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 2,801–2,900 of 8,090
Automation Anxiety as a Barrier to Workplace Automation
Eißer, J., Torrini, M., & Böhm, S. (2020) · ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research (SIGCPR) · doi:10.1145/3378539.3393866 · Cited by 18
“In [10], usage is measured as a longitudinal self-reported figure over time.”
InfluentialThe Use of Affective Care Robots Calls Forth Value-based Consideration
Turja, T., & Parviainen, J. (2020) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man47096.2020.9223336 · Cited by 13
“In addition to the rather novel research field of personal values in robot acceptance, there is more extensive and consistent evidence that robotization readiness and an intention to use robots depend on socially shared attitudes and norms toward robots [21-23].”
BackgroundDrivers of information technology choice by individuals
Duffy, K., Jeyaraj, A., Sethi, V., & Sethi, V. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102320 · Cited by 16
Contributions to the Technological Adoption Model for the Peruvian Agro-Export Sector
Salas, C., Vega-Huerta, H., & Rodriguez, C. R. (2021) · International Journal of E-Adoption · doi:10.4018/ijea.2021010101 · Cited by 14
Acceptance Model of a Mandatory Health Information System in Indonesia
Nugroho, H. S. W., Notobroto, H. B., & Rosyanti, L. (2021) · Healthcare Informatics Research · doi:10.4258/hir.2021.27.2.127 · Cited by 18
“Organizational support is not part of the TAM, so it must be interpreted in light of another theory, organizational support theory [8], and is hereinafter referred to as perceived organizational support.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe Moderating Effects of Leader-Member Exchange for Technology Acceptance
Hwang, Y., Kim, S., Rouibah, K., & Shin, D. (2021) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.20210701.oa1 · Cited by 17
“Recently, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) called for more research aimed at developing a “richer conceptualization of management support to enhance our understanding of its role in IT adoption contexts” (p. 297).”
BackgroundEffects of Luxury Perceptions on Purchase Intention of High-Tech Products
Ho, S. C.-H., Yeh, Y. Y., & Lin, T. M. Y. (2021) · Journal of International Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1080/08961530.2021.1937769 · Cited by 13
“The theoretical development of TAM comprehensively examined the decisive effects of multiple external variables on perceived usefulness and ease of use, which led to extended models that were later developed (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCai, Y., & Cude, B. J. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28887-1_28 · Cited by 12
Daemen, M., Bruinsma, J., Bakker, C., Zwaaftink, R. B. M. G., Koopmans, R. T. C. M., Oostijen, A., Loose, B., Verhey, F. R. J., de Vugt, M. E., & Peetoom, K. K. B. (2022) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2022.100530 · Cited by 13
Chaveesuk, S., & Chaiyasoonthorn, W. (2022) · Education Research International · doi:10.1155/2022/6909120 · Cited by 13
“Eight years later, Venkatesh and Bala [53] proposed another extended model named TAM 3 in which experience was used as a moderator defining the relationships among the constructs.”
BackgroundKazakou, G., & Koutromanos, G. (2022) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-96296-8_14 · Cited by 13
The impact of informal communication on the quality and productivity of digital collaborative work
Stöckl, A., & Struck, O. (2022) · Work · doi:10.3233/wor-211246 · Cited by 13
“None of these results are unexpected [55, 56].”
Musyaffi, A. M., Septiawan., B., Arief, S., Usman, O., Sasmi, A. A., & Zairin, G. M. (2022) · TEM Journal · doi:10.18421/tem114-19 · Cited by 16
The acceptance model of smart city service: focused on Seoul
Lee, S. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15032695 · Cited by 21
Storer, H. L., Scott, C. F., Rodriguez, M. Y., & Nyerges, E. X. (2023) · Journal of Technology in Human Services · doi:10.1080/15228835.2023.2179158 · Cited by 13
“Building off TAM, understanding how technology can facilitate client safety and well-being can help encourage workers’ readiness to adopt new technologies (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundStroh, T., Mention, A., & Duff, C. (2023) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102759 · Cited by 17
Content Validation of a Questionnaire to Measure Digital Competence of Nurses in Clinical Practice
Golz, C., Hahn, S., & Zwakhalen, S. M. G. (2023) · CIN Computers Informatics Nursing · doi:10.1097/cin.0000000000001037 · Cited by 15
Yakubu, A. S., Kassim, A. M., & Husin, M. H. (2023) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102747 · Cited by 14
FinTech credit: uncovering knowledge base, intellectual structure and research front
Thomas, N. M., Mendiratta, P., & Kashiramka, S. (2023) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-01-2023-0039 · Cited by 14
Kayser, K., & Telukdarie, A. (2024) · Springer proceedings in business and economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-46177-4_12 · Cited by 14
SME Internet Use: The Moderating Role of Normative Influence
Celuch, K. G., Bourdeau, B., Saxby, C. L., & Ehlen, C. R. (2014) · Journal of Small Business Strategy · Cited by 13
Moqbel, M., & Bartelt, V. L. (2015) · AIS Transactions on Replication Research · doi:10.17705/1atrr.00005 · Cited by 13
“In fact, user experience with the system was demonstrated to moderate the relationship between perceived ease of use and behavioral intention (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) such that more experienced users tend to not rely on ease of use in their decisions.”
BackgroundUse of Personal Values in Requirements Engineering – A Research Preview
Proynova, R., Paech, B., Wicht, A., et al. (2010) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14192-8_3 · Cited by 13
“In parallel we expand our literature study to include information systems literature on technology acceptance such as [17].”
BackgroundTeacher Heutagogy in the Network Society: A Framework for Critical Reflection
Jaakkola, M. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13752-0_8 · Cited by 13
EBTAM: technology acceptance in e-Business environments
Leyton, D., Pino, J. A., & Ochoa, S. F. (2014) · Information Systems and e-Business Management · doi:10.1007/s10257-014-0255-2 · Cited by 13
“In the EBTAM definition, TAM was used as the basis, and some variables from TAM2, TAM3 and UTAUT were also added.”
MethodInfluentialExploring Choice as an Antecedent to Behavior
Aguirre-Urreta, M. I., & Marakas, G. M. (2012) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2012010105 · Cited by 13
User acceptance of online system: a study of banking and airline sector
Khan, H., & Dominic, P. D. D. (2014) · International Journal of Business Information Systems · doi:10.1504/ijbis.2014.063926 · Cited by 13
“‘Perception of external control’ determines whether an individual believes the organisational and technical support is suitable (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBakke, S., & Henry, R. M. (2015) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00075 · Cited by 13
“These models include TAM (Davis, 1989) and its key extensions TAM 2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and TAM 3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and its extension UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al., 2012), innovation diffusion theory…”
MethodCheng, V. T. P., & Lok, P. (2015) · Information Technology & Tourism · doi:10.1007/s40558-015-0028-x · Cited by 13
“Conventional approaches to addressing IT adoption issues commonly use models, such as the technology acceptance model (TAM) and many of its extensions (Davis 1989; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
MethodSupporting the Adoption of Technology Enhanced Learning by Academics at Universities
Thanaraj, A., & Williams, S. (2016) · Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology · doi:10.14434/jotlt.v5n1.18985 · Cited by 13
Framing ERP Success from an Information Systems Failure Perspective
Zerbino, P., Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2017) · Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations · doi:10.4018/jeco.2017040103 · Cited by 13
Customer acceptance of NFC technology: An exploratory study in the wine industry
Bandinelli, R., Fani, V., & Rinaldi, R. (2017) · International Journal of RF Technologies · doi:10.3233/rft-171520 · Cited by 13
“In the TAM3, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) identified the determinants of PEOU (i.e. Computer Self-Efficacy, Perception of External Control, Computer Anxiety, Computer Playfulness, Perceived Enjoyment, Objective Usability).”
HurYeon, & Lim, S. H. (2017) · Journal of Insurance and Finance · doi:10.23842/jif.2017.28.1.002 · Cited by 13
Aziz, A. A., Yusof, Z. M., Mokhtar, U. A., & Jambari, D. I. (2017) · doi:10.1109/iceei.2017.8312413 · Cited by 13
“This shows that UTAUT is better compared to TAM where is only able to predict up to 30% and other models that have variances between 17 to 53% only [22].”
Real-Time Processing Library for Open-Source Hardware Biomedical Sensors
Molina-Cantero, A. J., Castro-García, J. A., Lebrato-Vázquez, C., et al. (2018) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s18041033 · Cited by 13
“TAM3 [54] extends the use of new factors to know the causes of the perceived ease of use.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe path to mobile shopping compatibility
Jiménez, N., Gutiérrez, S. S. M., & Domínguez, N. P. (2018) · The Journal of High Technology Management Research · doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2018.12.006 · Cited by 12
Daun, M., Weyer, T., & Pohl, K. (2019) · Software & Systems Modeling · doi:10.1007/s10270-019-00723-2 · Cited by 13
“[46]) to rate RM against SP for perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and computer self-efficacy.”
BackgroundWaheed, A., Farrukh, M. H. M., Zameer, H., & Khan, S. Z. (2019) · Global Business Review · doi:10.1177/0972150918816901 · Cited by 12
“…enormously motivated the individuals and transformed their behaviour to admit Internet-based tools to swap the information by means of different social apps (SA) and social sites in today’s modern era (Hwang & Park, 2013; Mukherjee & Banerjee, 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMobile Applications Acceptance
Uğur, N. G., & Turan, A. H. (2019) · International Journal of E-Adoption · doi:10.4018/ijea.2019070102 · Cited by 13
Kidd, D. G., & Singer, J. (2019) · Journal of Safety Research · doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2019.09.005 · Cited by 13
“Seat belt interlocks may be more acceptable if the feature was more common, because hands-on experience with a technology helps consumers develop more objective perceptions of a technology and encourages acceptance (Venkatesh, 2008).”
BackgroundE-Cabin: A Software Architecture for Passenger Comfort and Cruise Ship Management
Barsocchi, P., Ferro, E., Rosa, D. L., et al. (2019) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s19224978 · Cited by 13
“In order to evaluate the usability and acceptability of the E-Cabin platform, participants were administered the System Usability Scale (SUS) [30] questionnaire—a ten-item questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale answer ranging from “1—strongly disagree” to “5—strongly agree”—and the Technology Acceptance Model (T…”
BackgroundMethodWhat drives Indian mobile service market: Policies or users?
Gupta, R., & Jain, K. (2020) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2020.101383 · Cited by 14
Koukopoulos, Z., Koutromanos, G., Koukopoulos, D. K., & Gialamas, V. (2020) · Journal of Computers in Education · doi:10.1007/s40692-020-00159-4 · Cited by 13
Telecom microfinance banking versus commercial banking: a battle in the financial services sector
Younas, W., & Kalimuthu, K. R. (2021) · Journal of Financial Services Marketing · doi:10.1057/s41264-020-00085-7 · Cited by 13
El cambio pedagógico en la docencia universitaria en los tiempos de Covid-19
Dorfsman, M. I., & Horenczyk, G. (2021) · Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED) · doi:10.6018/red.475151 · Cited by 14
Agency satisfaction with electronic record management systems: A large‐scale survey
Hu, P. J., Hsu, F., Hu, H., & Chen, H. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21429 · Cited by 14
Optimizing Education Processes During the COVID-19 Pandemic Using the Technology Acceptance Model
Tukiran, M., Sunaryo, W., Wulandari, D., & Herfina (2022) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.903572 · Cited by 13
“Studies have reported several external factors associated with the original TAM structure (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundConceptualizing Individualization in Information Systems – A Literature Review
Gaß, O., Ortbach, K., Kretzer, M., Maedche, A., & Niehaves, B. (2015) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.03703 · Cited by 20
Laumer, S., Maier, C., Weitzel, T., & Eckhardt, A. (2012) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.574 · Cited by 13
“The majority of these models is designed for voluntary usage settings, where individuals can decide themselves, whether or not to use a technology [73; 74; 75].”
BackgroundRodríguez, T. E., & Bartual-Sopena, L. (2013) · Health Information Management Journal · doi:10.1177/183335831304200103 · Cited by 13
“Therefore, experience with computers appears be an important factor for the acceptance of the technology in this Spanish public hospital (Calisir, Gumussoy & Bayram 2009; Venkatesh & Bala 2008).”
BackgroundShielding or engaging: the use of online shareholder platforms in investor relations
Hoffmann, C. P., & Aeschlimann, L. (2017) · Corporate Communications An International Journal · doi:10.1108/ccij-05-2016-0037 · Cited by 13
A mindful product acceptance model
Ta, A., & Prybutok, V. R. (2018) · Journal of Decision System · doi:10.1080/12460125.2018.1479149 · Cited by 16
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) proposed the TAM 3 model in which experience plays a more important role in moderating the relationships among existing constructs.”
BackgroundExploring the Moderating Effect of Perceived Usefulness on the Adoption of E-Government Services
Mensah, I. K. (2019) · International Journal of Electronic Government Research · doi:10.4018/ijegr.2019010102 · Cited by 13
A model of intention to use mobile government services
Al-Busaidi, H. A. S. (2012) · Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) · Cited by 13
Architecture-Driven Integration of Modeling Languages for the Design of Software-Intensive Systems
Soares, M. S. (2010) · Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) · Cited by 13
Lai, C. F. (2014) · Figshare · doi:10.25949/19442354 · Cited by 13
Grady, A., Barnes, C., Wolfenden, L., Lecathelinais, C., & Yoong, S. L. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/22036 · Cited by 12
“The Technology Acceptance Model has been shown to have high internal consistency (Cronbach α>.80) [26].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGuo, J., Song, F., Liu, Y., Wang, W., & Wang, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2450164 · Cited by 14
“Ease of use mainly refers to the efficiency and effectiveness of the product during use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Ali, M. U., Khan, I., & Khan, H. (2025) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125471 · Cited by 12
Advancing conceptual understanding of technology adoption decisions in E-waste urban mining sector
Kankanamge, A. K. S. U., Erdiaw‐Kwasie, M. O., & Abunyewah, M. (2025) · Sustainable Futures · doi:10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100871 · Cited by 12
Siu, B., & White, J. E. (2025) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.4206 · Cited by 15
Perception of AI Use in Youth Mental Health Services: Qualitative Study
Ding, X., & Barbic, S. P. (2025) · Journal of Participatory Medicine · doi:10.2196/69449 · Cited by 18
“The major guiding questions were constructed based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [17-19].”
Zhu, Y., Wen, F., Wu, J., Huang, P., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106855 · Cited by 17
A multifaceted hybrid ES-robotic device for gait training in individuals with neurological disorders
Dell’Eva, F., Guanziroli, E., Camerini, V., Gandolla, M., Brignole, L., Maludrottu, S., Gruppioni, E., Ferrigno, G., Molteni, F., Ambrosini, E., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-63474-3 · Cited by 12
“Considering the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) [37] (scores from -3 to +3), for all six questionnaire items a median ∆ UEQ equal or above zero was reported (Fig.”
The impact of generative AI technology on B2B sales process and performance: an empirical study
Rodríguez, M., Deeter‐Schmelz, D. R., & Krush, M. T. (2025) · Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing · doi:10.1108/jbim-02-2025-0097 · Cited by 14
Muromba, P., Keeni, M., & Fuyuki, K. (2025) · Agriculture & Food Security · doi:10.1186/s40066-025-00563-y · Cited by 14
“These include enhanced versions with social influence factors [37], the Unified Theory of Accept-ance and Use of Technology [39], and advanced iterations with additional cognitive constructs [40].”
Extending the UTAUT Model: The role of cognitive flexibility in AI adoption in higher education
Alshammarı, S. H., Alkhwaldi, A. F., Alshammari, A. E. A., Alshammari, M. H., & Alrashidi, M. E. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106363 · Cited by 19
Yang, S. C. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2026.108933 · Cited by 17
Rizun, N., Bordean, O. N., Nikiforova, A., Beleiu, I. N., & Revina, A. (2026) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2026.100336 · Cited by 26
Ramdana, A. D., Munir, & Furqon, C. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01256-9 · Cited by 14
Elias, J. D., & Lubua, E. W. (2021) · The Journal of Informatics · doi:10.59645/tji.v1i1.13 · Cited by 12
“Since the study by Venkatesh and Bala (2008) commented that both the attitude of users and the perceived usefulness relate to the rate of use of the new technology, it is unarguable that the system functions are critical in a new system.”
BackgroundNayak, B., Bhattacharyya, S. S., Kulkarni, O., & Mehdi, S. N. (2021) · Journal of Engineering Design and Technology · doi:10.1108/jedt-06-2021-0341 · Cited by 15
Knowledge Behavior Gap Model: An Application for Technology Acceptance
Stibe, A., Krüger, N., & Behne, A. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-14391-5_1 · Cited by 12
Consumer acceptance of novel foods
Fischer, A. R. H., & Reinders, M. J. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-85203-6.00013-x · Cited by 26
Kent, S., Houghton, L., & Licorish, S. A. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100264 · Cited by 12
The Security & Privacy Acceptance Framework (SPAF)
Das, S., Faklaris, C., Hong, J., & Dabbish, L. (2022) · Foundations and Trends® in Privacy and Security · doi:10.1561/3300000026 · Cited by 15
Dai, J., Zhang, C., Aliakseyeu, D., Peeters, S., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581263 · Cited by 14
“fulness, and adoption intention supports the original TAM model [69, 70].”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMiao, M., Ahmed, M., Ahsan, N., & Qamar, B. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Management · doi:10.1108/ijem-02-2023-0066 · Cited by 18
Alotaibi, K. F., & Kassim, A. M. (2023) · International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering (iJOE) · doi:10.3991/ijoe.v19i15.43015 · Cited by 13
de Loizaga, S. R., Benashley, L., Hoekzema, J., et al. (2024) · Journal of the American Heart Association · doi:10.1161/jaha.123.031231 · Cited by 13
Designing mHealth Apps to Incorporate Evidence-Based Techniques for Prolonging User Engagement
Monachelli, R., Davis, S. W., Barnard, A., Longmire, M. R., Docherty, J. P., & Oakley-Girvan, I. A. (2024) · Interactive Journal of Medical Research · doi:10.2196/51974 · Cited by 15
“We measured internet skills using a section of the Technology Acceptance Model 3 [29].”
MethodConsumers’ perceptions of the environmental and public health benefits of last mile drone delivery
Leon, S., Chen, C., & Ratcliffe, A. (2024) · International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications · doi:10.1080/13675567.2024.2341851 · Cited by 15
“TAM suggests that users’ acceptance and use of a technology originates from a behavioural intention that is constructed from attitudes, perceptions of ease-of-use and usefulness, and other factors, such as facilitating conditions and social influences (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
Lemos, M., Henriques, A. R., Lopes, D. G., Mendonça, N., Victorino, A., da Costa, A. C. J. S., de Arriaga, M. T., Gregório, M. J., de Sousa, R. D., Canhão, H. M., et al. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/46151 · Cited by 17
“We drew on established definitions and guidelines to shape our evaluation criteria [40].”
MethodFrawley, C., & Campbell, L. O. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12796-8 · Cited by 15
Dermody, G., Wadsworth, D., Dunham, M., Glass, C., & Fritz, R. (2024) · JMIR Aging · doi:10.2196/64367 · Cited by 19
Nain, V., & Shyam, H. S. (2024) · Proceedings on Engineering Sciences · doi:10.24874/pes06.02a.008 · Cited by 13
“The authors of the article are Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
Fleddermann, K., Chwastiak, L., Fortier, A., Gotham, H. J., Murphy, A., Navarro, R. L., Tapscott, S. L., & Molfenter, T. D. (2024) · The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research · doi:10.1007/s11414-024-09902-6 · Cited by 12
“26,27 This is a brief scale that asks about a variety of aspects of usefulness and ease of use to better understand what may be supporting or preventing use.”
Ismail, N., & Rasheed, A. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2399418 · Cited by 14
“…self-efficacy enhances the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of information technologies across various fields, including healthcare, e-learning, e-commerce, and managerial decision-making (Hernandez et al., 2009; Liaw & Huang, 2013; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
An empirical analysis of stock market participation: from an Islamic perspective
Parvin, S. M. R., Panakaje, N., Sheikh, N., Pandavarakallu, M. T., Irfana, S., Kulal, A., Musla, V., Shahid, M., Abdul Basith, N. M., & Nihal, M. (2024) · International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management · doi:10.1108/imefm-06-2024-0287 · Cited by 12
Siedl, S. M., Mara, M., & Stiglbauer, B. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2406119 · Cited by 14
“…evolves through an ongoing decision-making process, where users repeatedly evaluate their experiences with the technology in their work context (Koelle et al., 2020; Schade & Schlag, 2003; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), as shown in the fields such as human-robot collaboration (Leichtmann et al., 2024).”
InfluentialMwogosi, A., & Kibusi, S. M. (2024) · Journal of Health Organization and Management · doi:10.1108/jhom-07-2024-0296 · Cited by 12
Service robot acceptance: agenda for tourism and hospitality research
Chen, Q., Huang, D., & Miao, M. (2024) · Tourism Review · doi:10.1108/tr-03-2024-0159 · Cited by 13
Haddad, C. A., Abouelela, M., Brijs, K., et al. (2024) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2024.10.005 · Cited by 12
Traveling with ChatGPT and providing translation services for travelers
Kundan, Z., Hossain, M. S., Islam, M. S., Alam, M. N., & Parvez, M. O. (2024) · Tourism Review · doi:10.1108/tr-04-2024-0316 · Cited by 13
Rashid, M., Shamsi, M. A., Anwar, I., Saleem, I., & Yahya, A. T. (2024) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2024.2428776 · Cited by 14
Sboui, M., Baati, O., & Sfar, N. (2024) · The TQM Journal · doi:10.1108/tqm-02-2024-0085 · Cited by 14
Gumasing, M. J. J. (2025) · World Electric Vehicle Journal · doi:10.3390/wevj16020113 · Cited by 13
Slassi-sennou, S., & Elmouhib, S. (2025) · Journal of risk and financial management · doi:10.3390/jrfm18030128 · Cited by 12
Factors driving Gen Z's news engagement on TikTok: A hybrid analysis through CB-SEM and PLS-SEM
Trang, T. T. N., Thắng, P. C., Nguyen, G. T. T., & Nguyen, H. T. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100645 · Cited by 12
Syed, A. Z., Memon, Z. H., Khan, K., Hameed, I., & Nadeem, M. (2025) · On the Horizon The International Journal of Learning Futures · doi:10.1108/oth-02-2025-0019 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Venkatesh, Viswanath
- Bala, Hillol
- Venue
- Decision Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 273-315
- ISSN
- 0011-7315 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5915
- OpenAlex
- W2112042732
- Cited by
- 8,159
- References
- 135
- Citations by year
- 2026: 909 · 2025: 912 · 2024: 780 · 2023: 746 · 2022: 717 · 2021: 645 · 2020: 556 · 2019: 499 · 2018: 396 · 2017: 379 · 2016: 320 · 2015: 324 · 2014: 287 · 2013: 266 · 2012: 186
- FWCI
- 175.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Decision Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
- Keywords
- technology acceptance model, information technology adoption, information technology use, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, management interventions, IT implementation, organizational decision-making, nomological network
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
