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 2,001–2,100 of 8,090
Khoa, B. T., Hà, N. M., & Ngọc, B. H. (2021) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77094-5_43 · Cited by 27
Avelino, N. M., & Ismail, H. H. (2021) · Creative Education · doi:10.4236/ce.2021.129156 · Cited by 24
Franke, A., Nass, E., Piereth, A.-K., Zettl, A., & Heidl, C. M. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.694297 · Cited by 25
Pélissier, C., Paredes, J., Moulin, M., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph181910433 · Cited by 24
“Adopting new technology requires organizational change and individual adaptation [5].”
BackgroundHan, X., Wang, F., Lv, S.-X., & Han, W. (2021) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer16070148 · Cited by 25
“, I found the product presentation mode interesting) used by [67,68] were adapted to measure enjoyment.”
Peréz‐Morón, J. (2021) · Journal of Asia Business Studies · doi:10.1108/jabs-11-2020-0444 · Cited by 25
Factors That Determine the Adoption Intention of Direct Mobile Purchases through Social Media Apps
Saprikis, V., & Avlogiaris, G. (2021) · Information · doi:10.3390/info12110449 · Cited by 24
“Concerning the applied ICT inhibitors, the studies of Jarvenpaa et al. [69] and Wakefield and Whitten [70] were adapted to examine the measurement items of risk, and the researches of Compeau et al. [71], Thatcher and Perrewe [72] and Venkatesh and Bala [73] were adapted to investigate the measurement items of anxiety.”
MethodTechnological Acceptance of Industry 4.0 by Students from Rural Areas
Castillo‐Vergara, M., Álvarez‐Marín, A., Villavicencio-Pinto, E., & Valdez-Juárez, L. E. (2022) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics11142109 · Cited by 28
Ramtiyal, B., Verma, D., & Rathore, A. P. S. (2022) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-022-09657-2 · Cited by 27
“However, while parsimony is not desirable in and of itself in terms of in-depth knowledge, it is beneficial to some extent in terms of facilitating understanding [82, 119].”
How does online social interaction promote students’ continuous learning intentions?
Zhang, S., Che, S., Nan, D., & Kim, J. H. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1098110 · Cited by 24
“Utilitarian characteristics are also in line with the concept of perceived usefulness in the technology acceptance model (TAM), both emphasizing practicality (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundPresence and simulator sickness predict the usability of a virtual reality attention task
Voinescu, A., Petrini, K., & Fraser, D. S. (2023) · Virtual Reality · doi:10.1007/s10055-023-00782-3 · Cited by 28
“Individual differences, such as age, gender and experience, are important moderators in the well-known Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) that predicts usage behavioral and intention with the use of novel technology (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundKopplin, C. S. (2022) · Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10919392.2023.2215666 · Cited by 26
“…as critical drivers of media adoption and use throughout the years (Ferguson and Perse 2000; Lee and Cho 2017), and they are also essential drivers in technology acceptance research (Ha and Stoel 2009; Mun and Hwang 2003; Pikkarainen et al. 2004; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Venkatesh et al. 2012).”
BackgroundGender influence in perception and adoption of e-learning platforms
Arenas-Gaitán, J., Cataluña, F. J. R., & Ramírez-Correa, P. (2010) · Deposito de Investigacion Universidad de Sevilla (University of Seville) · Cited by 24
Karjaluoto, H., & Leppäniemi, M. (2013) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.4067/s0718-18762013000100002 · Cited by 26
“However, the effect of subjective norms on intention has been found to be somewhat inconsistent [40], [87], [88].”
BackgroundEvaluating task-technology fit and user performance for an electronic health record system
El-Gayar, O., Deokar, A. V., & Wills, M. J. (2010) · International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management · doi:10.1504/ijhtm.2010.033274 · Cited by 24
“, 2003), and TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
MethodLópez, Ó. R. G., Palacios, T. M. B., & Mateos, M. B. (2012) · Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa · doi:10.1016/j.iedee.2012.07.004 · Cited by 24
Can Social Cognitive Theories Help Us Understand Nurses’ Use of Electronic Health Records?
Strudwick, G., Booth, R. G., & Mistry, K. (2016) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000000226 · Cited by 27
“A second extended model that has been created to explain healthcare professional acceptance and behavior is the TAM3.”
BackgroundInfluentialKeen, S. M., & Roberts, N. (2016) · Health Systems · doi:10.1057/hs.2016.2 · Cited by 24
“In addition to being applied to the study of information technology acceptance and use in a wide variety of settings (King & He, 2006; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), researchers have drawn on UTAUT to examine physicians ’ acceptance of electronic medical records (Weeger & Gewald, 2015).”
BackgroundMangin, J.-P. L., Bourgault, Guerrero, M., & Egea, J. M. O. (2011) · Cited by 23
Business Process Performance Mining with Staged Process Flows
Nguyen, H. H., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A. H. M., et al. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39696-5_11 · Cited by 24
“For each question, we evaluated each tool along the quality dimensions of ease of use and usefulness, widely used in technology acceptance models [19].”
MethodDetermining factors in acceptance of ICT by the university faculty in their teaching practice
Cazco, G. H. O., González, M. C., Abad, F. M., et al. (2016) · Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) · doi:10.1145/3012430.3012509 · Cited by 24
“For the gathering of information, an instrument composed of 50 items, the same one adapted from previous works [22], [18], [23], and its content previously validated by 12 experts from different Latin American universities (Spain, Mexico and Ecuador), all of whom value relevance and understanding…”
MethodIzuagbe, R., & Popoola, S. O. (2017) · Library Review · doi:10.1108/lr-09-2016-0086 · Cited by 24
How food retailing changed in Turkey: spread of self-service technologies
Kazançoğlu, İ., & Yarımoğlu, E. (2018) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-03-2017-0189 · Cited by 24
The Role of Demographics, Trust, Computer Self-efficacy, and Ease of Use in the Sharing Economy
Hsiao, J. C.-Y., Moser, C., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Dillahunt, T. R. (2018) · ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS) · doi:10.1145/3209811.3209816 · Cited by 24
“Survey instruments were created based on past research on trust [27, 47, 72], computer self-efficacy [15, 38], and perceived ease of use [70].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCheng, M., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2019) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09680-5 · Cited by 24
Belletier, C., Charkhabi, M., Silva, G. P. D. A., Ametepe, K., Lutz, M., & Izaute, M. (2019) · Cognition, Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-019-00610-2 · Cited by 24
“As an example, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) stated that the unsuccessful implementation of IT systems at Hewlett–Packard in 2004 resulted in 160 million-dollar losses.”
BackgroundMethodDesmidt, S., & Meyfroodt, K. (2020) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1708438 · Cited by 31
The Role of Technology Acceptance in Healthcare to Mitigate COVID-19 Outbreak
AlQudah, A. A., Salloum, S. A., & Shaalan, K. F. (2021) · Studies in systems, decision and control · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-67716-9_14 · Cited by 25
Impact of Pilot's Expertise on Selection, Use, Trust, and Acceptance of Automation
Navarro, J., Allali, S., Cabrignac, N., & Cegarra, J. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · doi:10.1109/thms.2021.3090199 · Cited by 27
CONSUMERS' PERCEPTIONS OF A VIRTUAL HEALTH CHECK: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
Lehto, T., B, H. O.-K. A., Pätiälä, T., & Saarelma, O. (2012) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 26
Adaptive Empathy Learning Support in Peer Review Scenarios
Wambsganss, T., Soellner, M., Koedinger, K. R., & Leimeister, J. M. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517740 · Cited by 24
“we measured the perceived empathy skill learning [86], the technology acceptance and the perceived level of enjoyment of both tools using key constructs [90, 91].”
MethodConsumers' behavioral intention toward online shopping in the post‐COVID‐19 period
Khatoon, S., Anwar, I., Shamsi, M. A., & Chaudhary, A. (2024) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.13001 · Cited by 21
Wen, L., Ma, S., & Lyu, S. (2024) · Applied Economics · doi:10.1080/00036846.2023.2299266 · Cited by 24
“Later on, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) proposed the TAM3 model by adding factors that affect ease perception to the TAM2 model ( see Figure 3).”
Fitria, F., Yahya, M., Ali, M. I., Purnamawati, P., & Mappalotteng, A. M. (2024) · International Journal of Environment Engineering and Education · doi:10.55151/ijeedu.v6i2.134 · Cited by 44
“However, with the increasing complexity of technology and more diverse usage environments, TAM requires expansion to remain relevant in various contexts [24].”
BackgroundPrikshat, V., Kumar, S., Patel, P., & Varma, A. (2024) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-04-2023-0303 · Cited by 40
Badr, A. M. M., Al‐Abdi, B. S., Rfeqallah, M., Kasim, R. B., & Ali, F. A. M. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00329-2 · Cited by 35
“The conclusion provided theoretical confirmation for the change components in TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) fundamental motivation in IMTA (Venkatesh et al., 2002) and hedonism motivation in UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003).”
Mwogosi, A., & Kibusi, S. M. (2024) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/14604582241304698 · Cited by 23
Kim, C. G. (2025) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics14030530 · Cited by 32
Abdi, A.-N. M., Omar, A. M., Ahmed, M. H., & Ahmed, A. A. (2025) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2025.2460250 · Cited by 30
“Building on this foundation, the TAM3 incorporates self-efficacy, control perceptions, and contextual factors to address the intricacies of modern technological integration.”
Sun, J., Wu, Q., Ma, Z., Zheng, W., & Hu, Y. (2025) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-025-10495-w · Cited by 38
Li, J., Jin, M., & Chen, X. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1521174 · Cited by 38
Adoption of three new types of computers in Taiwan: Tablet PCs, netbooks, and smart phones
Li, S. S. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.001 · Cited by 24
“…and perceived ease of use – are similar to ‘‘relative advantage’’ and ‘‘complexity’’ in Rogers’ model, whereas the concept of result demonstrability in TAM2, an extension of TAM, is similar to ‘‘observability’’ in Rogers’ model (Jung, Chan-Olmsted, Park, & Kim, 2012; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Khan, H. U., Ahmad, S., & Abdollahian, M. (2013) · International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations · doi:10.1109/itng.2013.75 · Cited by 23
Hynes, E., Flynn, R., Lee, B., et al. (2019) · IEEE International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP) · doi:10.1109/mmsp.2019.8901705 · Cited by 23
“To this end, the authors also partially employed the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) [11].”
MethodStressed decision makers and use of decision aids: a literature review and conceptual model
Adya, M., & Phillips-Wren, G. E. (2019) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-04-2019-0194 · Cited by 23
Perceived trustworthiness in using B2B digital services
Hallikainen, H., Hirvonen, S., & Laukkanen, T. (2019) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-04-2019-0212 · Cited by 23
Alshaher, A. A. (2020) · Transforming Government People Process and Policy · doi:10.1108/tg-05-2020-0080 · Cited by 23
Zogheib, B., & Daniela, L. (2021) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-021-09515-4 · Cited by 27
Presti, A. L., Rosa, A. D., & Viceconte, E. (2021) · Journal of Workplace Learning · doi:10.1108/jwl-11-2020-0179 · Cited by 25
Users’ perception toward Bitcoin Green with big data analytics
Mnif, E., Lacombe, I., & Jarboui, A. (2021) · Society and Business Review · doi:10.1108/sbr-02-2021-0016 · Cited by 23
Perceived Risk and Trust in Adoption E-Wallet: The Role of Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use
Dewi, G. M. M., Joshua, L., Ikhsan, R. B., Yuniarty, Y., Sari, R. K., & Susilo, A. (2021) · International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech) · doi:10.1109/icimtech53080.2021.9535033 · Cited by 29
“Then developed by Szajna [9], Venkatesh and Davis [10], Venkatesh and Bala [11], Venkatesh, et al. [12].”
MethodA qualitative study of patients' attitudes towards telemedicine for gynecologic cancer care
Kraus, E., Nicosia, B., & Shalowitz, D. I. (2022) · Gynecologic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2022.01.035 · Cited by 23
Mukred, M., Alotaibi, F. M., Yusof, Z. M., Mokhtar, U. A., Hawash, B., & Ahmed, W. A. (2022) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/01655515211019703 · Cited by 30
Murciano-Hueso, A., García, A. V. M., & Fincias, P. T. (2022) · Revista Española de Geriatría y Gerontología · doi:10.1016/j.regg.2022.01.004 · Cited by 30
Okuzu, O., Malaga, R. A., Okereafor, K., Amos, U., Dosunmu, A. O., Oyeneyin, A., Adeoye, V., Sambo, M. N., & Ebenso, B. (2022) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.1008458 · Cited by 36
“Moreover, TAM3 (52) further extended the classic TAM by including trust as an additional factor in the context of e-commerce systems.”
BackgroundInfluentialExplaining reward crowdfunding backers' intentions and behavior
Baah-Peprah, P. (2023) · Baltic Journal of Management · doi:10.1108/bjm-07-2022-0268 · Cited by 26
Mascret, N., & Temprado, J.-J. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20043012 · Cited by 27
“The different variables assessing technology acceptance may increase or decrease after a first use or more regular use [13].”
BackgroundCarrera, A., Zoccarato, F., Mazzeo, M., Lettieri, E., Toletti, G., Bertoli, S., Castelnuovo, G., & Fresa, E. (2023) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-023-09090-7 · Cited by 26
“…of the most exploited approaches to investigate the dynamics of acceptance of information system technologies in healthcare [27], together with its extended versions TAM2 [28] and TAM3 [29], which include additional antecedents such as social influence, namely Subjective Norm, and cognitive tools.”
BackgroundGarcía-Murillo, G., Hernández, P. N., & Rodriǵuez, R. S. (2023) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs13050419 · Cited by 32
“Following a different approach than TAM2 and TAM3, UTAUT replaces PU and PEU with four determinants: performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), social influence (SI), and facility conditions (FC).”
BackgroundKong, H., & Liu, H. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15129353 · Cited by 29
Apraiz, A., Lasa, G., Montagna, F., Blandino, G., Triviño-Tonato, E., & Dacal-Nieto, Á. (2023) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems11090448 · Cited by 27
Nandru, P., Madhavaiah, C., & Senthilkumar, S. A. (2023) · Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management · doi:10.1108/jstpm-03-2023-0044 · Cited by 23
Nedev, S. (2014) · The Journal of Undergraduate Research · Cited by 24
The effect of interinsic motivation on learners' behavioural intention to use e-learning systems
Alaulamie, A. A., Mansour, A., Daly, H., & Adjei, O. (2012) · International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) · doi:10.1109/ithet.2012.6246057 · Cited by 23
“Moreover, TAM is able to explain about 40% of the variance in individuals’ intention to use a particular system [16].”
BackgroundMethodPirkkalainen, H., Jokinen, J., & Pawlowski, J. Μ. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2014.2323970 · Cited by 23
“, while Karahanna [57] and Venkatesh and Bala [58] addressed training, it was in the context of technology acceptance.”
MethodInitial Development of a Learners’ Ratified Acceptance of Multibiometrics Intentions Model (RAMIM)
Levy, Y. M., & Ramim, M. M. (2009) · Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning · doi:10.28945/84 · Cited by 23
The effects of cognitive style on Edmodo users’ behaviour
Ursavaş, Ö. F., & Reisoğlu, İ. (2017) · International Journal of Information and Learning Technology · doi:10.1108/ijilt-06-2016-0019 · Cited by 23
Educators' open educational collaboration online: The dilemma of emotional ownership
Pirkkalainen, H., Pawlowski, J. Μ., & Pappa, D. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.005 · Cited by 23
Brooks, H. L., Pontefract, S. K., Vallance, H. K., Hirsch, C., Hughes, E. A., Ferner, R. E., Marriott, J. F., & Coleman, J. J. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168558 · Cited by 23
Acceptance of Corporate Blogs for Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing
Iglesías-Pradas, S., Hernández-García, Á., & Fernández-Cardador, P. (2017) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2017.1329998 · Cited by 21
“…established measurement instruments in TAM literature, such as conceptualizations of perceived usefulness that focus on productivity (e.g., Davis [1989]; Venkatesh and Bala [2008]) are appropriate for the analysis of the acceptance of Web 2.0 or collaborative tools, even in organizational settings.”
BackgroundInfluentialTechnology Acceptance of Augmented Reality and Wearable Technologies
Wild, F., Klemke, R., Lefrère, P., et al. (2017) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60633-0_11 · Cited by 24
“Moreover, the expert panel included additional items, resulting in a pool of 91 Likert statements plus six Use Behaviour (USE) questions, varying the delivery devices.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAdoption of e-Books: A Digital Textbook Perspective
Yoo, D. K., & Roh, J. J. (2017) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2017.1318688 · Cited by 32
“Studies have reported that effort expectancy is particularly significant in the context of consumer technology use as opposed to organizational members who have systematic support from their firm [5, 32].”
BackgroundLa aceptación de las TIC por profesorado universitario: Conocimiento, actitud y practicidad
Rivera-Laylle, L. I., Morales, K. F., Games, F. J. G., et al. (2017) · Revista Electrónica Educare · doi:10.15359/ree.21-3.6 · Cited by 23
Kamrath, C., Rajendran, S., Nenguwo, N., Afari‐Sefa, V., & Bröring, S. (2018) · The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review · doi:10.22434/ifamr2017.0043 · Cited by 24
“In order to measure the latent constructs, the following reflective items (see Table 3) have been deduced from extensive literature (Adrian et al., 2005; Davis, 1986; Davis et al., 1989; Hansson et al., 2012; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Yazdanpanah et al., 2014).”
Workplace Psychology and Gamification: Theory and Application
Herzig, P., Ameling, M., & Schill, A. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_23 · Cited by 27
A DevOps collaboration culture acceptance model
Masombuka, T., & Mnkandla, E. (2018) · South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists · doi:10.1145/3278681.3278714 · Cited by 23
“TAM2 [24] provided additional variables that affects PU, whist TAM3 [27] adds variables that influence PEOU.”
BackgroundBorisov, N., Weyers, B., & Kluge, A. (2018) · Advances in Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1155/2018/9502692 · Cited by 23
AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE ADOPTION OF MOBILE ENTERPRISE APPLICATIONS
den Berg, J. V., & van der Lingen, E. (2019) · The South African Journal of Industrial Engineering · doi:10.7166/30-1-1992 · Cited by 25
Collaborative Augmented Reality in Engineering Education
Schiffeler, N., Stehling, V., Haberstroh, M., et al. (2019) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23162-0_65 · Cited by 23
Kuciapski, M. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2957205 · Cited by 23
“TAM3 [52] and UTAUT2 [53] are gaining recognition as the newest general technology acceptance theories and models.”
Background(2012) · Academy of Information and Management Sciences journal · Cited by 22
Zhang, Y., Gao, P., Zhang, J., & Lu, L. (2020) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-11-2019-0619 · Cited by 25
Factores que determinan el uso de las TIC en adultos mayores de Chile
Aguilar-Flores, S. M., & Vega, M. M. C. (2020) · Revista Científica · doi:10.14483/23448350.16054 · Cited by 23
Hauptmann, H., Leipold, N., Madenach, M., Wintergerst, M., Lurz, M., Groh, G., Böhm, M., Gedrich, K., & Krcmar, H. (2021) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-021-09301-y · Cited by 25
Modelling the determinants of electronic tax filing services’ continuance usage intention
Ramdhony, D., Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., Ramlugun, V. G., & Mowlabocus, F. (2022) · Australian Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12559 · Cited by 28
Theres, C., & Strohmeier, S. (2023) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-023-00367-z · Cited by 28
Denu, M., David, P., Landry, A., & Mangione, F. (2023) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2023.11.015 · Cited by 31
Hosseini, M., Thomas, R., Pilutti, L. A., Fallavollita, P., & Jutai, J. W. (2023) · Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2023.2295946 · Cited by 22
“…in models of technology acceptance by older adults within the framework of staM. additionally, chen and colleagues briefly mention the impact of social relationships, including personal satisfaction, support, and social participation, on PU, ease of use, and gerontech-nology usage [26].”
Stefan, H., Mortimer, M., Horan, B., & McMillan, S. (2024) · Journal of Safety Research · doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2024.06.002 · Cited by 32
Han, J., Liu, G., Liu, X., Yang, Y., Quan, W., & Chen, Y. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33251 · Cited by 29
“Technology acceptance model 3 [15].”
BackgroundInfluentialRenz, S., Kalimeris, J., Hofreiter, S., & Spörrle, M. (2024) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123760 · Cited by 27
Cattáneo, A., Antonietti, C., & Rauseo, M. (2025) · Vocations and Learning · doi:10.1007/s12186-025-09359-4 · Cited by 47
“Two additional models were developed (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) that included individual differences, system characteristics, social influence, and facilitating conditions as determinants of PEU and PU.”
Choi, D., Park, S., Lee, K., Hong, H., & Kim, Y. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713792 · Cited by 27
“Through our comprehensive qualitative analysis, we found the impacts of AACessTalk on MVA child-parent conversation patterns and changes in parents’ perceptions of conversation with their MVA children.”
Alotaibi, H. M., Sonbul, S., & El‐Dakhs, D. A. S. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-04945-2 · Cited by 46
“Research suggests that IT competence affects perceived ease of use, with higher digital literacy enabling smoother integration of new technologies (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
Li, K. C., Chong, G. H. L., Wong, B. T. M., & Wu, M. M.-F. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15070798 · Cited by 29
“TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) further enlarged the constructs (e.g., computer anxiety, and perceived enjoyment) preceding perceived ease of use.”
Factors influencing international students’ adoption of generative artificial intelligence
Ittefaq, M., Zain, A., Arif, R., Taufiq, A., Khan, M. L., & Seo, H. (2025) · Journal of International Students · doi:10.32674/fnwdpn48 · Cited by 29
Web 2.0 and Transfer: Trainers' Use of Technology to Support Employees' Learning Transfer on the Job
Hester, A. J., Hutchins, H. M., & Burke‐Smalley, L. A. (2016) · Performance Improvement Quarterly · doi:10.1002/piq.21225 · Cited by 22
Seth, A., Azamela, J. C., Amoako, R., & Stephen, S. A.-Y. (2019) · American journal of public health research · doi:10.12691/ajphr-7-1-4 · Cited by 24
“The work of Bala, Hillol Venkatesh, Viswanath also came with the same conclusion, that complex technology contribute to low adoption of technology at the work place and in this regard it is important for Organization to take proactive measures to adopt technology because if technology is easy to use the more likely th…”
BackgroundAn Evaluation of Uncertainty and Anticipatory Anxiety Impacts on Technology Use
Huang, C., & Haried, P. (2019) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2019.1672410 · Cited by 26
“…in this study, such as computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, and objective usability factors from Technology Acceptance Model 3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) and contextual factors (gender, age, experience, and voluntariness) from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of…”
BackgroundSpears, J., & Zheng, R. Z. (2020) · Educational Gerontology · doi:10.1080/03601277.2020.1815976 · Cited by 22
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
