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 2,301–2,400 of 8,090
Determinant Factors of Fintech Adoption in Organization using UTAUT Theory Approach
Kurniasari, F., Utomo, P., & Jimmy, S. Y. (2023) · Journal of Business Management Review · doi:10.47153/jbmr42.6032023 · Cited by 19
Joshi, D. R., Khanal, J., & Dhakal, R. H. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13050509 · Cited by 25
Hamza, M. A., Azfar, R. W., Mazher, K. M., Sultan, B., Maqsoom, A., Khahro, S. H., & Memon, Z. A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15108281 · Cited by 26
Age-Based Digital Divide: Uses of the Internet in People Over 54 Years Old
Papí-Gálvez, N., & Parra‐Casado, D. L. (2023) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v11i3.6744 · Cited by 23
“As a start‐ ing point, the main models derived from the Technology Acceptance Model introduce previous experience as a facilitating factor for use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) and the effects of sociodemographic characteristics (Venkatesh et al., 2003).”
MethodDíaz, G. M., Salvador, J. L. G., & Galán-Hernández, J. J. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12163395 · Cited by 28
“In certain scenarios, the data necessary for decision making originates from diverse expression domains.”
BackgroundFink, M. C., Eisenlauer, V., & Ertl, B. (2023) · Computers & Education X Reality · doi:10.1016/j.cexr.2023.100043 · Cited by 25
Kaushik, H., & Rajwanshi, R. (2023) · Research on World Agricultural Economy · doi:10.36956/rwae.v4i4.887 · Cited by 19
Toraman, Y., Bayırlı, M., & Ramadani, V. (2023) · Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development · doi:10.1108/jsbed-08-2023-0375 · Cited by 19
Idkhan, A. M., & Idris, M. M. (2023) · International Journal of Environment Engineering and Education · doi:10.55151/ijeedu.v5i3.91 · Cited by 20
“[35] Variables Kode Construct Sources User Satisfaction US1 Are you satisfied with the features of this e-learning system overall?”
BackgroundHu, S., Wang, W., Wang, X., & Yin, Y. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1265047 · Cited by 19
“Therefore, they can perceive its usefulness more positively and have positive behavioral attitudes towards it (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Fathema et al., 2015; Teo et al., 2019).”
BackgroundChatbots in Airport Customer Service—Exploring Use Cases and Technology Acceptance
Auer, I., Schlögl, S., & Glowka, G. (2024) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi16050175 · Cited by 31
Boldureanu, D., Guțu, I., & Boldureanu, G. (2025) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer20010018 · Cited by 31
“Both trust and perceived risk serve as critical mediators of consumer perception and consumer acceptance within e-commerce processes [73,74].”
Ologeanu‐Taddei, R., Gauche, K., Morquin, D., & Bourret, R. (2015) · Innovations · doi:10.3917/inno.047.0079 · Cited by 30
Understanding user differences in open-source workflow management system usage intentions
Recker, J., & Rosa, M. L. (2011) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2011.10.002 · Cited by 19
“know also in the open-source context, evaluations of usefulness and ease of use are key to understanding usage behavior [43].”
BackgroundManagerial problem-solving in the adoption of Radio Frequency Identification Technologies
Otondo, R. F., Pearson, A. W., Pearson, R. A., Shaw, J. C., & Shim, J. P. (2009) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2009.39 · Cited by 19
“Research on how managers intervene in such adoption decisions is limited, as is our understanding of how those interventions affect ICT adoption and use (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundEffects of Iranian online behavior on the acceptance of internet banking
Nikghadam-Hojjati, S., & Rabi, A. R. (2013) · Journal of Asia Business Studies · doi:10.1108/15587891311319422 · Cited by 19
Al-Sayyed, F., & Abdalhaq, B. K. (2016) · Cited by 18
Engler, T. H., & Alpar, P. (2016) · Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10919392.2016.1264768 · Cited by 19
“Focus on specific technologies in IS adoption research has been considered a necessary next step (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundResultThe Implementation of E-procurement System: Indonesia Evidence
Wicaksono, A. P., Urumsah, D., & Asmui, F. (2017) · SHS Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/shsconf/20173410004 · Cited by 19
“In technology acceptance theory [28], training is an important influence to ensure an information technology can be operated by people.”
BackgroundLee, C. K., Yiu, T. W., & Cheung, S. O. (2017) · Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction · doi:10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000245 · Cited by 19
Sun, S.-L., Hwang, H., Dutta, B., & Peng, M.-H. (2019) · Libyan Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1080/19932820.2019.1648963 · Cited by 19
“…are likely to interpret Tablet PC as being useful if they perceive that individuals, nurses, who are significant to them, consider that they should adopt Tablet PC, and is consistent with previous studies which explore that subjective norm is an important factor in new technology adoption [14,58].”
ResultDirectability, eye-gaze, and the usage of visual displays during an automated vehicle handover task
Clark, J. R., Stanton, N. A., & Revell, K. M. A. (2019) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2019.10.005 · Cited by 19
Exploratory analysis of factors influencing e-learning adoption by higher education teachers
Bouyzem, M., & Youssef, A. M. (2019) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-019-10075-5 · Cited by 19
“Nevertheless, the question that will arise is (Venkatesh and Bala 2008): what makes e-learning or technology in general perceived as useful and easy to use?”
BackgroundSiri, Do I like You? Digital Voice Assistants and Their Acceptance by Consumers
Ewers, K., Baier, D., & Höhn, N. (2020) · Journal of Service Management Research · doi:10.15358/2511-8676-2020-1-52 · Cited by 20
Understanding Rural Parents’ Behavioral Intention to Allow Their Children to Use Mobile Learning
Mutambara, D., & Bayaga, A. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44999-5_43 · Cited by 19
A dual-factor theory of WTs adoption in aged care service operations – a cross-country analysis
Khaksar, S. M. S., Jahanshahi, A. A., Slade, B., & Asian, S. (2020) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-10-2018-0449 · Cited by 19
Identifying critical success factors for wearable medical devices: a comprehensive exploration
Değerli, M., & Özkan, S. (2020) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-020-00763-2 · Cited by 21
Towards a Better Understanding of Social Acceptability
Uhde, A., & Hassenzahl, M. (2021) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3411763.3451649 · Cited by 25
“behavior [46], “image” to capture whether people in the organization associate the technology with prestige and high status [45, 46], and “social influence” as a combination of compliance (attaining rewards and avoiding punishment), identification (increasing social status), and internalization of a referent’s belief…”
BackgroundAn Empirical Study of Intention to Continue Using of Digital Ride-hailing Platforms
Sedighi, M., Parsaeiyan, H., & Araghi, Y. (2021) · The Review of Socionetwork Strategies · doi:10.1007/s12626-021-00098-1 · Cited by 22
“Furthermore, Venkatesh and Bala [25] outline additional external factors (for example, social norms) in an update of the integrated TAM.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLin, M. Y.-C., Nguyen, T. T., Cheng, E. Y.-L., Le, A. N. H., & Cheng, J. M.-S. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.030 · Cited by 23
Health Seekers’ Acceptance and Adoption Determinants of Telemedicine in Emerging Economies
Zobair, K. M., Sanzogni, L., Houghton, L., Sandhu, K., & Islam, M. J. (2021) · AJIS. Australasian journal of information systems/AJIS. Australian journal of information systems/Australian journal of information systems · doi:10.3127/ajis.v25i0.3071 · Cited by 23
“Venkatesh and Davis (2000) further proposed an extended TAM referred to as TAM 2, which together with TAM 3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), present a complete nomological network of the determinants of an individual’ technology adoption and use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialExploratory Study of Internet Banking Technology Adoption
Safeena, R., Kammani, A., & Date, H. (2018) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5201-7.ch015 · Cited by 19
Smirani, L. K., & Boulahia, J. A. (2022) · International Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s41870-022-00918-9 · Cited by 19
“In 2009, TAM 3 are presented by Venkatesh & Bala, 2008 as a recent version of the Technology Acceptance Model [28 ], and it incorporates two changes from TAM 2.”
BackgroundThe Marketing Effectiveness of Hotel Facebook Pages: From Perspectives of Customers and Messages
Leung, X. Y. (2020) · Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) · doi:10.34917/4332661 · Cited by 18
Featherman, M. S., Wright, R. T., Thatcher, J. B., Zimmer, J. C., & Pak, R. (2011) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00024 · Cited by 19
“Furthermore, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) suggest that “interventions,” such as interactivity, may provide “…a realistic preview of the system so that potential users can develop an accurate perception regarding systems features” (p. 292).”
BackgroundBurda, D., & Teuteberg, F. (2015) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2015.1079998 · Cited by 19
“…developed to predict individual adoption and use of new IT (F. D. Davis, 1989), it has been extended in studies such as Venkatesh and Davis (2000) (TAM2), Venkatesh and Bala (2008) (TAM3) or Gefen, Karahanna, and Straub (2003) by incorporating additional constructs as antecedents of TAM constructs.”
BackgroundRossi, C. (2017) · Tradumàtica tecnologies de la traducció · doi:10.5565/rev/tradumatica.195 · Cited by 19
“Subjective norms: students and teachers’ perceptions Within technology acceptance models, subjective norm has been defined as “The degree to which an individual perceives that most people who are important to him think he should or should not use the System” (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008: 277), and has been shown to have…”
BackgroundInfluentialQiu, Z., Wang, S., Hou, Y.-X., & Xu, S. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su152316229 · Cited by 23
Murali, M., Ni, M. Z., Karbing, D. S., Rees, S. E., Komorowski, M., Marshall, D. C., Ramnarayan, P., & Patel, B. V. (2024) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1016/j.bja.2024.03.011 · Cited by 26
“30,31 Subsequently updated to capture the impact of social norms (TAM2), a uni-fied model, the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) was devised.”
MethodBîlbîie, A., Puiu, A.-I., Mihăilă, V., & Burcea, M. (2024) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare12151531 · Cited by 22
“Among these two predictors, perceived usefulness has a stronger predictive power than perceived ease of use [33,56,57].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAI Impact on Hotel Guest Satisfaction via Tailor-Made Services: A Case Study of Serbia and Hungary
Makivić, R., Vukolić, D., Veljović, S. P., Bolesnikov, M., Dávid, L. D., Ivanišević, A., Silić, M., & Gajić, T. (2024) · Information · doi:10.3390/info15110700 · Cited by 36
Hmoud, A. Y. R., Salah, O. H., & Altalib, R. A. H. (2024) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2024.2428907 · Cited by 33
“Gamification Adoption was measured with statements such as ‘ Intention to adopt gamification in the near future ’ and ‘ Importance of gamification to work ’ , based on Venkatesh and Bala (2008) and X. Chen (2012).”
Robot Acceptance and Service Quality in Food Delivery: An Expanded TAM-based Study
Çavuşoğlu, M., Collins, G. R., DeMicco, F. J., & Çobanoğlu, C. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2445112 · Cited by 21
“The original TAM has been criticized for inadequately predicting technology acceptance due to its sole focus on functional characteristics, neglecting social factors and other conditions influencing user attitudes and acceptance behaviors (Ajibade, 2018; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Sabiteka, M., Yu, X., & Sun, C. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17083592 · Cited by 18
Haq, F. U., & Sukı, N. M. (2025) · Data Science and Management · doi:10.1016/j.dsm.2025.04.002 · Cited by 27
Ofem, U. J., Orim, F. S., Edam-Agbor, I. B., Amanso, E. O. I., Eni, E., Ukatu, J. O., Ovat, S. V., Osang, A. W., Dien, C., & Abuo, C. B. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1568306 · Cited by 21
Bamasoud, D. M., Nassr, R. M., & Bilal, S. (2025) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc9100264 · Cited by 43
Integrating AI in Public Governance: A Systematic Review
Aarab, A., Marzouki, A. E., Boubker, O., & Moutaqi, B. E. (2025) · Digital · doi:10.3390/digital5040059 · Cited by 35
Social networking as the production and consumption of a self
Fisher, M., Boland, R., & Lyytinen, K. (2016) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2016.11.001 · Cited by 18
Sıcakyüz, Ç., & Yüregir, H. O. (2020) · Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Innovation · doi:10.7341/20201624 · Cited by 18
TECHNOLOGY READINESS AND TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE OF ACADEMIC STAFFS
Bakırtaş, H., & Akkaş, C. (2020) · International Journal of Management Economics and Business · doi:10.17130/ijmeb.853629 · Cited by 18
A Path Model of the Intention to Adopt Variable Rate Irrigation in Northeast Italy
Canavari, M., Medici, M., Wongprawmas, R., Xhakollari, V., & Russo, S. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13041879 · Cited by 17
Sghari, A., & Bouaziz, F. (2021) · Interactive Technology and Smart Education · doi:10.1108/itse-05-2021-0082 · Cited by 18
Proximal and distal antecedents of problematic information technology use in organizations
Pirkkalainen, H., Tarafdar, M., Salo, M., & Makkonen, M. (2021) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-02-2021-0083 · Cited by 19
Xie, G.-H., Wang, L., & Khan, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.767357 · Cited by 23
ACCEPTANCE AND ADOPTION OF TECHNOLOGIES IN AGRICULTURE
Bilali, H. E., Hassen, T. B., Bottalico, F., Berjan, S., & Capone, R. (2021) · AGROFOR · doi:10.7251/agreng2101135e · Cited by 24
“The integrated technology acceptance model, TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), is the result of the combination of TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and the model of the perceived ease of use determinants (Venkatesh, 2000).”
MethodRhoon, L. V., McSharry, J., & Byrne, M. (2021) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12569 · Cited by 19
Ebnehoseini, Z., Tabesh, H., Deghatipour, A., & Tara, M. (2022) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-022-01800-1 · Cited by 18
“It proved that individuals’ behavioral intention to use new technology is determined by two beliefs: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [23].”
BackgroundInvestigating the Mobile Augmented Reality Acceptance Model with Pre-Service Teachers
Mikropoulos, T. A., Delimitros, M., & Koutromanos, G. (2022) · International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN) · doi:10.23919/ilrn55037.2022.9815972 · Cited by 18
Schlomann, A., Memmer, N., & Wahl, H. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.905043 · Cited by 25
Extending the Technology Acceptance Model 3 to Incorporate the Phenomenon of Warm-Glow
Saravanos, A., Zervoudakis, S., & Zheng, D. (2022) · Information · doi:10.3390/info13090429 · Cited by 25
“This included the respective questions from Venkatesh and Bala’s [2] TAM3 instrument, which were adjusted for consumers rather than for a workplace context, and specifically for the case of internet search technology, as demonstrated by Roy [50], as well as the warm-glow questions from see Saravanos et al. [21].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialInformation technology adoption by small and medium enterprises: a meta-analysis
Santini, F. D. O., de Matos, C. A., Ladeira, W. J., Jardim, W. C., & Perin, M. G. (2022) · Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1080/08276331.2022.2145787 · Cited by 24
“Usefulness is related to the perception of the enhanced user performance and experience fostered by new technology (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundSchoenherr, T. (2022) · Transportation Research Part E Logistics and Transportation Review · doi:10.1016/j.tre.2022.102972 · Cited by 22
Nanosensor Technologies and the Digital Transformation of Healthcare
Udoh, E., Hermel, M. H., Bharmal, M., Nayak, A., Patel, S., Butlin, M., & Bhavnani, S. P. (2023) · Personalized Medicine · doi:10.2217/pme-2022-0065 · Cited by 18
Reviewriter: AI-Generated Instructions For Peer Review Writing
Su, X., Wambsganß, T., Rietsche, R., Neshaei, S. P., & Kser, T. (2023) · Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.bea-1.5 · Cited by 22
“We assess the technology acceptance and level of enjoyment of the tool using well-defined constructs from Venkatesh and Bala (2008); Venkatesh et al. (2003) and also collect qualitative feedback from students.”
MethodYuan, Z., Deng, X., Ding, T., Liu, J., & Tan, Q. (2023) · Electronic Research Archive · doi:10.3934/era.2023287 · Cited by 18
Cashless Vietnam: a study on intention and adoption of cashless payment
Diệu, H. T. M., Mamun, A. A., Nguyen, T. L. H., & Naznen, F. (2023) · Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management · doi:10.1108/jstpm-02-2022-0031 · Cited by 30
Musyaffi, A. M., Sobirov, B. B., Afriadi, B., Hafeez, M., Adha, M. A., & Wibowo, S. N. (2023) · European Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.12973/eu-jer.13.1.183 · Cited by 33
Dimulescu, C. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su152216120 · Cited by 21
“It addresses the study’s objective to understand how a crisis can foster rapid technological adoption and result in enhanced user experiences [51,52].”
InfluentialAldreabi, H., Halalsheh, N. Z., Alrawashdeh, M. N., Alnajdawi, A. M., Alsawalqa, R. O., & Al-Shboul, M. A. (2023) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1226718 · Cited by 18
Boutet, I., Goulet-Pelletier, J.-C., Sutera, E., & Meinhardt-Injac, B. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100379 · Cited by 15
Employee Acceptance of Digital Transformation: A Study in a Smart City Context
Mutambik, I., & Almuqrin, A. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16041398 · Cited by 30
Venkatesh, V. (2024) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2024.114307 · Cited by 18
Self-citationOtto, P., & Nevo, D. (2013) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/17410391311289613 · Cited by 18
Acceptance of Mobile Technology in Hedonic Scenarios
Galzacorta, M. A., Díaz, I., & Vigo, M. (2010) · Electronic workshops in computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2010.31 · Cited by 18
“Recently, Venkatesh and Bala [23] released the so-called TAM3 in which intrinsic motivations such as Computer Playfulness and Perceived Enjoyment are introduced.”
BackgroundFactors Affecting Resistance and Intention to Use the Smart TV
Im, H., Jung, J., Kim, Y., et al. (2014) · Journal of Media Business Studies · doi:10.1080/16522354.2014.11073583 · Cited by 18
“…resistance to smart TV. H3: PU will increase the intention to use smart TV. H4: PEOU will increase the intention to use smart TV. Previous studies also claimed that the easier users perceive new technologies to be, the more usefulness they associate with it (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundVariable selection for payment in social networks: Introducing the Hy-index
Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., Herrera, L. J., & Guillén, A. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.022 · Cited by 18
“7-point Likert (1 ¼ totally disagree, 7 ¼ totally agree) Venkatesh and Bala (2008) Interaction with the tool does not require mental effort.”
BackgroundMobile acceptance among pre-service teachers
Sánchez‐Prieto, J. C., Migueláñéz, S. O., & García‐Peñalvo, F. J. (2015) · Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) · doi:10.1145/2808580.2808601 · Cited by 18
“For behavioural intention, self-efficacy and mobile device anxiety we have adapted items proposed by [30]:”
MethodInfluentialAhmed, E., & Ward, R. (2016) · Journal of Computers in Education · doi:10.1007/s40692-016-0058-1 · Cited by 18
“…with the e-portfolio is clear and understandable PEU3 It is easy for me to become skilful at using the e-portfolio PEU4 I find the e-portfolio easy to use (Davis 1989; Moore and Benbasat 1991; Chau ; Pituch and Lee 2006; Huang and Chuang 2007; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Shroff et al. 2011).”
MethodAre Wearables Good or Bad for Society?
Hein, D. W. E., Jodoin, J. L., Rauschnabel, P. A., et al. (2017) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2110-5.ch001 · Cited by 18
Hallikainen, H., Paesbrugghe, B., Laukkanen, T., Rangarajan, D., & Gabrielsson, M. (2017) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2017.552 · Cited by 22
“regard to the dependent variable in our conceptual model, three measurement items of behavioral intention toward using digital services were adopted from Venkatesh and Bala [33].”
MethodInfluentialWearable technologies, health and well-being: A case review
Wortley, D. J., An, J., & Nigg, C. R. (2017) · Digital Medicine · doi:10.4103/digm.digm_13_17 · Cited by 18
Causal paths to acceptance of technological innovations by individual employees
Talukder, M. (2018) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/bpmj-06-2016-0123 · Cited by 18
Investigating the Moderating Effects of Perceived Technological Change on Sales Force Acceptance
Obal, M. W., & Morgan, T. A. (2018) · Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing · doi:10.1080/1051712x.2018.1519971 · Cited by 18
“If an individual employee observes that their co-workers approve of a new technology, they are more likely to favor and accept that technology themselves due to social influence (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialAlmazroi, A. A., Kabbar, E. F., Naser, M., & Shen, H. (2019) · International Journal of Innovation · doi:10.5585/iji.v7i1.351 · Cited by 18
“System characteristics represent “those salient features of a system that can help individuals develop favourable (or unfavourable) perceptions regarding the usefulness or ease of use of a system” (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008, p. 276).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNugroho, M. A., Dewanti, P. W., & Novitasari, B. T. (2018) · International Conference on Applied Information Technology and Innovation (ICAITI) · doi:10.1109/icaiti.2018.8686742 · Cited by 28
"Incumbent System Context and Job Outcomes of Effective Enterprise System Use "
Independent Researcher, U., Hornyak, R., Rai, A., & Dong, J. Q. (2020) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00605 · Cited by 23
“A significant body of research has introduced similar constructs related to how the instrumental benefits of a technology lead to acceptance, adoption, and usage behaviors (e.g., Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundIncorporating XBRL topics into the accounting curriculum: empirical evidence from Indonesia
Wulandari, S. S., & Ali, S. (2019) · Accounting Education · doi:10.1080/09639284.2019.1679205 · Cited by 22
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) described the relationship between PEU and PU based on the Action Identi fi cation theory.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMurko, A., & Vrhovec, S. L. R. (2019) · doi:10.1145/3360664.3360679 · Cited by 18
“First, individuals are more likely to adopt new technology if they perceive it as useful (e.g., it helps them to perform better their every-day tasks) [13, 43].”
BackgroundImplementation and user acceptance of research information systems
Schöpfel, J., Azeroual, O., & Saake, G. (2019) · Data Technologies and Applications · doi:10.1108/dta-01-2019-0009 · Cited by 18
“Further research on the TAM highlighted the impact of external variables on perceived utility and ease of use (Venkatesh and Davis 2000, Venkatesh and Bala 2008), including data quality as one of the most important conditions for the acceptance.”
BackgroundCustomer participation risk management: conceptual model and managerial assessment tool
Damali, U., Secchi, E., Tax, S. S., & McCutcheon, D. M. (2020) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-05-2018-0147 · Cited by 20
Mashroofa, M. M., Jusoh, M., & Chinna, K. (2019) · Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management · doi:10.1080/09737766.2020.1729072 · Cited by 18
A Semantic-Enabled Smart Home for AAL and Continuity of Care
Spoladore, D., Arlati, S., Colombo, V. M., et al. (2021) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-9897-5_17 · Cited by 18
Hampel, N., & Sassenberg, K. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100086 · Cited by 22
Mobile Phone Buying Decisions among Young Adults: An Empirical Study of Influencing Factors
Tanveer, M., Kaur, H., Thomas, G., Mahmood, H., Paruthi, M., & Yu, Z. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su131910705 · Cited by 20
“Several researchers have extended the TAM model by adding more constructs such as self-efficacy, external control, anxiety, playfulness, enjoyment, and usability [25, 26, 27].”
BackgroundLean Software Development in Action
Janes, A., & Succi, G. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-00503-9_11 · Cited by 18
Subchi, I., Kusmana, K., Zulkifli, Z., Khairani, D., & Latifah, R. (2022) · AHKAM Jurnal Ilmu Syariah · doi:10.15408/ajis.v22i1.23687 · Cited by 19
“Individual differences include system self-efficacy, anxiety, playfulness, and external control perception (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMeasuring E-Learning System Success (Research In Progress)
Alsabawy, A. Y., Cater‐Steel, A., & Soar, J. (2011) · University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) · Cited by 19
Smith, T., Grant, G. G., & Ramirez, A. (2014) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2014.351 · Cited by 20
“Our concern is primarily with the factors influencing user intentions, so we have followed the many recent extensions that have eliminated attitude [18,19,40,41,42,43], Finally, the constructs of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness remain within our model.”
BackgroundExploratory Study of M‐Transaction: User's Perspectives
Alqahtani, M., Al-Badi, A. H., & Mayhew, P. J. (2014) · The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries · doi:10.1002/j.1681-4835.2014.tb00428.x · Cited by 18
“…et al., 2003); and to Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) stated clearly that “The most widely employed model of IT adoption and use is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that has been shown to be highly predictive of IT adoption and use” (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethod
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
