The DOI matches its Crossref record; 135 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 55 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Open accessAbstract
ABSTRACT Prior research has provided valuable insights into how and why employees make a decision about the adoption and use of information technologies (ITs) in the workplace. From an organizational point of view, however, the more important issue is how managers make informed decisions about interventions that can lead to greater acceptance and effective utilization of IT. There is limited research in the IT implementation literature that deals with the role of interventions to aid such managerial decision making. Particularly, there is a need to understand how various interventions can influence the known determinants of IT adoption and use. To address this gap in the literature, we draw from the vast body of research on the technology acceptance model (TAM), particularly the work on the determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and: (i) develop a comprehensive nomological network (integrated model) of the determinants of individual level (IT) adoption and use; (ii) empirically test the proposed integrated model; and (iii) present a research agenda focused on potential pre‐ and postimplementation interventions that can enhance employees' adoption and use of IT. Our findings and research agenda have important implications for managerial decision making on IT implementation in organizations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
51 Own result · 35 Own interpretation · 21 No full text of the sources · 13 Sources not found · 7 Own method · 5 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Venkatesh and Speier (1999) investigated the effect of mood during training on user acceptance and found that mood during training played an important role in forming individuals' perceptions of a new IT.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Venkatesh & Speier, 1999 source
The Short-Term Mood Effects section links mood during computer training to perceptions of enjoyment in using the technology. The Discussion reports that negative mood during training reduced intrinsic motivation and intentions to use it, supporting the citing sentence’s broad characterization of the finding. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that experience moderated the effect of computer anxiety on perceived ease of use such that the effect became weaker with increasing experience (CANX × EXP).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“experience moderated the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness such that with increasing experience the effect became stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, TAM3 was able to explain between 52% and 67% of the variance in perceived usefulness across different time periods and models (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that job relevance and output quality had an interactive effect on perceived usefulness such that with increasing output quality, the effect of job relevance on perceived usefulness was stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that experience, in fact, moderated the effect of perceived ease of use (PEOU × EXP) on behavioral intention such that with increasing experience the effect became weaker.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was higher than the correlations across constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As Table 4 shows, internal consistency reliabilities (ICRs) were greater than .70 for all constructs at all points of measurement.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 3 shows that the item loadings were greater than or at least equal to .70 for all constructs at all time periods.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Further, incentive alignment, and an important extrinsic reward, may reduce anxiety and increase perceived enjoyment as extrinsic rewards are considered important drivers of intrinsic motivations (Vallerand, 1997;Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;Ryan & Deci, 2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vallerand, 1997 source
- Partly supportedcites Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that verbal rewards (positive feedback) enhanced self-reported interest, which offers limited support for the possibility that an extrinsic reward could increase enjoyment. But the paper does not assess incentive alignment or anxiety, and its Concluding Comments (pp. 658–659) say tangible rewards generally diminish rather than promote intrinsic motivation. The cited source therefore does not support the proposed effect of incentive alignment. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan & Deci, 2000 source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that perceived ease of use, subjective norm, image, and result demonstrability were significant predictors of perceived usefulness at all time periods (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While perceived ease of use was significant at T1 and T2, it was not significant at T3, suggesting a moderating effect of experience in the relationship between perceived ease of use and behavioral intention.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the adjustments-that is, perceived enjoyment and objective usability-were not significant at T1, but they were significant at both T2 and T3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“OU × EXP | | | | .20 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Objective Usability (OU) | .04 | .19 * * | .23 * * * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CANX × EXP | | | | .21 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjective Norm (SN) | .40 * * * | .32 * * * | .13 * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Enjoyment (ENJ) | .02 | .22 * * * | .24 * * * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Result Demonstrability (RES) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .28 * * * | .26 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CPLAY × EXP | | | | -.22 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .33 * * * | .08”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ENJ × EXP | | | | .18 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | .24 * * * | .17 * | .05 | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although longitudinal studies were conducted, the specific moderating role by experience was not tested in Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, in the context of enterprise systems, if an individual perceives that his or her use of the system does not benefit the members of his or her work units but rather benefits members from other work units, the user will perceive a lack of incentive alignment that may lead to low user acceptance and use of the system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we conducted Harmon's single factor test and marker variable test (we used job satisfaction as a marker variable) and did not find any significant common method bias.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used validated items from prior research to test TAM3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our research design allowed us to collect the use data separate from its determinants (e.g., behavioral intention, perceived usefulness, etc.).Particularly, there was at least a 1-month gap between the collection of survey data and the measurement of use.”
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
“Such a design approach helped us overcome the problems associated with common method biases.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
In the paper
“Operationalization of the determinants of perceived ease of use (i.e., computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, computer playfulness, computer anxiety, objective usability, and perceived enjoyment) was consistent with Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh (2000)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It posits that individuals' behavioral intention to use an IT is determined by two beliefs: perceived usefulness, defined as the extent to which a person believes that using an IT will enhance his or her job performance and perceived ease of use, defined as the degree to which a person believes that using an IT will be free of effort.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Ba et al. (2001) argued that while aspects of software engineering (e.g., system characteristics) and technology acceptance (e.g., perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, user satisfaction) are important considerations for system development processes, organizations may fail to gain expected benefits from employees' effective utilization of a system unless employees find that the system fe”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All constructs at each time period exhibited strong psychometric properties and satisfied the criteria of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Ba et al. (2001), incentive alignment does not necessarily mean organizational rewards for using a system.It is a broad concept that entails an individual's perception that the IT fits with his or her job requirements and value system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) noted that PLS has minimal restrictions in terms of distributional assumptions and sample size.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean-centering helps limit potential multicollinearity, evidenced by the low variation inflation factors (VIFs) for all constructs in our model.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived usefulness is an instrumental belief that is conceptually similar to extrinsic motivation and is a cognition (as opposed to emotion) regarding the benefits of using a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Crossover Effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It further theorizes that the effect of external variables (e.g., design characteristics) on behavioral intention will be mediated by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davis et al., 1989 source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.Further, the types of ITs were different across the sites.Such variability in organizational settings and types of technologies adds to the potential generalization of our findings.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > METHOD
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“TAM constructs-that is, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), and behavioral intention (BI)-were operationalized using items adapted from Davis (1989) and Davis et al. (1989).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incentive alignment has been suggested as the third dimension in systems design (Ba, Stallaert, & Whinston, 2001).The other two dimensions are software engineering and technology acceptance (Ba et al., 2001).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the modification and enhancement activities performed by peers will increase job relevance of a system, improve the output quality of a system, and reduce anxiety related to system use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Peer support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implementation of interventions is, of course, not a silver bullet for greater IT adoption and effective utilization.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“He also found that the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention to use a system was stronger for individuals who received game-based training.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we can develop a rich understanding of the determinants of IT adoption and use and interventions that can favorably influence these determinants, managers can proactively decide on implementing the right interventions to minimize resistance to new ITs and maximize effective utilization of ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
- Rests on an assumption: Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
In the paper
“Training has been suggested as one of the most important postimplementation interventions that leads to greater user acceptance and system success (see Sharma & Yetton, 2007).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharma & Yetton, 2007 source
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizational support captures the role of both internal and external experts who can help users deal with the complexity associated with new systems as well as business processes.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Implementation of interventions can increase system development costs substantially.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 emphasizes the unique role and processes related to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use and theorizes that the determinants of perceived usefulness will not influence perceived ease of use and vice versa.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Prior research has suggested that employees' perceptions regarding organizational support-that is, facilitating conditions or perceptions of external control (Taylor & Todd, 1995;Venkatesh, 2000;Venkatesh et al., 2003)-will lead to greater user acceptance of new systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
What the sources say
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our key argument in this article is that unless organizations can develop effective interventions to enhance IT adoption and use, there is no practical utility of our rich understanding of IT adoption.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that interventions discussed in this article can help organizations generate favorable individuals' reactions toward business process changes and process standards implementation.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“For example, while self-efficacy may have weak influence on perceived usefulness as shown in Agarwal and Karahanna (2000), we argue that this influence will become nonsignificant in the presence of other important social and cognitive constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Agarwal and Karahanna (2000) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 posits that perceptions of external control are important and stable determinants of perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizational support is a key source of perceptions of external control.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, experts can help employees modify certain aspects of a new system, thus increasing job relevance, output quality, and results demonstrability of a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the complexity of ITs, it is increasingly difficult for employees to make effective decisions about adoption, utilization, and coping with new ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Some employees may react favorably to these changes, while the others may perceive these changes as a threat to their well-being (Orlikowski, 2000;Boudreau & Robey, 2005).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Postimplementation Interventions
What the sources say
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 posits that with increasing experience, while the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention will diminish, the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness will increase.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that the role of training will be even more important in the context of complex systems (e.g., enterprise systems) that are more central to employees' work life.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As these systems are more likely to invoke negative reactions from employees because of their disruptive nature, effective training interventions can mitigate these negative reactions and help employees form favorable perceptions toward these systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
“Out of 50 potential users of the system who participated in the training, 39 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system who attended the training, 43 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system, 36 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
“Data were collected from four different organizations-sites A through D-implementing new ITs.”
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Management support in individual-level IT adoption literature has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance.
“While management support has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance, particularly in the individual-level IT adoption literature, we suggest that there is a need to develop a richer conceptualization of management support to enhance our understanding of its role in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.
“There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
“However, much of the prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.
“While peer support is potentially an important intervention that can lead to greater user acceptance, there is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
“However, there is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.
“There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In many cases, users stopped using an enterprise system because they saw no benefits of using the new system.
“In many cases, the users stopped using an enterprise system, as they saw no benefits of using the new system.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts, are prevalent.
“Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts are also prevalent.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
“ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
“Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“the extensive focus of TAM on technology to the neglect of social and psychological parameters (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998;Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) limits its explanatory and predictive utilities, and therefore demands its integration with other frameworks”
From Using T-O-E theoretical framework to study the adoption of ERP solution (2016) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A technology that provides information quickly and easily will lead to improvements in job performance, which in turn will encourage greater use of a given technology (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The adoption of new technologies is shaped by user perceptions and usage patterns (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) as well as student characteristics and experiences (Abdaljaleel et al., 2023; Tiwari et al., 2024).”
From “ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that perceived enjoyment is positively related to perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The scales applied have been verified in preceding studies [12, 28].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, it is proposed that perception of external control is an element that conditions perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that result demonstrability is an antecedent of perceived usefulness [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“which explains that users’ decisions to accept and use a technology are influenced by perceived usefulness, ease of use, and social influence of others.”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Some of the themes identified in this review overlap with previous models conceptualizing engagement with digital health interventions, as well as general technology acceptance and health behavior, such as the Efficiency Model of Support [251], Technology Acceptance Model [253], and Health Belief Model [249].”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our findings are in line with the Technology Acceptance Model”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Information-related characteristics of a system can impact its PU as they can improve productivity and performance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Firstly, considering usability , a reliable, flexible and user-friendly system is more likely to create a positive user experience (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A typical criticism of the TAM is in relation to its lack of practical managerial guidance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) present four generic antecedents to the TAM: i ndividual differences , system characteristics , social influence , and facilitating conditions .”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala (2008)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The model explains approximately 40% of the variance in individuals’ intention to use a new technology and actual use [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It theorizes that individuals’ intention to use new technology is determined by perceived usefulness, defined as “the extent to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will enhance his or her job performance,” and perceived ease of use, defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will be free of effort” [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“TAM's assertion that perceived usefulness is a primary determinant of technology acceptance and subsequent usage behaviors (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
From The impact of AI-assisted pair programming on student motivation, programming anxiety, collaborative learning, and programming performance: a comparative study with traditional pair programming and individual approaches (2025) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
“Specifically the measurements of use and its determinants were separated by 1 month (T1-T2), 3 months (T2-T3) and 2 months (T3-T4).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Procedure
“after initial training (T1), 1 month after implementation (T2), and 3 months after implementation (T3).We also measured self-reported usage at T2, T3, and 5 months after implementation (T4).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“a All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (where 1: strongly disagree; 2: moderately disagree, 3: somewhat disagree, 4: neutral (neither disagree nor agree), 5: somewhat agree, 6: moderately agree, and 7: strongly agree), except computer self-efficacy, which was measured using a 10-point Guttman scale.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“Use (USE) USE1 On average, how much time do you spend on the system each day?”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
“| SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03 |”
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Self-citation(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3352 · Cited by 36,647
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709
Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions
Aiken, L., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1037/10520-147 · Cited by 24,912
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Self-citationIntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Beach L. R., 1996, Decision making in the workplace: A unified perspective, 1
- Cohen D. S., 2005, Why change is an affair of the heart, CIO Magazine
- Gross G., 2005, Standards a must for adoption for health‐care IT, CIO Magazine
- Koch C., 2004, Nike rebounds: How (and why) Nike recovered from its supply chain disaster, CIO Magazine
- Mennecke B. E., 1998, Discovering and overcoming the hidden profile bias in group decision making: The influence of group history and use of a group support system, Journal of MIS, 15, 173
- Overby S., 2002, How to win friends and influence users, CIO Magazine
- Saga V. L., 1994, Diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology, 67
- Vallacher R. R., 1996, The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior, 260
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,901–2,000 of 8,090
Hampel, N., Sassenberg, K., Scholl, A., & Reichenbach, M. (2021) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2021.1967448 · Cited by 32
Alkhawaja, M. I., Halim, M. S. A., & Afthanorhan, A. (2021) · European Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.12973/eu-jer.10.4.1639 · Cited by 32
“According to Venkatesh and Bala (2008), the effect of technology anxiety on an individual's behaviour is assumed to decrease with more technology experience.”
BackgroundMazzù, M. F., Romani, S., Baccelloni, A., & Lavini, L. (2021) · International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/09637486.2021.1980866 · Cited by 27
“TAM 3 (Venkatesh and Bala 2008), has added pre- and post- interventions, while UTAUT 2 (Venkatesh et al. 2012), incorporates three additional constructs versus UTAUT 1 – hedonic motivation, price value and habits – improving the variance explained in BI (Chang et al. 2012).”
BackgroundJedwab, R. M., Manias, E., Hutchinson, A. M., Dobroff, N. K., & Redley, B. (2021) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104654 · Cited by 26
Pan, J., Dong, H., & Bryan–Kinns, N. (2021) · JMIR Aging · doi:10.2196/30420 · Cited by 27
“Published studies on mHealth adoption [16-20] are mostly based on the technology acceptance model (TAM) [21] and its extended variations (ie, TAM2, TAM3, United Theory of Acceptance and Usage of Technology [UTAUT], and UTAUT2).”
BackgroundVaithilingam, S., Nair, M. S., Macharia, M., & Venkatesh, V. (2022) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102440 · Cited by 27
Self-citationCReBot: Exploring interactive question prompts for critical paper reading
Peng, Z., Liu, Y., Zhou, H., Xu, Z., & Ma, X. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102898 · Cited by 27
Guetz, B., & Bidmon, S. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/37505 · Cited by 31
“Further developments of the original TAM were published as TAM 2 [22] and TAM 3 [23].”
Chen, K., LOU, V. W. Q., & Cheng, C. Y. M. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107610 · Cited by 29
Impact of technology self-efficacy on online learning effectiveness during the COVID-19 pandemic
Rahman, M. K., Bhuiyan, M. A., Hossain, M. M., & Sifa, R. (2023) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/k-07-2022-1049 · Cited by 39
Analyzing crowdfunding adoption from a technology acceptance perspective
Okine, A. N. D., Li, Y., Djimesah, I. E., et al. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122582 · Cited by 26
Integrating Social Media into Business Practice, Applications, Management, and Models
Scupola, A., & Westh Nicolajsen, H. (2014) · Advances in e-business research series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6182-0 · Cited by 26
Hendrikx, H. C. A. A., Pippel, S., van de Wetering, R., & Batenburg, R. S. (2013) · International Journal of Healthcare Management · doi:10.1179/2047971913y.0000000050 · Cited by 27
“The behavioral intention in turn effects a person’s actual usage behavior.(19,20) Furthermore, it assumes that when a service is perceived as being easy to use, the perceived usefulness also increases.”
BackgroundBuilding IT capabilities: learning by doing
Carte, T. A., Dharmasiri, A. S., & Perera, T. (2011) · Information Technology for Development · doi:10.1080/02681102.2011.604083 · Cited by 29
“Previous studies suggest that management support, the degree to which an individual believes that the management has committed to the successful implementation and use of a system, can impact an individual’s perceived usefulness of a system (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundResearch on Wearable, Immersive Augmented Reality (WIAR) Adoption in Maritime Navigation
Grabowski, M. (2015) · Journal of Navigation · doi:10.1017/s0373463314000873 · Cited by 26
“New constructs such as user trust have been introduced in the technology acceptance literature, and recent work has synthesized previous work into a unified theoretical model of technology acceptance and use (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundLafifa (2012) · American Journal of Applied Sciences · doi:10.3844/ajassp.2012.496.504 · Cited by 26
“The hypothesis of the model was investigated base on future research of Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAbdullah, N. S., Indulska, M., & Sadiq, S. W. (2016) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-016-9631-4 · Cited by 26
“Three statements were used to measure the Perceived Usefulness (PU) TAM construct, as shown in Table 12.”
MethodInfluentialTechnology Acceptance Perspectives on User Satisfaction and Trust of E-Government Adoption
Sharma, G., Shakya, S., & Kharel, P. (2014) · Journal of Applied Sciences · doi:10.3923/jas.2014.860.872 · Cited by 26
Taillandier, F., Mora, L., & Breysse, D. (2016) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.09.019 · Cited by 26
Evaluation of a patient decision aid for initiating disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs
Nota, I., Drossaert, C. H. C., Taal, E., Vonkeman, H. E., HAAGSMA, C. J., & van de Laar, M. A. F. J. (2016) · Arthritis Research & Therapy · doi:10.1186/s13075-016-1138-3 · Cited by 26
“The latter four constructs are based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [32, 33].”
BackgroundMahfuz, M. A., Khanam, L., & Hu, W. (2016) · Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) · doi:10.1109/picmet.2016.7806814 · Cited by 27
The role of customers and vendors in modern construction equipment technology diffusion
Sepasgozar, S. M. E., & Loosemore, M. (2017) · Engineering Construction & Architectural Management · doi:10.1108/ecam-06-2016-0149 · Cited by 26
Dynamic model of online information quality perceptions and impacts: a literature review
Ghasemaghaei, M., & Hassanein, K. (2018) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2018.1531928 · Cited by 26
“Social characteristic refers to the di ff erent social processes that help users to make perceptions of di ff erent aspects of IS (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundWang, M., Sha, Z., Huang, Y. M., Contractor, N., Fu, Y., & Chen, W. (2018) · Design Science · doi:10.1017/dsj.2018.4 · Cited by 26
“…Using with Behavioral Intention (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw 1989), by adding extra variables as antecedents to Perceived Usefulness variable, referred as TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis 2000), and by identifying the antecedents to Perceived Ease of Use variable, referred as TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala 2008).”
MethodThe Determinants of Smart Government Systems Adoption by Public Sector Organizations in Saudi Arabia
Alajmi, M. N., Mohammadian, M., & Talukder, M. (2022) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20394 · Cited by 43
“This is followed by the theory of planned behavior (TPB) [59], technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), TAM 2 [61]; TAM 3 [62], and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) [63].”
BackgroundRahman, M. H., Ahmad, A., & Sawal, M. Z. H. M. (2024) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669241257196 · Cited by 25
“By recognizing the importance of attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioural control, stakeholders can design targeted interventions aimed at fostering a culture of innovation and overcoming resistance to change (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
InfluentialNavigating the adoption landscape of blockchain in food delivery: a UTAUT perspective
Shukla, V., Kumar, J., Rana, S., & Prashar, S. (2024) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-08-2023-0681 · Cited by 27
Wu, D., Zhang, X., Wang, K., Wu, L., & Yang, W. (2024) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-024-10419-0 · Cited by 28
“Questions 1–4 in the study aimed to gather participant opinions on digital skills (DS; Costa et al., 2021), perceived usefulness of AI (PU; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), perceived ease of use AI (PEOU; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), and ICT self-efficacy (ICTS; Kuo et al., 2014).”
Kelm, K., & Johann, M. (2024) · Corporate Communications An International Journal · doi:10.1108/ccij-04-2024-0051 · Cited by 26
Zhang, Y., & Dong, C. (2024) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs14111015 · Cited by 41
Bataineh, A. Q., Qasim, D., & Alhur, M. (2024) · Banks and Bank Systems · doi:10.21511/bbs.19(4).2024.13 · Cited by 25
Technology Acceptance Model in Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Meta-Analysis
Xue, L., Mahat, J., & Ghazali, N. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251409441 · Cited by 61
“To investigate the factors influencing technology acceptance, researchers have employed multiple theoretical frameworks, including the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis, 1985), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al.,…”
Kügler, M., Smolnik, S., & Raeth, P. (2012) · International Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 25
User Intention towards a Music Streaming Service: A Thailand Case Study
Pal, D., & Triyason, T. (2018) · KnE Social Sciences · doi:10.18502/kss.v3i1.1393 · Cited by 25
“in [12] proposed the TAM (version 3) in which the intrinsic motivations like Computer Playfulness and Perceived Enjoyment are introduced.”
BackgroundUnderstanding the antecedents of car sharing usage: an empirical study in Italy
Mugion, R. G., Toni, M., Pietro, L. D., Pasca, M. G., & Renzi, M. F. (2019) · International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences · doi:10.1108/ijqss-02-2019-0029 · Cited by 27
ìSPEAK: Using Mobile-Based Online Learning Course to Learn ‘English for the Workplace’
Rafiq, K. R. M., Hashim, H. B., Yunus, M. M., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v14i08.13185 · Cited by 25
“The technology acceptance model or TAM was developed to predict and identify an individual’s perceptions towards using a technology [47].”
MethodGkika, E. C., Anagnostopoulos, T., Ntanos, S., & Kyriakopoulos, G. L. (2020) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.3390/joitmc6020041 · Cited by 25
“They searched additional determinants to PEOU and PU in an extended version of TAM (TAM 3) [62].”
BackgroundStudents’ Satisfaction Using E-Learning as a Supplementary Tool
Thoo, A. C., Hang, S. P., Lee, Y. L., & Tan, L. C. (2021) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v16i15.23925 · Cited by 24
“System operation in terms of ease of use is the degree to which a person believes that using a new technology or a system is free of effort [48].”
BackgroundFrom offline shopping to online shopping in Nigeria: evidence from African emerging economy
Oloveze, A. O., Ogbonna, C., Ahaiwe, E. O., & Ugwu, P. A. (2021) · IIM Ranchi Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1108/irjms-08-2021-0110 · Cited by 26
Storer, H. L., Nyerges, E. X., & Hamby, S. L. (2022) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106573 · Cited by 25
Readiness, acceptance and use of digital patient reported outcome in an outpatient clinic
Nielsen, A. S., Hanna, L., Larsen, B. F., Appel, C., Osborne, R. H., & Kayser, L. (2022) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/14604582221106000 · Cited by 25
Li, H., & Kostka, G. (2022) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.316 · Cited by 25
Labrado-Antolín, M., Rodríguez‐Ruiz, Ó., & Menéndez, J. F. (2022) · International Journal of Manpower · doi:10.1108/ijm-05-2022-0238 · Cited by 25
Electronic trust-building for hotel websites: a social exchange theory perspective
Vosta, L. N., & Jalilvand, M. R. (2022) · Journal of Islamic marketing · doi:10.1108/jima-05-2022-0119 · Cited by 25
Alshahrani, S. M., Mohamed, H. B., Mukhtar, M. B., & Mokhtar, U. A. (2022) · International Journal of Information Management Data Insights · doi:10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100148 · Cited by 30
Fostering the Adoption and Use of Super App Technology
Salehi, S., Miremadi, I., Nejati, M. G., & Ghafouri, H. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2023.3235718 · Cited by 28
A Cognitive Model for Technology Adoption
Sobhanmanesh, F., Beheshti, A., Nouri, N., et al. (2023) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a16030155 · Cited by 25
Mirón, M., Whetham, D., Auzanneau, M., & Hill, A. (2022) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102246 · Cited by 28
The role of attitudinal features on shared autonomous vehicles
Yu, J., Li, W., Song, Z., Wang, S., Ma, J., & Wang, B. (2023) · Research in Transportation Business & Management · doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2023.101032 · Cited by 28
Qian, T. Y., Yu, B., Matz, R., Luo, L., & Xu, C. (2023) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2023.102062 · Cited by 29
Metaverse adoption: a systematic literature review and roadmap for future research
Dhingra, S., & Abhishek, A. (2024) · Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication · doi:10.1108/gkmc-08-2023-0287 · Cited by 36
More applicable environmental scanning systems leveraging “modern” information systems
Mayer, J. H., Steinecke, N., Quick, R., & Weitzel, T. (2012) · Information Systems and e-Business Management · doi:10.1007/s10257-012-0207-7 · Cited by 29
“We base this evaluation on the history of the IS success model (DeLone and McLean 1992) and TAM (Davis 1989), their refinement over time, and the fact that alternative versions such as TAM 2 and 3 (Venkatesh and Bala 2008) lead to a multifacted body of knowledge.”
Methodde, A. M. M., & Nistor, N. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.026 · Cited by 25
A conceptual framework for the quality evaluation of sustainability reports
Freundlieb, M., Gräuler, M., & Teuteberg, F. (2013) · Management Research Review · doi:10.1108/mrr-04-2012-0087 · Cited by 25
“Some researchers have already made similar suggestions and started to distinguish between perceived and objective acceptance criteria (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDeterminants of User Behavior Intention (BI) on Mobile Services: A Preliminary View
Kamarudin, S. K., Sahari, N., Sulaiman, R., Yusoff, M. S. M., & Ikram, M. M. (2013) · Procedia Technology · doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.171 · Cited by 25
The effects of visualization and interaction techniques on feature model configuration
Asadi, M., Soltani, S., Gašević, D., & Hatala, M. (2015) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-014-9353-5 · Cited by 24
“Pablo Trinidad et al. (Trinidad et al. 2008) proposed a visualization approach, which visualizes large feature models by using cone trees − a three-dimensional visualization technique to represent hierarchical information.”
BackgroundProduct Recommendations over Facebook: The Roles of Influencing Factors to Induce Online Shopping
Kumar, S. S., Ramachandran, T., & Panboli, S. (2014) · Asian Social Science · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n2p202 · Cited by 27
Shah, S. G. S., Barnett, J. C., Kuljis, J., Kate, & Richard, R. (2012) · Patient Preference and Adherence · doi:10.2147/ppa.s38328 · Cited by 25
“17 The reason for this is unclear.”
InfluentialAcceptance of E-Learning among Undergraduates of Computing Degrees in Sri Lanka
Vidanagama, D. U. (2016) · International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science · doi:10.5815/ijmecs.2016.04.04 · Cited by 25
Sánchez‐Prieto, J. C., Migueláñéz, S. O., & García‐Peñalvo, F. J. (2015) · International Symposium on Computers in Education · doi:10.1109/siie.2015.7451660 · Cited by 25
“For the behavioral intention of use, we have adapted those proposed by Venkatesh and Vala [35]: • Behavioral intention of use (BI): I intend to use mobile technologies in my future teaching practice (BI_01); I predict that I will use mobile technologies in my future teaching practice (BI_02).”
MethodGopinathan, S., Ötting, S. K., & Steil, J. J. (2017) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2017.00058 · Cited by 25
“The perceived control is the degree to which a user believes that he or she has control over using the system (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundDahm, M. C., & Dregger, A. (2018) · FOM-Edition · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-23397-6_14 · Cited by 25
The applicability of technology acceptance models in the Arab business setting
Dajani, D., & Yaseen, S. G. (2016) · Journal of Business & Retail Management Research · Cited by 25
Determinants of Cloud Computing Adoption: A Comparative Study
Tripathi, S. (2019) · Pacific Asia journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1pais.11303 · Cited by 26
“This result is in good agreement with the findings of Venkatesh & Davis (2000) and Venkatesh & Bala (2008) that the influence of perceived ease of use on an intention to use become weakened over time once the user gets accustomed with the technology.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialBeck, A. C. C., Retèl, V. P., Bhairosing, P. A., et al. (2019) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.10.002 · Cited by 25
Analysing the Engagement and Attitude of Elderly Towards Digital Platforms in India
Ghosh, M. (2019) · Journal of Creative Communications · doi:10.1177/0973258619872085 · Cited by 25
“…find it easy to go to the Internet and look for what I want to do 0.759 Anxiety (AN) I spend so much time on the Internet to get a small thing done Venkatesh and Bala (2008) 0.88 0.881 I get nervous while using Internet 0.814 The Internet platforms are complicated and confusing 0.82 The…”
BackgroundInfluentialTheocharidis, A.-I. T., Argyropoulou, M., Karavasilis, G. I., Vrana, V. G., & Kehris, E. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12218973 · Cited by 24
“Attitude was also not included in TAM 3, proposed in the context of e-commerce and presented as a complete nomological network of the determinants of users’ Information Technology System adoption [36].”
BackgroundWhat does it mean for a system to be useful?
MacDonald, C. M., & Atwood, M. E. (2014) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/2598510.2598600 · Cited by 27
“The latest version (TAM3) has slightly revised the definition to “an instrumental belief...regarding the bene fi ts of using a system” but the concept is still measured by questions about whether the system “improves performance” or “enhances [users’] effectiveness” in their job [45].”
BackgroundKéfi, H. (2010) · Humanisme et Entreprise · doi:10.3917/hume.297.0045 · Cited by 25
Chang, S. J., Lee, K.-E., Yang, E., & Ryu, H. (2022) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-022-03545-y · Cited by 25
“Motivation: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived enjoyment of internet information technology In 2013, the technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM 3) was revised to a Korean version [29, 30].”
BackgroundGelaidan, H. M., Al‐Swidi, A. K., & Hafeez, M. H. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151411266 · Cited by 32
Factors Influencing the Adoption of E-Government Services: A Study among University Students
Méndez-Rivera, C. A., Patiño-Toro, O. N., Valencia-Arías, A., & Arango-Botero, D. M. (2023) · Economies · doi:10.3390/economies11090225 · Cited by 25
Luo, C., Yuan, R., Mao, B., Liu, Q., Wang, W., & He, Y. (2023) · Journal of Applied Gerontology · doi:10.1177/07334648231202669 · Cited by 29
“Technology acceptance model 3 (TAM3) builds upon the TAM and UTAUT, emphasizing perceived risk and cost (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundFirst impressions of a financial AI assistant: differences between high trust and low trust users
Schreibelmayr, S., Moradbakhti, L., & Mara, M. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1241290 · Cited by 33
“Additionally, usefulness, as one of the two key components in the Technology Acceptance Model (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), proves to be a determining factor in influencing the intention to use the AI banking assistant, as evidenced by the difference between the two user groups.”
BackgroundMethodLemke, C., Kirchner, K., Anandarajah, L., & Herfurth, F. (2023) · European Conference on e-Learning · doi:10.34190/ecel.22.1.1828 · Cited by 39
“While PEOU tends to reflect experience and voluntariness, PU tends to show up in factors such as subjective norms, job relevance, or output quality (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundWang, X. E., Chou, M., Lai, X., Tang, J., Chen, J., Kong, W. K., Chi, H.-L., & Yam, M. C. H. (2023) · Journal of Civil Engineering Education · doi:10.1061/jceecd.eieng-1995 · Cited by 24
Langer, G., Schulze, H., & Kühl, S. (2024) · Smart Agricultural Technology · doi:10.1016/j.atech.2024.100404 · Cited by 25
Lu, C.-H. (2024) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2024.101374 · Cited by 30
Yang, J. T., & Lou, K. (2024) · Asia Pacific Journal of Education · doi:10.1080/02188791.2024.2336247 · Cited by 35
“While Attitude Toward Using was part of the initial versions of TAM, Venkatesh and Davis (2000) and Venkatesh and Bala (2008) later excluded this dimension in the extended TAM (TAM2 and TAM3).”
What factors influence the intention to adopt blockchain technology in accounting education?
Al-Hattami, H. M. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03315-8 · Cited by 26
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) de fi ne perceived ease of use (PEU) as an individual ’ s perception of how simple it is to use a particular technology without substantial effort.”
Galimova, E. G., Oborsky, A. Y., Khvatova, M. A., Astakhov, D. V., Orlova, E. V., & Andryushchenko, I. S. (2024) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1436724 · Cited by 25
Ramaiah, T. S., Pasupuleti, R. S., Chebolu, R. M., Banala, T. V., & Thiyyagura, D. (2024) · Journal of Computers in Education · doi:10.1007/s40692-024-00343-w · Cited by 37
“Within the context of technology adoption and continuance, social dynamics play a pivotal role in shaping individuals’ perceptions, motivations, and intentions (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Malhotra & Galletta, 1999).”
InfluentialKim, J. S., & Baek, T. H. (2024) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2429647 · Cited by 27
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) emphasised that perceived ease of use and enjoyment are important characteristics of information technology systems that increase user satisfaction.”
Belda-Medina, J. R., & Kokošková, V. (2024) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2024.2435900 · Cited by 40
“Therefore, this paper aims to investigate EFL teacher candidates’ critical skills in using ChatGPT for text production and text refinement in English (L2) and Spanish (L1), and to examine their perceptions through the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).”
InfluentialPerceived artificial intelligence literacy and employability of university students
Wut, T. M., Chan, E. A.-H., Wong, H. S.-M., & Chan, J. K. Y. (2025) · Education + Training · doi:10.1108/et-06-2024-0272 · Cited by 40
Service robots in healthcare: Toward a healthcare service robot acceptance model (sRAM)
Lim, W. M., Jasim, K. M., & Malathi, A. (2025) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102932 · Cited by 25
Tomczyk, Ł., & Majkut, A. (2025) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/5599169 · Cited by 43
Field, J. M., Xue, M., & Hitt, L. M. (2012) · Operations Management Research · doi:10.1007/s12063-012-0064-z · Cited by 24
“identify the determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundDeterminants of E-Payment Systems Success
Tella, A. (2012) · International Journal of E-Adoption · doi:10.4018/jea.2012070102 · Cited by 33
Levy, Y. M., Ramim, M. M., Furnell, S., & Clarke, N. (2011) · Campus-Wide Information Systems · doi:10.1108/10650741111117806 · Cited by 24
Okazaki, S., Blas, S. S., & García, J. A. C. (2015) · Journal of electronic commerce research · Cited by 25
Koukopoulos, Z., & Koukopoulos, D. K. (2018) · Heritage · doi:10.3390/heritage2010001 · Cited by 28
An evaluation of effort estimation supported by change impact analysis in agile software development
Tanveer, B., Vollmer, A. M., Braun, S., et al. (2019) · Journal of Software Evolution and Process · doi:10.1002/smr.2165 · Cited by 24
“Using a questionnaire based on TAM, 45 we elicited the subjective opinion of students about these quality aspects.”
MethodCho, S. H., Oh, S. Y., Rou, H.-G., et al. (2019) · IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD) · doi:10.1109/snpd.2019.8935693 · Cited by 24
“In addition, Venkatesh & Bala (2008) supplemented the problem of existing model to suggest comprehensive technology acceptance model TAM3 about ‘employee decision making about new Is’ [33].”
MethodUsefulness of Mobile Assisted Language Learning in Primary Education
Ishaq, K., Azan, N., Rosdi, F., Abid, A., & Ali, Q. (2020) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2020.0110148 · Cited by 18
“Several researchers have authenticated TAM [50] and TAM can account for approximately 40% of the device use, according to [69].”
BackgroundMethodIntegrated Technology Acceptance Model for the Evaluation of Agricultural Decision Support Systems
Mir, S. A., & Padma, T. (2020) · Journal of Global Information Technology Management · doi:10.1080/1097198x.2020.1752083 · Cited by 24
“Subsequently, it was stretched to create a new version aka TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) to incorporate anchors and adjustments factors to perceived ease of use.”
BackgroundFernandes, N., & Barfknecht, C. (2020) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2020.1788874 · Cited by 37
“The extended technology acceptance model (TAM), specifically the TAM3 framework by Venkatesh & Bala (2008), as well as the theory of perceived value served as the theoretical foundation of this study to address the research questions at hand.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSu, C., & Chen, C.-H. (2020) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2020.1835688 · Cited by 27
“Experience might be an important moderating variable between experienced and inex-perienced users in the relative impact of the various determinants of IT usage (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundResultXiong, C., D’Souza, A., Richandi, G. E.-K., Mihailidis, A., Cameron, J. I., Astell, A. J., Nalder, E. J., & Colantonio, A. (2020) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/19967 · Cited by 28
“These findings are congruent with previous conceptual work on technology adoption across the general population, which have highlighted age and gender as important factors that shape technology acceptance [47-49].”
ResultShi, Y., Amill‐Rosario, A., Rudin, R. S., Fischer, S. H., Shekelle, P., Scanlon, D. P., & Damberg, C. L. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab064 · Cited by 25
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
