conditions of post-adoptive behavior (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundMethodLiébana-Cabanillas, F. J., Muñoz‐Leiva, F., & Sánchez‐Fernández, J. (2017) · Service Business · doi:10.1007/s11628-017-0336-7 · Cited by 209
“This second element reinforces the TAM proposals of the TAM (Mun˜oz-Leiva et al. 2012; Hung et al. 2011; Venkatesh and Bala 2008), but it is quantitatively different from the external influences values.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialConsumer acceptance of smart speakers: a mixed methods approach
Kowalczuk, P. (2018) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/jrim-01-2018-0022 · Cited by 203
Huang, G., & Ren, Y. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.013 · Cited by 229
Investigating a theoretical framework for e-learning technology acceptance
Kurdi, B. H. A., Alshurideh, M. T., & Salloum, S. A. (2020) · International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems/International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering · doi:10.11591/ijece.v10i6.pp6484-6496 · Cited by 202
“The research model of this study was based on the technology acceptance model (TAM)”[44, 45], which is the well-known model to justify “the technology acceptance behavior” among users and this milestone can be achieved by implementing this model [46].”
Method
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
