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 2,201–2,300 of 8,090
Jaradat, M.-I. R. M., Imlawi, J. M., & Mashaqba, A. M. A. (2018) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v12i2.8081 · Cited by 20
“Venkatesh and Bala [22] has confirmed this effect.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHashim, K. F., & Tan, F. B. (2018) · Journal of Systems and Information Technology · doi:10.1108/jsit-11-2016-0068 · Cited by 21
A critical assessment of the design issues in e‐commerce systems development
Ehikioya, S. A., & Guillemot, E. (2020) · Engineering Reports · doi:10.1002/eng2.12155 · Cited by 21
“Tago et al 36 provided a conceptual framework for the understanding of mobile commerce applications based on the well-reasoned and revised TAM 38,53,60 that comprises of the distinct features from mobile commerce, electronic business, and information systems domain.”
BackgroundEvaluating the pedagogy of technology integrated teaching and learning: An overview
Ching, G. S., & Roberts, A. (2020) · International Journal of Research Studies in Education · doi:10.5861/ijrse.2020.5800 · Cited by 21
“After a few years, the model was simplified after PU and PEU were found to have a consistent direct influence on BIU, hence, ATU was removed (Venkatesh & Davis, 1996; see Figure 5).”
BackgroundInfluentialWaschkau, A., Flägel, K., Goetz, K., et al. (2020) · Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen · doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2020.07.001 · Cited by 21
López, L., Manzano, M., Gómez, C., et al. (2020) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/j.scico.2020.102568 · Cited by 21
“Furthermore, to ensure that the documentation and the code are always in sync, all RESTful services have been documented using a Test-Driven Documentation approach 17 .”
MethodImpact of visual typicality on the adoption of wearables
Lee, E. (2020) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.1904 · Cited by 23
Hannus, V., & Sauer, J. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su131910788 · Cited by 24
Electronic Portfolios in Recruiting? a Conceptual Analysis of Usage
Strohmeier, S. (2010) · Journal of electronic commerce research · Cited by 21
Alyoussef, I. Y., & Al-Rahmi, W. M. (2022) · Journal of Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues · doi:10.9770/jesi.2022.9.3(24 · Cited by 21
Li, X., Shen, J., Ma, W., & Zhang, W. (2015) · Information Technology and Management · doi:10.1007/s10799-015-0233-5 · Cited by 21
“The research field of information systems/information technology (IS/IT) is lagging behind other business disciplines in addressing new IT venture success, potentially missing an important opportunity to gain valuable insights [7].”
BackgroundLi, S. S. (2013) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2013.02.003 · Cited by 21
Botha, A., & Herselman, M. E. (2017) · The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries · doi:10.1002/isd2.12007 · Cited by 24
“Technology acceptance model 3 has also been suggested (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Jia, Z., Liu, M., & Shao, G. (2018) · Chinese Journal of Communication · doi:10.1080/17544750.2018.1523802 · Cited by 25
Hashim, K. F. (2012) · Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) · Cited by 21
Worthing, K. A., Roberts, M., & Šlapeta, J. (2024) · Veterinary Record Open · doi:10.1002/vro2.80 · Cited by 21
de Araluze, G. K. B., & Plaza, N. M. C. (2023) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440231187607 · Cited by 31
“Currently, diverse models are being applied to analyze information systems (IS) adoption: Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977), TAM (Davis, 1986), TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), technology readiness and acceptance model (TRAM) (Lin et al., 2007), TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), unified theory of ac…”
BackgroundThe Digital Self-Efficacy Scale: Adaptation and Validation of Its Spanish Version
Paredes-Aguirre, M., Aguirre, R. C., Hernández-Pozas, O., Ayala, Y., & Medina, H. R. B. (2024) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/2024/3952946 · Cited by 33
“More-over, these beliefs have an impact on various aspects of digital system utilization [26, 27].”
BackgroundLuo, Z. (2024) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-023-10249-6 · Cited by 27
“Previous TAM-related frameworks have included enjoyment as a factor, such as the Technology acceptance model 3 (TAM3) by Venkatesh and Bala (2008), the educational games acceptance model by Ibrahim and Jaafar (2011), and the gamification effects on user acceptance model by Her-zig et al. (2012).”
Aumüller, A., Winklbauer, A., Schreibmaier, B., Batinic, B., & Mara, M. (2024) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-024-01830-8 · Cited by 27
Kyei-Akuoko, C., Mensah, R. O., Kuusongno, D. D., Yalley, C. E., & Amponsah, K. D. (2024) · Cogent Arts and Humanities · doi:10.1080/23311983.2024.2435713 · Cited by 21
“…as facilitating conditions and self-efficacy, which emphasize the importance of training and institutional support in the successful adoption of Bl (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). these additional constructs help explain the variability in technology acceptance, particularly in a geographically…”
InfluentialBenhayoun, I., Bougrine, S., & Sassioui, A. (2025) · Journal of financial reporting & accounting · doi:10.1108/jfra-07-2024-0448 · Cited by 34
Acceptance of ChatGPT as an auxiliary tool enhancing travel experience
Batouei, A., Nikbin, D., & Foroughi, B. (2025) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights · doi:10.1108/jhti-10-2024-1142 · Cited by 23
Ethical Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Among Ecuadorian University Students
Buele, J., Sabando-García, Á. R., Sabando-García, B. J., & Yánez-Rueda, H. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17104435 · Cited by 20
Zhang, H., Li, B. J., Hu, B., & Ai, P. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2513037 · Cited by 28
“Additionally, seeing others successfully using the product may lead individuals to believe that they can also easily get started, thereby enhancing their perception of the product’s ease of use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Jiang, S., Li, H., & Gan, D. (2025) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101831 · Cited by 20
Evaluation of management information systems: A study at a further education and training college
Visser, M., van Biljon, J. A., & Herselman, M. E. (2013) · South African journal of information management · doi:10.4102/sajim.v15i1.531 · Cited by 20
Spil, T. A. M., & Michel-Verkerke, M. B. (2013) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.3414/me12-01-0107 · Cited by 20
“…to integrate, content fuzziness, non contract Reference Definition based on [13], [4], [14] Relevance refers also to relative advantage [4], net benefits [15] Micro-relevance refers also to perceived usefulness [14, 16] [17] [18] [19] all and therefore removed from the USE IT-model ( ▶ Figure 2).”
BackgroundThe Extent of Smartphones Users to Adopt the Use of Cloud Storage
Aldiabat, K. M., Kwekha-Rashid, A. S., Talafha, H., et al. (2018) · Journal of Computer Science · doi:10.3844/jcssp.2018.1588.1598 · Cited by 20
Visualizing Co-citations of Technology Acceptance Models in Education
Yu, Z. (2019) · Journal of Information Technology Research · doi:10.4018/jitr.2020010106 · Cited by 20
Kim, S., & Hong, S. (2020) · The Design Journal · doi:10.1080/14606925.2020.1806580 · Cited by 22
Dimitrovski, T., Bath, P. A., Ketikidis, P. H., & Lazuras, L. (2021) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/21109 · Cited by 21
“Effort expectancy has been shown to be a significant predictor of intentions to use EHR systems [13-17] in a smaller number of studies, and social influence and facilitating conditions have rarely been investigated [14].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialScoliosis: online exercises versus telerehabilitation. A feasibility trial
Marin, L., Albanese, I., Gentile, F. L. L., Patanè, P., Manzoni, F., Pedrotti, L., & Ottobrini, S. (2021) · Minerva Orthopedics · doi:10.23736/s2784-8469.20.04058-8 · Cited by 20
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and E-Learning System Use for Education Sustainability
Almulla, M. (2021) · Academy of strategic management journal/Academy of Strategic Management journal · Cited by 21
Adoption of E-Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Acharjya, B., & Das, S. (2021) · International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies · doi:10.4018/ijwltt.20220301.oa4 · Cited by 22
“Technology anxiety (TA) is the willingness and abilities of the learners to accept when they come in contact for the first time with a new technology like e-learning (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Meuter et al., 2003).”
BackgroundAcceptance and perception of wearable technologies: A survey on Brazilian and European companies
Schwambach, G. C. S., López, Ó. H., Sott, M. K., Tedesco, L. P., & Molz, R. F. (2021) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101840 · Cited by 20
Maldonado, N. E. L., Rossetti-López, S. R., Rodríguez, I. S. R., & García, M. A. C. (2021) · RIDE Revista Iberoamericana para la Investigación y el Desarrollo Educativo · doi:10.23913/ride.v12i23.1108 · Cited by 26
“For this, six criteria were taken into consideration: subjective norm, voluntariness, image, experience, relevance at work and demonstrability of results (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008). On the other hand, the variable “Perceived ease of use” represents the degree to which a person considers that the use of a technological…”
BackgroundInfluentialKayser, L., Karnoe, A., Duminski, E., Jakobsen, S., Terp, R., Dansholm, S., Roeder, M., & From, G. (2022) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/29780 · Cited by 21
“…model of adoption, where it is proposed that adoption and a good user experience are both related to the users’eHL and the usability of the systems, as well as the main principle of TAM, which is that the perceived ease of use is a significant factor in facilitating acceptance and adoption [28].”
BackgroundTzeng, S.-Y., Lin, K., & Lee, C.-Y. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.865803 · Cited by 20
Tan, K. P.-S., Yang, Y., & Li, X. R. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.069 · Cited by 23
Taxpayers’ adoption of online tax return reporting: extended meta-UTAUT model perspective
Hermanto, A. H., Windasari, N. A., & Purwanegara, M. S. (2022) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2022.2110724 · Cited by 21
“Furthermore, tax authorities might devote greater resources to user participation and training to help taxpayers become more comfortable with online tax return systems (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundDelbes, L., Mascret, N., Goulon, C., & Montagne, G. (2022) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2022.917486 · Cited by 15
Accept it or forget it: mandatory digital learning and technology acceptance in higher education
Lehmann, T., Blumschein, P., & Seel, N. M. (2022) · Journal of Computers in Education · doi:10.1007/s40692-022-00244-w · Cited by 22
Uzkurt, C., Ekmekçioğlu, E. B., Çeyhan, S., & HATİBOĞLU, M. B. (2023) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/k-08-2022-1189 · Cited by 24
Sun, J. L., Wang, Y., Miao, W., Wei, W., Yang, C. K., Chen, J., Yang, F., Ren, L., & Gu, C. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16201 · Cited by 20
“H9 is valid, indicating that the user ’ s AT of utilizing VR equipment to paint in a virtual natural environment has a positive impact on PP. H10 is valid, indicating that PBC has a positive impact on PP. PP represents the intrinsic motivation associated with any new system [123 – 125].”
BackgroundHotel services in the digital age: Heterogeneity in guests’ contactless technology acceptance
Qiu, R. T. R., Park, J., Hao, F., & Chon, K. (2023) · Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management · doi:10.1080/19368623.2023.2239219 · Cited by 23
“Although these models have wide-ranging applications, researchers have developed extended models, known as the TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), and UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al., 2012), by incorporating additional factors to better explain technology adoption and use in…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTheoretical Models for Acceptance of Human Implantable Technologies: A Narrative Review
Chaudry, B., Shafeie, S., & Mohamed, M. A. (2023) · Informatics · doi:10.3390/informatics10030069 · Cited by 28
“The TAM is a powerful framework that can be easily extended and modified to include additional determinants of behavioral intention to use a technology, TAM 2 [38] and TAM 3 [42] being two major upgrades to the TAM model that can be further extended and adopted for various technologies.”
BackgroundMethodFan, C. (2023) · Cogent Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/23311886.2023.2260566 · Cited by 34
“AU, which was included in the first version of TAM, was removed in later studies such as Venkatesh and Davis (2000) and Venkatesh and Bala (2008) as it only partially moderates the effects of PEOU and PU on BI.”
MethodInvestigating accounting professionals’ intention to adopt blockchain technology
Jena, R. K. (2024) · Review of Accounting and Finance · doi:10.1108/raf-06-2023-0185 · Cited by 20
Clinical virtual simulation: predictors of user acceptance in nursing education
Padilha, J. M., Costa, P., Sousa, P., & Ferreira, A. C. E. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05154-2 · Cited by 26
Latreche, H., Bellahcene, M., & Dutot, V. (2024) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-02-2023-0100 · Cited by 21
Ally, M., & Gardiner, M. (2012) · University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) · Cited by 20
The impact of students' skills and experiences on empirical results
Daun, M., Salmon, A., Weyer, T., et al. (2015) · International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) · doi:10.1145/2745802.2745829 · Cited by 20
“- Subjective supportiveness: average result of self-rated standardized questionnaire items from the Technology Acceptance Model (cf. [24]) to rate RM against SP for perceived usefulness , perceived ease of use , and computer self-efficacy .”
MethodWright, E. W., & Marvel, J. (2012) · The Health Care Manager · doi:10.1097/hcm.0b013e3182619e90 · Cited by 20
“17 Likewise, there is much in the literature relative to computer user satisfaction.”
An empirical analysis of mobile Internet acceptance in Chile
Ramírez-Correa, P., Cataluña, F. J. R., & Arenas-Gaitán, J. (2014) · Information Research · Cited by 20
Embracing online education: exploring options for success
Robinson, L. (2016) · Journal of Marketing for HIGHER EDUCATION · doi:10.1080/08841241.2016.1261978 · Cited by 21
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) analyze prior research on TAM and present a framework that includes measuring the influence of individual differences and facilitating conditions of the components within the core TAM.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSeuwou, P., Banissi, E. K., & Ubakanma, G. (2016) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51064-4_19 · Cited by 24
The PMA scale: a measure of physicians' motivation to adopt medical devices
Hatz, M. H. M., Sonnenschein, T., & Blankart, C. R. (2017) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.002 · Cited by 20
An investigation into the factors influencing the outsourcing decision of e-banking services
Hanafizadeh, P., & Ravasan, A. Z. (2017) · Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing · doi:10.1108/jgoss-05-2016-0016 · Cited by 20
Student Resistance to a Mandatory Learning Management System in Online Supply Chain Courses
Strang, K. D., & Vajjhala, N. R. (2017) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2017070103 · Cited by 20
Augmented Reality Adoption by Tourism Product and Service Consumers: Some Empirical Findings
Hassan, A., Ekiz, E. H., Dadwal, S. S., & Lancaster, G. (2017) · Progress in IS · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64027-3_4 · Cited by 20
Önal, N. (2017) · International Journal of Instruction · doi:10.12973/iji.2017.1045a · Cited by 20
“One of the important findings obtained in this study, which investigates what students think about learning mathematics with the help of technology (using the interactive whiteboard), is to include students' opinions in the negative perception component, which is not among the components of the TAM3 model.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRoute factors influencing trust and attitude toward TV shopping
Yen, Y. (2017) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2017.1393525 · Cited by 20
“In general, convenience is a vital factor when explaining why customers are likely to purchase via e-shopping (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodTechnology Acceptance Measure for Teachers:T-TAM
Şahin, S., McIlroy, D., & Ursavaş, Ö. F. (2014) · Cited by 20
Singh, G., Kumar, B., & Gupta, R. (2018) · International Conference Automation and Computational Engineering · doi:10.1109/icace.2018.8686875 · Cited by 20
“The proposed conceptual model uses the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis 1989, Davis et al. 1989) as the theoretical underpinning owing to its simplicity, robustness & parsimony (Mathieson et al. 2001, Cheng et al. 2006, Venkatesh and Bala 2008, Abbasi et al. 2011).”
MethodHuman resource system as innovation for organisations
Mauro, T. G. D. S., & Borges‐Andrade, J. E. (2020) · Innovation & Management Review · doi:10.1108/inmr-03-2019-0037 · Cited by 33
Patients’ Adoption of Electronic Personal Health Records in England: Secondary Data Analysis
Abd-Alrazaq, A. A., Alalwan, A. A., McMillan, B., Bewick, B. M., Househ, M. S., & AL-Zyadat, A. T. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/17499 · Cited by 20
Axiomatic Theories and Improving the Relevance of Information Systems Research
Lee, J. K., Park, J., Gregor, S. D., & Yoon, V. (2021) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2020.0958 · Cited by 25
The Acceptance and Behavior Towards E-Insurance
Toukabri, M. T., & Ettis, S. A. (2021) · International Journal of E-Business Research · doi:10.4018/ijebr.2021040102 · Cited by 20
Gustafsson, T., Sundler, A. J., Lindberg, E., et al. (2021) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-021-00565-8 · Cited by 20
“This finding also indicates the important role of management attitudes and commitment, which is in line with previous research [50] emphasizing the importance of managerial efforts both pre- and post-implementation.”
ResultYılmaz, M. B., & Rızvanoğlu, K. (2021) · Journal of Engineering Design and Technology · doi:10.1108/jedt-02-2021-0084 · Cited by 21
Kalkhoran, S. M., Appelle, N., Nápoles, A. M., Muñoz, R. F., Lum, P. J., Alvarado, N. J., Gregorich, S. E., & Satterfield, J. M. (2015) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2015.05.009 · Cited by 20
“…(SNI), which refers to an individual’s perception of the opinions of important others, and facilitating conditions (FC), i.e. an individual’s perception of environmental factors that may impede or facilitate use of the technology (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).”
BackgroundWebcams and virtual teams: an impact model
Olson, J. D., Appunn, F. D., McAllister, C. A., Walters, K., & Grinnell, L. (2014) · Team Performance Management · doi:10.1108/tpm-05-2013-0013 · Cited by 20
An Empirical Study on the Adoption of Online Household e-waste Collection Services in China
Gao, S. H., Shi, J., Guo, H., Kuang, J., & Xu, Y. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25013-7_4 · Cited by 20
“Moreover, variables that influence users’ behavioral intention employed in TAM3 [23] were classified into the following four types: individual differences, system characteristics, social influence and facilitating conditions [24].”
Izuagbe, R., Hamzat, S. A., & Joseph, E. I. (2016) · Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice · doi:10.1633/jistap.2016.4.1.3 · Cited by 20
“1) The need to increase the model’s explanatory and predictive power has led to subsequent adaptations (like TAM2—Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; and TAM3— Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundSustainability of University Technology Transfer: Mediating Effect of Inventor’s Technology Service
Li, F., Zhang, S., & Jin, Y. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10062085 · Cited by 20
“Venkatesh (2003) [26] Venkatesh and Bala (2008) [27] 6.”
BackgroundFactors Influencing Smartphone Adoption: A Study in the Indian Bottom of the Pyramid Context
Baishya, K., & Samalia, H. V. (2019) · Global Business Review · doi:10.1177/0972150919856961 · Cited by 20
“This positive relationship has already been established in some existing literature (e.g., Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialMobile Money and Financial Inclusion: The Role of Institutional Quality
Bawuah, I. (2024) · Global Social Welfare · doi:10.1007/s40609-023-00325-3 · Cited by 23
“TAM3 was introduced with four characteristics believed to influence the use of technology: individuals’ differences, systems feature, social factors, and facility conditions (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Campagna, J. M., & Bhada, S. V. (2024) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems12040118 · Cited by 19
Wieben, A. M., Alreshidi, B. G., Douthit, B. J., Sileo, M., Vyas, P., Steege, L. M. B., & Gilmore‐Bykovskyi, A. L. (2024) · Journal of Nursing Scholarship · doi:10.1111/jnu.13001 · Cited by 24
Rodafinos, A., Barkoukis, V., Tzafilkou, K., Ούρδα, Δ., Economides, A. A., & Perifanou, M. A. (2024) · Journal of Information Technology Education Research · doi:10.28945/5309 · Cited by 34
Mukuka, A., & Alex, J. K. (2024) · Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education · doi:10.1007/s10857-024-09657-z · Cited by 28
“Although TAM has evolved into different versions, such as TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003), we applied the original version (as illustrated in Fig.”
Ahankoob, A., Abbasnejad, B., & Aranda‐Mena, G. (2025) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings15111804 · Cited by 29
A comprehensive analysis of FinTech (1968–2025): a bibliometric approach
Salem, M. R. M., & Shahimi, S. (2025) · Future Business Journal · doi:10.1186/s43093-025-00652-1 · Cited by 21
“Building upon its predecessors, TAM3 was introduced by Venkatesh and Bala [68]”
Malinowsky, C. W., Kottorp, A., Patomella, A., Rosenberg, L., & Nygård, L. (2015) · Technology and Disability · doi:10.3233/tad-150431 · Cited by 19
“This might in turn affect the user’s acceptance of it and also influence the level of perceived difficulty of the ET [10,36–38].”
Mobile Health Apps and Health Management Behaviors: Cost-Benefit Modeling Analysis
Mano, R. S. (2020) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/21251 · Cited by 20
“TAM assumes that variations in the acceptance of computerized technology reflect a set of facilitating conditions, including expected effort, performance, and social influence [42,43].”
BackgroundYoung, A., Zhu, Y., & Venkatesh, V. (2021) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2021.767 · Cited by 19
“Agency: There is a vast body of IS literature about how users evaluate IS in terms of ease of use and usefulness to implement these systems for efficiency [91-93].”
BackgroundSelf-citationAlqahtani, M. M., Hall, J. A., Leventhal, M., & Argila, A. N. (2021) · Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education · doi:10.1007/s40751-021-00096-6 · Cited by 20
Acceptance of Serious Games to Develop Digital Competencies in Higher Education Professors
Sandí-Delgado, J. C., Sanz, C., & Lovos, E. (2022) · Electronic Journal of e-Learning · doi:10.34190/ejel.20.3.2181 · Cited by 12
“One of these models was TAM by (Davis, 1989) and its variants: TAM2 (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) and TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
MethodLee, C.-Y., Chong, H., Tanko, B. L., et al. (2022) · Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002299 · Cited by 19
Lu, Y., & Deng, Y.-X. (2022) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings12020104 · Cited by 19
“The TAM2 model proposed by Venkatesh and Davis [24] and TAM3 proposed by Venkatesh and Bala [55] explored the correlation between PU, PEOU, and UI.”
BackgroundMethodLiu, L., & Hsu, Y. (2022) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01347-6 · Cited by 23
“Playfulness is the inherent motivation for a person when using any new system (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundVărzaru, A. A. (2022) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics11233872 · Cited by 27
Adoption of Google Meet by Postgraduate Students: The Role of Task Technology Fit and the TAM Model
Alturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su142315765 · Cited by 27
“Many pieces of research in the literature reporting on technology acceptability or adoption have used the influence of SN on behavioral intention, especially on PU and PEOU [50,52,53].”
BackgroundAlQudah, A. A., Al‐Emran, M., Daim, T. U., & Shaalan, K. F. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2022.3223520 · Cited by 22
MUSLIM INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN RETAIL CWLS: THE TEST OF MEDIATION AND MODERATION EFFECTS
Berakon, I., Mutmainah, L., Qoyum, A., & Aji, H. M. (2022) · Journal of Islamic Monetary Economics and Finance · doi:10.21098/jimf.v8i0.1427 · Cited by 20
Investigating the Adoption of Social Commerce: A Case Study of SMEs in Jordan
Trawnih, A. A., Al‐Adwan, A. S., Amayreh, A., Majali, T., & Al‐Hattami, H. M. (2023) · Interdisciplinary Journal of Information Knowledge and Management · doi:10.28945/5071 · Cited by 27
Hasebrook, J. P., Michalak, L., Kohnen, D., Metelmann, B., Metelmann, C., Brinkrolf, P., Flessa, S., & Hahnenkamp, K. (2023) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280956 · Cited by 19
“The concept was originally proposed by Davis in his thesis [68] and several times extended by Venkatesh and Davis [69, 70] and now integrates a great number of relevant factors [71].”
BackgroundWemyss, D., Cellina, F., Grieder, M., & Schlüter, F. (2023) · Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.eist.2023.100702 · Cited by 18
Zhang, X. Y., & Lee, S. Y. (2023) · Journal of International Logistics and Trade · doi:10.1108/jilt-11-2022-0067 · Cited by 20
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
