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 2,401–2,500 of 8,090
Mitigating e-services avoidance: the role of government cybersecurity preparedness
Abdelhamid, M., Kisekka, V., & Samonas, S. (2019) · Information and Computer Security · doi:10.1108/ics-02-2018-0024 · Cited by 21
A multilevel investigation on antecedents for employees’ exploration of enterprise systems
Peng, Z. C., & Guo, X. (2019) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2019.1589964 · Cited by 18
“In addition to the above core constructs, we also included control variables; specifically, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and system self-efficacy, considered antecedents of system exploration in prior research, were adopted from Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
MethodThe Moderating Effect of Education and Experience on the Use of Learning Management Systems
Binyamin, S. S., Rutter, M. J., & Smith, S. (2019) · International Conference on Educational and Information Technology · doi:10.1145/3318396.3318428 · Cited by 19
“In accordance with [36, 38], the results demonstrated that the proposed model explained more variance in the students with lower levels of experience, so the LMS usage of less experienced students was better predicted by the independent variables.”
BackgroundResultLarivière, B., Joosten, H., Malthouse, E. C., van Birgelen, M., Aksoy, P., Kunz, W. H., & Huang, M. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2307058 · Cited by 18
Aldossary (2024) · doi:10.3390/info15040202 · Cited by 17
“This aligns with the importance of enjoyment, a key factor in the context of AI, which is vital for user engagement [50] and, within the Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT) framework, enjoyment transcends from a mere secondary element and becomes a primary influencer of user satisfaction and…”
BackgroundWeb-based Seminar - New Source of Qualitative Study: Data Collection during the Pandemic of COVID-19
Tiong, W. N., & Sim, A. F. S. F. (2020) · SEISENSE Journal of Management · doi:10.33215/sjom.v3i6.477 · Cited by 18
“…from the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), incorporates the perspective of behavioral science into perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use is one of the most widely used models in the field of information technology adoption research (Davis, 1986; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Zhang, 2018).”
MethodSteller, R. S., Recklies, E. A., & Schweizer-Ries, P. (2024) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.06.422 · Cited by 21
Li, M., Vale, C., Tan, H., & Blannin, J. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13309-3 · Cited by 29
“By understanding users’ attitudes and intentions, TAM offers valuable insights into technology’s adoption trajectory, ranging from initial acceptance to continuous usage (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Pagnanelli, M. A., Colamatteo, A., Cassia, F., & Sansone, M. (2025) · International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management · doi:10.1108/ijqrm-02-2024-0062 · Cited by 17
Alsyouf, A., Al-Momani, A. M., Alsubahi, N., Lutfi, A., Al-Mugheed, K., Almaiah, M. A., Anshasi, R. J., Alolayyan, M., Alsaad, A., & Alrawad, M. (2025) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076251336271 · Cited by 5
Marian, A.-L., Apostolache, R., & Ceobanu, C. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17157025 · Cited by 29
Hržica, R., Debelak, K., & Pevcin, P. (2025) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems13080705 · Cited by 18
“Subsequent versions progressively addressed TAM’s limitations: TAM2 added social influence and cognitive instrumental processes, lifting explanatory power; TAM3 introduced antecedents of ease/usefulness (e.g., computer self-efficacy), raising the variance explained to about 40–53% [21,22].”
Isaksson, J., Jansson, T. T., & Nilsson, J. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2020.2985616 · Cited by 17
“UTAUT stemmed from previous work regarding the Technology Acceptance Model, TAM [65], and its updates from the original authors, TAM2 and TAM3 [66], [67].”
ResultAdding ‘things’ to the internet: exploring the spillover effect of technology acceptance
Lu, Y., Papagiannidis, S., & Alamanos, E. (2021) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2021.1886156 · Cited by 17
“Previous studies indicated that achievement emotions (e.g., perceived enjoyment) would be more influential at the post-adoption stage (Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundDeng, Q., Zeng, Z., Zheng, Y., Lu, J., & Liu, W. (2021) · Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control · doi:10.1186/s13756-021-00966-z · Cited by 18
“The plausible reason may be that the role of ease of use often has no significant effect at the beginning of implementation, which is similar to the statement proposed in a previous study [47] that the impact of ease of use is limit at an early stage of technology uptake.”
ResultSocial Stratification, Self-Image Congruence, and Mobile Banking in Colombian Cities
Mesías, J. F. T., van Klyton, A. C., & Zúñiga-Collazos, A. (2021) · Journal of International Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1080/08961530.2021.1955426 · Cited by 18
“As such, TAM established that perceived ease of use (PEOU) influences perceived usefulness (PU) and the intention to use a technology and that perceived usefulness influences the intention to use (IU) (Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundTrust Indicators and Explainable AI: A Study on User Perceptions
Ribes, D., Henchoz, N., Portier, H., Défayes, L., Phan, T., Gática-Pérez, D., & Sonderegger, A. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85616-8_39 · Cited by 20
Social work in the face of emerging technologies: A technological acceptance study in 13 countries
Barrera-Algarín, E., Sarasola, J. L., & Fernández, A. S. (2021) · International Social Work · doi:10.1177/00208728211041672 · Cited by 17
“This technology acceptance measurement tool has had three versions, the last one in 2008 is called TAM 3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
MethodBürger, N., Haselmann, S., Baumgart, J., Prinz, G., Girnat, B., Meisert, A., Menthe, J., Schmidt-Thieme, B., & Wecker, C. (2021) · Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft · doi:10.1007/s11618-021-01050-3 · Cited by 25
ArgueBot: A Conversational Agent for Adaptive Argumentation Feedback
Wambsganß, T., Guggisberg, S., & Söllner, M. (2021) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86797-3_18 · Cited by 20
“We captured the perceived usefulness, intention to use and ease of use following the technology acceptance model of [64, 65].”
MethodAn Artificial Intelligence-Based Approach to Model User Behavior on the Adoption of E-Payment
Lai, P. C., & Tong, D. L. (2021) · Advances in electronic commerce (AEC) book series/Advances in electronic commerce series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-9035-5.ch001 · Cited by 17
Effects of gain-loss-framed messages on virtual reality intervened fitness exercise
Yadav, R., Yadav, M., & Mittal, A. (2021) · Information Discovery and Delivery · doi:10.1108/idd-04-2021-0051 · Cited by 20
Siebert, J. N., Gosetto, L., Sauvage, M., Bloudeau, L., Suppan, L., Rodieux, F., Haddad, K., Hugon, F., Gervaix, A., Lovis, C., et al. (2022) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/35399 · Cited by 23
“Two of the most commonly used models are the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [15,16], or its extended versions (TAM Task–Technology Fit [TTF] [17], TAM2 [18], and TAM3 [19]), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; version 1 [20] or 2 [21]).”
MethodJörling, M., Eitze, S., Schmid, P., Betsch, C., Allen, J., & BOHM, R. M. (2022) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2022.2050418 · Cited by 17
“Figure 1 provides an overview of the relevant factors and their relations as proposed by the established Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundMethodDoe, J. K., van de Wetering, R., Honyenuga, B. Q., & Versendaal, J. (2022) · Society and Business Review · doi:10.1108/sbr-10-2020-0128 · Cited by 18
Storer, H. L., & Nyerges, E. X. (2022) · Violence Against Women · doi:10.1177/10778012221094066 · Cited by 17
“The conceptual model for this study is influenced both by political economy organizational perspectives (Garrow & Hasenfeld, 2010) and by the Technology Acceptance Model (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodA Framework for Knowledge Management System Adoption in Small and Medium Enterprises
Zyl, W. V., Henning, S., & van der Poll, J. A. (2022) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers11090128 · Cited by 17
Nguyen‐Anh, T., Nguyen, A., Tran-Phuong, C., et al. (2022) · Policy Futures in Education · doi:10.1177/14782103221124181 · Cited by 17
“Prior research, which also used the TAM model, has provided valuable insights into the reasons why people adopt technologies in higher institutions (Venkatesh, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodMerino-Campos, C., Fernández, H. D. C., & Medina, J. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11295-y · Cited by 23
“It should be noted that the TAM model has been revised and extended with the consideration of new factors (Escobar et al., 2014) that have been named as TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
MethodAn SEM-Neural Network Approach for Predicting Antecedents of Online Grocery Shopping Acceptance
Singh, A. K., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2151223 · Cited by 18
“Before TAM, studies found that visibility is separate from the constructs of image and norms (Fisher & Price, 1992; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundIs the internet a double-edged sword for organizations? An empirical study on cyberloafing
Sarfraz, M., Khawaja, K. F., & Um-e-Farwah (2023) · Information Technology and Management · doi:10.1007/s10799-022-00385-5 · Cited by 17
“Venkatesh & Bala [78] (2008), four-item scale was used to measure TSE. sample items including: “If there was no one around to tell me what to do as I go” and “If someone showed me how to do it first.””
Ahmed, S. A. M., Suliman, M. A. E., AL-Qadri, A. H., & Zhang, W. (2023) · Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1108/jarhe-01-2023-0012 · Cited by 25
Nadal, C., Earley, C., Enrique, Á., Sas, C., Richards, D., & Doherty, G. J. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3617361 · Cited by 20
“Perceived reliability [52, 118, 119] Individuals who see the smartwatch as a reliable means to support their mental health are more likely to engage in self-report.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialYang, G., Shen, Q., & Jiang, R. (2023) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2023.103178 · Cited by 24
Examining learning management system success: a multiperspective framework
Bećirović, S. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12308-0 · Cited by 17
“According to Venkatesh and Bala (2008), if a system provides users with timely, accurate, and clear information, they may perceive the system as useful with great performance and high output quality.”
InfluentialBaah-Peprah, P., Shneor, R., & Munim, Z. H. (2024) · Venture Capital · doi:10.1080/13691066.2024.2310232 · Cited by 18
Kim, Y., Oyunbold, B., & Roh, T. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103953 · Cited by 20
N.A., A. A. T. (2024) · Future Business Journal · doi:10.1186/s43093-024-00368-8 · Cited by 23
“…a system is shaped by two key beliefs: perceived usefulness, which assesses the extent to which a person believes that using the system will enhance their job performance, and perceived ease of use, which reflects the extent to which a person believes that using the system will be effortless [53].”
BackgroundAnalysis of Techniques for Documenting User Requirements
Soares, M. S., & Cioquetta, D. S. (2012) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31128-4_2 · Cited by 17
FROM ACCEPTANCE TO OUTCOME: TOWARDS AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION
Sorgenfrei, C., Ebner, K., Smolnik, S., & Jennex, M. E. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 17
Cloud Computing As a Tool for Enhancing Ecological Goals?
Gottschalk, I., & Kirn, S. (2013) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-013-0284-2 · Cited by 17
“This scale measures whether people enjoy computer work, encompassing items like spontaneity or creativity in computer use (Venkatesh and Bala 2008, p. 313).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialThree Dimensions of Business Intelligence Systems Use Behavior
Grublješič, T., & Jaklič, J. (2014) · International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.4018/ijeis.2014070105 · Cited by 17
“The research stream examining adoption and acceptance is one of the richest and most mature streams in the IS field (e.g. Davis, 1989, Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundEvaluating a Framework for Securing E-Government Services -- A Case of Tanzania
Karokola, G. R., Kowalski, S. J., & Yngström, L. (2013) · Proceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2013.208 · Cited by 17
“Based on literature [4, 6, 7, 22, 27] seven framework evaluation criteria were developed.”
MethodMeléndez, A. P., Obra, A. R. D. Á., & Garrido‐Moreno, A. (2014) · Educación XX1 · doi:10.5944/educxx1.18.1.12314 · Cited by 17
Innovative public governance through cloud computing
Tsohou, A., Lee, H., & Zahir Irani, A. (2014) · Transforming Government People Process and Policy · doi:10.1108/tg-09-2013-0033 · Cited by 19
“…Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986), Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) and extended Technology Acceptance Models (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), Model of PC Utilisation (Thompson et al, 1991), Motivation Model (Davis et al.,…”
BackgroundCloud Services within a ROLE-enabled Personal Learning Environment
Rizzardini, R. H., Linares, B., Mikroyannidis, A., et al. (2012) · Open Research Online (The Open University) · Cited by 17
The adoption of social media by Thai university students
Suksa-ngiam, W., & Chaiyasoonthorn, W. (2013) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/0266666913502800 · Cited by 17
“Studies have confirmed the relationship between behavioural intention and use behaviour (Kaenprakob, 2010; Legris et al., 2003; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDigital competence of the university faculty
Cazco, G. H. O., González, M. C., Abad, F. M., & Varela, M. A. M. (2016) · Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) · doi:10.1145/3012430.3012510 · Cited by 18
“For the gathering of information, an instrument composed of 50 items was used, the same that was adapted from previous works [24], [32], [33] and later validated in terms of content by 12 experts from different Latin American universities (Spain, Mexico and Ecuador), who valued pertinence and…”
MethodTenbergen, B., Weyer, T., & Pohl, K. (2017) · Requirements Engineering · doi:10.1007/s00766-017-0267-9 · Cited by 17
“To measure the validators’ confidences, we selected items from the Technology Acceptance Model version 3 (TAM3, see [46]) and the task–technology fit model (TTF, see [47]).”
MethodSmeda, A. M., Shiratuddin, M. F., & Wong, K. W. (2017) · Knowledge Management & E-Learning An International Journal · doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2017.09.011 · Cited by 18
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) have also proved that the gender has the impact on users’ acceptance of IT.”
BackgroundUpadhyay, A. K., Khandelwal, K., Nandan, T., & Mishra, P. (2017) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-01-2017-0001 · Cited by 18
Norris, E., Dunsmuir, S., Duke‐Williams, O., Stamatakis, E. A., & Shelton, N. J. (2018) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.01.007 · Cited by 16
E-LEARNING IN THE HANDS OF GENERATION Y AND Z
Postolov, K., Šopova, M. M., & Janeska-Iliev, A. (2017) · Poslovna izvrsnost - Business excellence · doi:10.22598/pi-be/2017.11.2.107 · Cited by 17
Social Networking Sites Acceptance: The Role of Personal Innovativeness in Information Technology
Wijesundara, T. R., & Sun, X. (2018) · International Journal of Business and Management · doi:10.5539/ijbm.v13n8p75 · Cited by 17
“Over the time, the TAM model has been changed twice as the so-called TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and TAM 3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
MethodA New Model of Learner Experience in Online Learning Environments
Safsouf, Y., Mansouri, K., & Poirier, F. (2018) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03577-8_4 · Cited by 17
Ladan, M. A., Wharrad, H. J., & Windle, R. J. (2019) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.6326 · Cited by 18
Sun, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, Z., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2911197 · Cited by 17
“In addition, some studies have found that individuals’ prior knowledge / experience can facilitate IT use, but need some boosters [19], [85].”
BackgroundAcceptance Model for Mobile Building Information Modeling (BIM)
Hong, S.-H., Lee, S., Kim, I., et al. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9183668 · Cited by 17
Disrupting Unwanted Habits in Online Gambling Through Information Technology
Hou, J., Kim, K., Kim, S. S., & Ma, X. (2019) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2019.1661088 · Cited by 19
“In traditional research of habit disruption, a major strategy to overcome habit is through brief disruptions, which emphasize motivating individuals to deliberately reconsider their habitual actions [28, 43, 63, 77].”
BackgroundRodger, J. A. (2019) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.113081 · Cited by 17
Guo, H., Li, J., & Gao, S. H. (2019) · IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOCW) · doi:10.1109/edocw.2019.00020 · Cited by 17
“perceived risk on systems [14].”
A framework for pervasive computing applications based on smart objects and end user development
Goumopoulos, C., & Mavrommati, I. (2019) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2019.110496 · Cited by 17
An Empirical Investigation on Students’ Acceptance of (SM) Use for Teaching and Learning
Alyoussef, I. Y. (2020) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v15i04.11660 · Cited by 17
“Technology acceptance, according to the findings of previous related research, can be strongly predicted by PEOU [48, 46].”
BackgroundResultTechnology Adoption Theories and Models
Khan, R., & Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2020) · Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation/Advances in science, technology & innovation · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50112-9_5 · Cited by 17
Vocational Education and Training in the Age of Digitization
Wuttke, E., Seifried, J., Niegemann, H. M., Ifenthaler, D., Rugel, D., Lachmann, T., Siegfried, C., Hermkes, R., Fischer, S., & Barabasch, A. (2020) · Verlag Barbara Budrich eBooks · doi:10.3224/84742432 · Cited by 51
PrimaVera: Synergising Predictive Maintenance
Ton, B., Basten, R., Bolte, J. F. B., Braaksma, J., Bucchianico, A. D., de Calseyde, P. P. F. M. V., Grooteman, F. P., Heskes, T., Jansen, N., Teeuw, W. B., et al. (2020) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app10238348 · Cited by 18
Evaluation of Blockchain-based Data Sharing Acceptance among Intelligence Community
Muhamad, W. N. W., Afiza, N., Wook, M., Khalil, K., Mohd, N., Hasbullah, N. A., & Ramli, S. (2020) · International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications · doi:10.14569/ijacsa.2020.0111270 · Cited by 17
“Researchers suggested the application of TAM 3 due to its ability in investigating new relationship compared to TAM and TAM 2 [35], [36].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDoo, M. Y., & Bonk, C. J. (2021) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633121989128 · Cited by 17
“While there are several modified or extended versions of the TAM, such as TAM3 by Venkatesh and Bala (2008) or the general Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by Abdullah and Ward (2016), we chose TAM2 because it best fits with our research purpose.”
BackgroundMethodMusyaffi, A. M., & Muna, A. (2021) · JRAK · doi:10.23969/jrak.v13i1.3267 · Cited by 17
Disclosing customers' intentions to use social media for purchase-related decisions
Sangwan, S., Sharma, S. K., & Sharma, J. (2021) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration · doi:10.1108/apjba-02-2021-0061 · Cited by 17
Párraga, L. M., Palacios‐Rodríguez, A., & Gallego-Pérez, Ó. M. (2021) · Alteridad · doi:10.17163/alt.v17n1.2022.03 · Cited by 17
Modelling Students’ Adoption of E-Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Jamalova, M., & Bálint, C. (2022) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v17i07.29243 · Cited by 22
Drivers and deterrents of music streaming services purchase intention
Fernandes, T., Jo�ã, N. A., & Guerra, O. (2019) · International Journal of Electronic Business · doi:10.1504/ijeb.2019.099061 · Cited by 19
Factors correlated with online travel service adoption: a meta-analysis
Zhu, Z., Liao, L.-H., & Hu, B. (2022) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-10-2020-0284 · Cited by 11
Wu, Y., & Sankar, C. S. (2013) · Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education · doi:10.1111/dsji.12017 · Cited by 17
Michel, S., & Cocula, F. (2014) · Management & Avenir · doi:10.3917/mav.074.0033 · Cited by 17
An Empirical Assessment of Technology Adoption as a Choice between Alternatives
Bekkering, E., Johnston, A. C., Warkentin, M. E., et al. (2009) · Information Resources Management Journal · doi:10.4018/irmj.2009061902 · Cited by 17
Dohan, M. S., & Tan, J. (2013) · Americas Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 18
Examining Cloud Computing Adoption Intention in Higher Education: Exploratory Study
Militaru, G., Purcărea, A. A., NEGOITA, O. D., et al. (2016) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32689-4_56 · Cited by 17
Kéfi, H., Mlaiki, A., & Kalika, M. (2017) · Systèmes d information & management · doi:10.3917/sim.164.0007 · Cited by 17
The Investigation of E-Learning System Design Quality on Usage Intention
Chiang, C., Boakye, K. G., & Tang, X. B. (2017) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2017.1342176 · Cited by 19
“For example, Venkatesh and Bala [56] claim that system characteristics are an essential element for users to adopt and continuous use an IT system.”
BackgroundFulton, E. A., Kwah, K., Wild, S., & Brown, K. (2018) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare6030075 · Cited by 17
Pankomera, R., & van Greunen, D. (2018) · The African Journal of Information and Communication (AJIC) · doi:10.23962/10539/26113 · Cited by 17
“TAM 3 added even more variables: i) Anchor attributes such as computer self-efficacy, perception of external control, computer anxiety and computer playfulness and ii) Adjustments attributes such as perceived enjoyment and objective usability (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundCocosila, M., & Turel, O. (2019) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-04-2018-0174 · Cited by 17
“Various models and theories that focus on the antecedents of ICT adoption have been validated (Muthitcharoen, Palvia, & Grover, 2011; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2003).”
BackgroundArbeit in der digitalisierten Welt
Bauer, W., Mütze‐Niewöhner, S., Stowasser, S., Zanker, C., & Müller, N. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-62215-5 · Cited by 18
The Impact of the Perceived Value of Records on the Use of Electronic Recordkeeping Systems
Lewellen, M. (2015) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.17009141.v1 · Cited by 19
“41 2.12 TAM3: Technology Acceptance Model 3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”
InfluentialUnderstanding Trust in IT Artifacts - A New Conceptual Approach
Söllner, M., Pavlou, P. A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2013) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2013.11412abstract · Cited by 16
“ChatGPT Seems Too Good to be True”: College Students’ Use and Perceptions of Generative AIPreprint
Baek, C., Tate, T. P., & Warschauer, M. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/6tjpk · Cited by 17
Fink, F., Kalter, I., Steindorff, J.-V., Helmbold, H. K., Paulicke, D., & Jahn, P. (2024) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/51587 · Cited by 18
“…influences (subjective norm, image, and voluntariness), cognitive instrumental processes (job relevance, output quality, and result demonstrability; TAM 2), and psychological foundations (self-efficacy, external control, playfulness, anxiety, enjoyment, and usability; TAM 3) can be stated [13,14].”
BackgroundInvestigating digital marketing readiness among tourism firms: an emerging economy perspective
Abate, Y. A., Ukpabi, D. C., & Karjaluoto, H. (2024) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2024.2358047 · Cited by 33
Bektaş, B. C., & Alçura, G. A. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16219439 · Cited by 17
Creely, E., Barnes, M., Tour, E., Henderson, M., Waterhouse, P., Pena, M. A., & Patel, S. V. (2025) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s0958344024000314 · Cited by 16
Digital technologies in the classrooms in the last decade (2014–2023): a bibliometric analysis
Alam, T. M., Stoica, G. A., Sharma, K., & Özgöbek, Ö. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1533588 · Cited by 39
“Mishra and Koehler (2006) Venkatesh proposed TAM1 (Venkatesh, 2000), TAM2 (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003) framework to evaluate the integration of digital tools in diverse settings.”
Consumer adoption of food blockchain traceability: insights from integrating TAM and TR models
Li, W., Song, R., & Yu, K. (2025) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2025.1515188 · Cited by 16
“This contrasts with some prior studies on technology adoption, where PU is typically a stronger determinant of behavioral intentions (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
Ayeboafo, B., Anomah, S., & Amofah, K. (2025) · Journal of Economic Criminology · doi:10.1016/j.jeconc.2025.100158 · Cited by 16
Kowalczuk, P., & Hof, N. (2025) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-08-2023-4670 · Cited by 24
Liu, Y., Zhao, S., & Zhao, S. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-04969-8 · Cited by 30
“In existing literature, diffusion of innovations is regarded as a key determinant of successful technology adoption, in fl uencing users ’ adaptability and acceptance of new technologies (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
InfluentialChai, T., & Sha, C. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105979 · Cited by 20
Solhi, M., Derakhshan, A., & Noughabi, M. A. (2026) · Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.1080/17501229.2026.2653171 · Cited by 22
The Influence of Perceived Belonging on Social Network Site Adoption
Ernst, C.-P. H., Pfeiffer, J., & Rothlauf, F. (2013) · Scientific Publication Server (Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences) · Cited by 17
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
