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 2,501–2,600 of 8,090
Ankamah, S., Gyesi, K., & Amponsah, V. (2022) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669221107378 · Cited by 16
“However, it has been criticized for failing to provide practitioners with concrete recommendations (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialPerceived barriers to adopting information and communication technology in physical education
Irwahand, F. N. E., Mat-Rasid, S. M., Low, J. F. L., Elumalai, G., Shahril, M. I., & Ahmad, M. A. I. (2022) · Pedagogy of Physical Culture and Sports · doi:10.15561/26649837.2022.0503 · Cited by 16
“Several variables within TAM3 including subjective norms, relevance to work, computer self-efficacy, and perceived enjoyment, appear to influence perceived usefulness and ease of use.”
BackgroundBenefits of a Wearable Activity Tracker with Safety Features for Older Adults: An Intervention Study
Touzery, S. H., Šetinc, M., & Dolničar, V. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192315723 · Cited by 20
“Enjoyment with ST use and perceived usefulness were measured with Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) statements [39,62] on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 meant “strongly disagree” and 5 meant “strongly agree”.”
MethodUNDERSTANDING XR TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE BY PHYSICALLY DISABLED TOURISTS IN MUSEUMS
Gharibi, N., Rudsari, S. M. M., Ali, F., & Ryu, K. (2022) · Tourism and hospitality management · doi:10.20867/thm.28.3.10 · Cited by 16
“Technology self-efficacy refers to a person who evaluates his ability to use a technology (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundIndividual Differences in the Acceptance and Adoption of AI-enabled Autonomous Systems
Weger, K., Easley, T., Branham, N., Tenhundfeld, N. L., & Mesmer, B. L. (2022) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181322661154 · Cited by 16
“Devaraj et al. also determined that subjective norms - which were found to be directly related to perceived ease of use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) - were a stronger motivating factor for technology adoption for individuals high in conscientiousness.”
BackgroundUsing Artificial Intelligence to Promote Branded Color Cosmetics: Evidence from Indonesia
Wei, Y., Simay, A. E., Agárdi, I., Syahrivar, J., & Hofmeister‐Tóth, Á. (2023) · Journal of Promotion Management · doi:10.1080/10496491.2022.2163036 · Cited by 17
“Finally, the 6-item AI color cosmetics adoption scale (AIC) was adapted from Venkatesh and Bala (2008), Abbad (2021) and Sprenger and Schwaninger (2021).”
MethodLampo, A. (2022) · International Conference on Industrial and Business Engineering (ICIBE) · doi:10.1145/3568834.3568903 · Cited by 16
“For instance, research [17] [18] developed the key determinants of the model and enhanced its explanatory power.”
BackgroundMethodChen, C., Nakayama, M., & Ractham, P. (2023) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2023.2188987 · Cited by 17
“Many studies have extended the use of TAM to more precisely predict the use of emerging technologies by incorporating additional constructs (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundGeorgiou, D., Trikoili, A., & Kester, L. (2023) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100145 · Cited by 27
User needs over time: the market and technology maturity model (MTMM)
Silberer, J., Astfalk, S., Planing, P., et al. (2023) · Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1186/s13731-023-00302-2 · Cited by 16
Wohlgemut, J. M., Pisirir, E., Kyrimi, E., Stoner, R. S., Marsh, W., Perkins, Z., & Tai, N. R. M. (2023) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad051 · Cited by 19
“Usefulness refers to the degree to which using a technology will enhance job performance.(11) Mobile health (mHealth) refers to applications (apps) which are developed on handheld devices (such as smartphones or tablets) for use in healthcare—either by healthcare professionals, patients, or carers.”
BackgroundAlturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151712845 · Cited by 29
Athambawa, A., Johar, M. G. M., & Khatibi, A. (2023) · Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science · doi:10.11591/ijeecs.v32.i1.pp458-467 · Cited by 16
Chakraborty, D., Mehta, P., Dash, G., Khan, N., Jain, R. K., & Biswas, D. (2023) · Journal of Global Information Management · doi:10.4018/jgim.332799 · Cited by 8
Factors affecting medical students’ intention to use Rain Classroom: a cross-sectional survey
Lv, H., Low, J. H., Tan, S., Tang, L., & Li, X. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05037-6 · Cited by 16
Wang, X., & Wang, Y. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124499 · Cited by 17
Xavier, M. F., Susainathan, S., Venotha, A. S., Antony, P. J. S., & Parayitam, S. (2024) · Journal of Marketing Analytics · doi:10.1057/s41270-024-00340-z · Cited by 16
Schultz, C. D., & Zacheus, P. (2024) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.2426 · Cited by 22
Consumer value dimensions in conversational and mobile commerce
Schultz, C. D., & Kaiser, S. (2025) · Journal of Marketing Analytics · doi:10.1057/s41270-025-00383-w · Cited by 25
“For the general structure of the technology acceptance model, we refer to Davis (1989), Venkatesh and Bala (2008), and Davis and Granić (2024).”
Verma, S. R., Kashive, N., & Gupta, A. K. (2025) · Benchmarking An International Journal · doi:10.1108/bij-07-2024-0564 · Cited by 21
THE PROJECT WORLD - GAMIFICATION IN PROJECT KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Schacht, S., Morana, S., & Mädche, A. (2014) · MADOC (University of Mannheim) · Cited by 16
The impact of implementation process on the perception of enterprise resource planning success
Toni, A. F. D., Fornasier, A., & Nonino, F. (2015) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/bpmj-08-2013-0114 · Cited by 16
Information Systems in Transition Economies: Does Ownership Matter?
Keszey, T. (2016) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2017.1254456 · Cited by 16
“” Efforts saved because of increased ease of use may be redeployed — enabling a person to accomplish more work for the same effort (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAl-Sharafi, M. A., & Arshah, R. A. (2016) · UMP Institutional Repository (Universiti Malaysia Pahang) · doi:10.15282/ijim.4.1.2018.10663 · Cited by 16
The influence of behavioural intention on third-party e-commerce payment
Chen, J. (2018) · South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences · doi:10.4102/sajems.v21i1.2157 · Cited by 17
Guerrero, F. N. T. (2019) · Ciencia Unemi · doi:10.29076/issn.2528-7737vol12iss29.2019pp63-76p · Cited by 16
Factors Affecting the Adoption of Connected Objects in e-Health: A Mixed Methods Approach
Dutot, V., Bergeron, F., Rozhkova, K., & Moreau, N. (2019) · Systèmes d information & management · doi:10.3917/sim.184.0031 · Cited by 16
“Research has shown that result demonstrability is related to various facets of perceived convenience (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Jung, 2008; Chismar and Wiley-Patton, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Diffusion and Adoption of Electronic Payment Systems in Bangkok
Chaiyasoonthorn, W., & Suksa-ngiam, W. (2019) · International Journal of E-Business Research · doi:10.4018/ijebr.2019040106 · Cited by 16
Noman, A. S. M., Das, S., & Patil, S. (2019) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300698 · Cited by 16
“…researchers have provided theoretical insight (e.g., Unifed Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology [63], the Technology Acceptance Models [62], etc.) as well as feld studies of specifc technologies, such as groupware [50], local area networks [14], etc. Literature in the feld of…”
BackgroundZabukovšek, S. S., Bharadwaj, S. S., Bobek, S., & Štrukelj, Т. (2019) · Engineering Economics · doi:10.5755/j01.ee.30.3.21211 · Cited by 16
Zhao, Y., Bandyopadhyay, K., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2020) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.04609 · Cited by 16
Krause, K., Assmann, T., Schmidt, S., et al. (2020) · Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2020.100135 · Cited by 16
Putra, I. D. G. R. D., Saukah, A., Basthomi, Y., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v15i15.11077 · Cited by 16
“An increasing experience in using a particular mobile technology will enable the users to get more information on how effective, easy or difficult the system is, reduce anxiety, and improve the intention to use the technology [25]–[27].”
BackgroundAagaard, A., Presser, M., Collins, T., Beliatis, M., Skou, A. K., & Jakobsen, E. (2021) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics10101134 · Cited by 14
“…of Diffusion of Innovations (DIT) [14], Theory of Reasonable Action (TRA) [15], Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) [16,17], Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour [18], Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [19,20], Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) [21] and Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) [22].”
BackgroundHsu, T.-C., & Hwang, G.-J. (2021) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-021-00821-3 · Cited by 13
Xu, Q., Hwang, B., & Lu, Y. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128493 · Cited by 15
dos Santos, J., & Duffett, R. G. (2021) · Small Business International Review · doi:10.26784/sbir.v5i2.392 · Cited by 21
“…also influence attitudes and behavioral intentions regarding the use and acceptance of digital technology, but the principle notion that the usefulness of new technology positively affect its adoption remains unaltered (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Dwivedi et al., 2011).”
BackgroundPratono, A. H. (2021) · Measuring Business Excellence · doi:10.1108/mbe-04-2021-0056 · Cited by 16
E-payment Usage among Young Urban Chinese
Nadler, S., Chen, A. N., & Lin, S.-F. (2019) · Journal of Business Diversity · doi:10.33423/jbd.v19i3.2215 · Cited by 16
Lawluvy, Y. K., Guo, F., & Wang, K. (2022) · ASCE Construction Research Congress (CRC) · doi:10.1061/9780784483978.099 · Cited by 16
Stiegemeier, D., Kraus, J., Bringeland, S., & Baumann, M. R. K. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2088658 · Cited by 17
“According to the TAM (Davis, 1985; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), the intention to use a system is influenced by the constructs Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use (Table 1 for definitions).”
MethodMegaro, A., Carrubbo, L., Polese, F., & Sirianni, C. A. (2022) · The TQM Journal · doi:10.1108/tqm-02-2022-0072 · Cited by 21
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) show how numerous cases of errors in corporate IT systems Patient-driven service innovation are due to the resistance of users to use them since they are inherently complex to understand and use, leading many to stop using them, for not having found any advantage in their…”
BackgroundMethodDistance Learning in Pandemic Age: Lessons from a (No Longer) Emergency
Addimando, L. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192316302 · Cited by 19
“In addition to the cognitive aspects of technology adoption, such as those examined by the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology [6], which moved from the technology acceptance model [7] and from the Affordance Theory [8], researchers contend that emotions can also have an impact on how technology is used…”
MethodAttitudes toward and beliefs about the use of a dental diagnostic terminology
Ramoni, R. B., Walji, M. F., Kim, S., Tokede, O. A., McClellan, L., Simmons, K. L., Skourtes, E., Yansane, A., White, J. M., & Kalenderian, E. (2015) · The Journal of the American Dental Association · doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2015.02.007 · Cited by 16
Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations of Social Network Site Usage
Ernst, C.-P. H. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-09918-3_2 · Cited by 16
Rapaccini, M., Porcelli, I., Espíndola, D. B., & Pereira, C. E. (2014) · Production & Manufacturing Research · doi:10.1080/21693277.2014.943430 · Cited by 17
“Then, despite the items that measured the TAM constructs were based on the works from Wu, Cheng, Yen, and Huang (2011), Dishaw and Strong (1999), Venkatesh and Bala (2008), Al-Gahtani (2011), they were rephrased in a hypothetical way since respondents do not have direct experience with MCAR.”
MethodCollazo, N. A. J., Wu, X., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2014) · ISRN Education · doi:10.1155/2014/736931 · Cited by 19
“Moreover, it is a predecessor and basis for newer models such as the TAM 2 [9], the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) [10], and the TAM 3 [11].”
BackgroundSocial Media and Value Creation
Boughzala, I. (2016) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2016040107 · Cited by 16
Content Acceptance Model and New Media Technologies
Barelka, A. J., Jeyaraj, A., & Walinski, R. G. (2013) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2013.11645632 · Cited by 16
“These models include Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), Motivational Model (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1992), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), Social Cognitive Theory (Compeau and Higgins, 1995), Model of PC Utilization (Thompson, Higg…”
BackgroundSupport for the Development of Technological Innovations: Promoting Responsible Social Uses
Legault, G. A., Verchère, C., & Patenaude, J. (2017) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9911-5 · Cited by 18
“According to Venkatesh and Bala (2008), a TAM 3 stage was reached, which provides better breakdowns of explanatory factors, whereas Egea and Gonzalez (2011) maintain that the TAM should incorporate factors such as confidence and risk.”
Social media in the airline industry: acceptance of social seating
Koch, S., & Tritscher, F. (2017) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-11-2016-0078 · Cited by 16
Increasing e-government adoption in Malaysia: MyEG case study
Husin, M. H., Loghmani, N., & Abidin, S. S. Z. (2017) · Journal of Systems and Information Technology · doi:10.1108/jsit-01-2017-0007 · Cited by 16
Users experience of mobile money in Nigeria
Olaleye, S. A., Sanusi, I. T., & Oyelere, S. S. (2017) · IEEE AFRICON · doi:10.1109/afrcon.2017.8095606 · Cited by 17
“The constructs were adapted as follows; privacy is measured by items adapted from [31], Security [32], Convenience [27], [33], [34], System Anxiety [33] and User experience [27], [33], [34].”
MethodDirks, S., & Bühler, C. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92049-8_36 · Cited by 16
From Design Principles to Impacts: A Theoretical Framework and Research Agenda
Technology, T. H. K. U. O. S. A., Zhang, X., & Venkatesh, V. (2018) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00106 · Cited by 16
“…& McLean, 2008), technology adoption (Brown, Venkatesh, & Goyal, 2014; Brown, Venkatesh, & Hoehle, 2015; Thong, Venkatesh, Xu, Hong, & Tam, 2011; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003; Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012, 2016; Xu, Venkatesh, Tam, & Hong, 2010), and…”
BackgroundSelf-citationFurner, C. P., Zinko, R., & Zhu, Z. (2018) · International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications · doi:10.4018/ijesma.2018100103 · Cited by 16
Designing Mid-Air Gesture Interaction with Mobile Devices for Older Adults
Ferron, M., Mana, N., & Mich, O. (2019) · Human-computer interaction series · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-06076-3_6 · Cited by 16
User Experience and Social Influence: A New Perspective for UX Theory
Linden, J. V. D., Amadieu, F., Vayre, É., & Leemput, C. V. D. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23570-3_9 · Cited by 16
Hsiao, S.-J., & Tseng, H. (2020) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare8010028 · Cited by 17
“Venkatesh and Bala [10] integrated six external variables proposed by TAM2 and Venkatesh [11] to strengthen the PEOU, such as computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, computer anxiety, computer playfulness, perceived enjoyment, and objective usability, and proposed the technology acceptance model 3 (TA…”
Urban agriculture can transform the sustainable food security for urban dwellers in Pakistan
Perveen, F., Shang, J., Yasmeen, S., Wattoo, M. U., Nasrullah, M., & Alam, Q. (2020) · GeoJournal · doi:10.1007/s10708-020-10208-1 · Cited by 17
Rehabilitation at Home: A Comprehensive Technological Approach
Borghese, N. A., Murray, D. W., Paraschiv-Ionescu, A., de Bruin, E. D., Bulgheroni, M., Steblin, A., Luft, A. R., & Parra, C. L. (2014) · Intelligent systems reference library · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54816-1_16 · Cited by 16
(2014) · Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) · Cited by 15
E-training adoption in the Nigerian civil service
Bello, Z., Bhatti, M. A., Pangil, F. B., & Battour, M. (2015) · European journal of training and development · doi:10.1108/ejtd-11-2014-0077 · Cited by 17
User acceptance of complex electronic market mechanisms: Role of information feedback
Adomavicius, G., Curley, S. P., Gupta, A., & Sanyal, P. (2013) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2013.07.015 · Cited by 16
A Framework for Securing e-Government Services : The Case of Tanzania
Karokola, G. R. (2012) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 16
Nguyen, M., Mehrotra, A., Malik, A., & Pandey, R. (2025) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-08-2024-0452 · Cited by 16
Benefits and challenges of using oer in higher education: a pragmatic review
Swain, B. K., & Pathak, R. (2024) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-024-00142-6 · Cited by 25
“aspects of the work: These can be made by a variety of websites and include CC BY, CC BY SA, CC BY-ND, CC BY NC, CC BY NC SA, and CC BY NC ND [2, 8–11].”
Chen, Z., Xia, S., Shao, Z., Gu, Z., Wu, Z., Wu, L., & Wang, X. (2024) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2024.10.015 · Cited by 15
Adoption of AI by the HR function in the civil service
Smith, M. H., Prabhakar, G. P., Nisar, T. M., & Tseng, H. (2024) · Employee Relations · doi:10.1108/er-02-2024-0096 · Cited by 19
Cheng, A., Zhang, W., Feng, A., Wu, Y., & Li, W. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1514117 · Cited by 21
“While other well-established frameworks, such as the Technology Acceptance Model (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al., 2012; Tamilmani et al., 2021), include constructs like perceived ease of use, usefulness, enjoyment, and self-efficacy, these models…”
Liu, Y., & Liu, Y. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17093869 · Cited by 18
Rayun, S. M. N., Salam, M. A., Islam, W., Firmansyah, E. A., & Kalinaki, K. (2025) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-04-2024-0222 · Cited by 17
Exploring pre-service teachers’ generative AI readiness and behavioral intentions
Bui, P., Korhonen, T., Kontkanen, S., Karme, S., Piispa-Hakala, S., & Veermans, M. (2025) · LUMAT International Journal on Math Science and Technology Education · doi:10.31129/lumat.13.1.2755 · Cited by 28
HR digital transformation: enhancing human resource management through technology
Garem, R. A. E. (2026) · Future Business Journal · doi:10.1186/s43093-025-00703-7 · Cited by 47
“H1 and H2 are supported according to technology acceptance model (TAM) that states how adoption of technology is driven by means of perceived usefulness and ease of use [17, 51].”
Al‐Jumeily, D., & Hussain, A. J. (2014) · Cited by 15
CloudFile: A cloud data access control system based on mobile social trust
Yan, Z., & Shi, W. (2016) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2016.11.016 · Cited by 15
“This theory and its extension [34] also show that good interface leads to good perceived usefulness and ease of use; playfulness causes better acceptance (attitude).”
BackgroundHow to Model the Adoption and Perception of Precision Agriculture Technologies
Carli, G., Xhakollari, V., & Tagliaventi, M. R. (2017) · Progress in precision agriculture · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68715-5_11 · Cited by 15
Construction Digitalisation Tools In South African Construction Industry: An Added Advantage
Tanga, O., Aigbavboa, C. O., Akinradewo, O. I., et al. (2021) · IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · doi:10.1088/1757-899x/1107/1/012230 · Cited by 15
“Devaraj [32] and Venkatesh [33] put forward that a competitive advantage can be enhanced by improving work quality and efficiency.”
BackgroundA Latent Profile Analysis of University Faculty Subtypes for Mobile Technology Integration
Yukhymenko–Lescroart, M. A., Donnelly-Hermosillo, D. F., Cowan, C. C., & Berrett, B. (2021) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100052 · Cited by 16
“Previous studies have shown that perceived usefulness is a strong predictor of behavioral intention to use technology [[10], [30], [34], [48], [57]].”
BackgroundHandbook of Research on Acquiring 21st Century Literacy Skills Through Game-Based Learning
(2021) · Advances in game-based learning book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-7271-9 · Cited by 15
Cocosila, M., Farrelly, G., & Trabelsi, H. (2022) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-01-2021-0026 · Cited by 15
Jayakumar, L. N. (2021) · DBS Business Review · doi:10.22375/dbr.v4i0.72 · Cited by 15
“Despite some reservations, TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), the third iteration of the Technology Acceptance Model, is used as the general framework for many studies and has been found, consistent with many studies (Stewart and Jürjens, 2018), that the factors like design, perceived usefulness, perceived risk, trust,…”
MethodResultInfluentialLuse, A., & Burkman, J. (2022) · Journal of business research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.001 · Cited by 14
Technology Acceptance Model: History, Theory, and Application
Ursavaş, Ö. F. (2022) · Springer texts in education · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-10846-4_4 · Cited by 28
Shi, Y., & Guo, F. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su142114006 · Cited by 19
“Four constructs—job relevance, output quality, result demonstrability, and PEU—capture this influence [16].”
Fahmi, M. A., Kostini, N., & Putra, W. B. T. S. (2022) · International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) · doi:10.20525/ijrbs.v11i8.2144 · Cited by 14
Huang, F., Mingyan, Z. H. A. O., Qi, J., & Zhang, R. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1064963 · Cited by 24
“Experienced English teachers adopted diverse strategies to conquer perceived anxiety and difficulties (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), during which, they reconstructed their teacher identities.”
BackgroundGrevet, E., Forge, K., Tadiello, S., Izac, M., Amadieu, F., Brunel, L. C., Pillette, L., Py, J., Gasq, D., & Jeunet, C. (2023) · Frontiers in Neuroergonomics · doi:10.3389/fnrgo.2022.1082901 · Cited by 15
AL-Sayid, F., & Kirkil, G. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11635-6 · Cited by 17
“A variety of research projects were conducted, and linear regression analyses were employed to prove the EoU and U relationship (Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; AL-Ammari and Hamad, 2008; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Phua et al., 2012).”
MethodKey Drivers and Performances of Smart Manufacturing Adoption: A Meta-Analysis
Kim, J., Jeong, H.-R., & Park, H. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15086496 · Cited by 19
Choi, S., Jang, Y., & Kim, H. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2194927 · Cited by 16
“In addition, instruments that measure TAM constructs, namely PEU, PU, and BI, were based on Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
Ho, K.-F., Chou, P.-H., & Chung, M. (2023) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-023-01292-y · Cited by 15
“The original TAM3 questionnaire has high reliability, as indicated by internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.76-0.93), and high validity [72].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKopp, T., Baumgartner, M., Seeger, M., et al. (2023) · The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · doi:10.1007/s00170-023-11294-4 · Cited by 15
A systematic review on factors influencing learning management system usage in Arab gulf countries
Sulaiman, T. T. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11936-w · Cited by 15
“As indicated by Venkatesh and Bala (2008 ), cultural differences are crucial in determining technology use intentions.”
Fan, C., & Wang, J. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-01815-7 · Cited by 20
Moradbakhti, L., Mara, M., Castellano, G., & Winkle, K. (2023) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-023-01033-w · Cited by 17
“We utilised two ITU items based on the ITU items from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM3, [72]), one of the key constructs in human–computer interaction research to measuretechnologyacceptanceofusers:(1)“Icouldimagine to use the robot in the future.” and (2) “I would like to inform myself about…”
MethodMlakar, I., Smrke, U., Flis, V., Kobilica, N., Horvat, S., Ilijevec, B., Musil, B., & Plohl, N. (2023) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-023-01039-4 · Cited by 16
Chen, J., Kong, W. K., Chi, H.-L., et al. (2023) · Journal of Civil Engineering Education · doi:10.1061/jceecd.eieng-1959 · Cited by 15
Yu, T., Zhang, Y., Teoh, A. P., Wang, A., & Wang, C. (2023) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440231210551 · Cited by 20
“Accordingly, in line with prior studies on technology acceptance (e.g., Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), In contrast, SI and FV showed no significant impact on BI.”
ResultWang, Y., Jiang, Y., Liu, R., & Miao, M. (2023) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2023.101355 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Venkatesh, Viswanath
- Bala, Hillol
- Venue
- Decision Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 273-315
- ISSN
- 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5915
- OpenAlex
- W2112042732
- Cited by
- 8,159
- References
- 135
- Citations by year
- 2026: 909 · 2025: 912 · 2024: 780 · 2023: 746 · 2022: 717 · 2021: 645 · 2020: 556 · 2019: 499 · 2018: 396 · 2017: 379 · 2016: 320 · 2015: 324 · 2014: 287 · 2013: 266 · 2012: 186
- FWCI
- 175.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Decision Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
- Keywords
- technology acceptance model, information technology adoption, information technology use, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, management interventions, IT implementation, organizational decision-making, nomological network
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
