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)
plaindirect- 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
hedgedcorrelational- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaincorrelational- 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
plaincorrelational- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgedconditional- 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
plaincorrelational- 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
hedgeddirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgedconditional- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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.
plainconditional- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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.
plaincorrelational- 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
plainconditional- 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
hedgeddirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgeddirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgedconditional- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgedconditional- 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
plaindirect- 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
hedgedconditional- 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
hedgeddirect- 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 201–300 of 8,090
Rouidi, M., Elouadi, A., Hamdoune, A., Choujtani, K., & Chati, A. (2022) · Informatics in Medicine Unlocked · doi:10.1016/j.imu.2022.101008 · Cited by 236
User behaviour in QR mobile payment system: the QR Payment Acceptance Model
Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., de Luna, I. R., & Montoro-Ríos, F. J. (2015) · Technology Analysis and Strategic Management · doi:10.1080/09537325.2015.1047757 · Cited by 213
“Social context is included in this model through the measurement of subjective norms, defined as the degree to which an individual perceives that people who are important to him/her think he/she should use a specific system or take some action (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundDoes ease-of-use contributes to the perception of enjoyment? A case of gamification in e-banking
Rodrigues, L. F., Oliveira, A., & Costa, C. J. D. C. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.015 · Cited by 202
Upadhyay, N., Upadhyay, S., Abed, S. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2022) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-06-2021-0262 · Cited by 157
Understanding the determinants of mHealth apps adoption in Bangladesh: A SEM-Neural network approach
Alam, M. Z., Hu, W., Kaium, M. A., Hoque, M. R., & Alam, M. M. D. (2020) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101255 · Cited by 204
Factors influencing users' adoption and use of conversational agents: A systematic review
Ling, E. C., Tussyadiah, I. P., Tuomi, A., Stienmetz, J. L., & Ioannou, A. (2021) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21491 · Cited by 226
Vorm, E. S., & Combs, D. J. Y. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2070107 · Cited by 232
“Venkatesh and his team developed scales to Figure 7.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDavis' Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (1989)
da Silva, P. N. (2015) · Advances in knowledge acquisition, transfer, and management book series/Advances in knowledge acquisition, transfer and management book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8156-9.ch013 · Cited by 237
Sustainable supply chain management
Panigrahi, S. S., Bahinipati, B. K., & Jain, V. (2018) · Management of Environmental Quality An International Journal · doi:10.1108/meq-01-2018-0003 · Cited by 251
Assessing digital self-efficacy: Review and scale development
Ulfert, A., & Schmidt, I. (2022) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104626 · Cited by 308
“A plethora of research shows that competence beliefs, such as DSE (i.e., one ’ s confidence in the successful future use of digital systems), determine whether and how individuals use digital systems (Eastin & LaRose, 2000), or whether they are willing to use it at all (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundCulot, G., Podrecca, M., & Nassimbeni, G. (2024) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2024.104132 · Cited by 333
Understanding the diffusion of virtual reality glasses: The role of media, fashion and technology
Herz, M. F., & Rauschnabel, P. A. (2018) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.008 · Cited by 190
“Prior TAM research has shown that image (the extent to which an individual expects that using a device will enhance his/her status among others) also drives usage (e.g., Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
Huang, F., Teo, T. P., Sánchez‐Prieto, J. C., García‐Peñalvo, F. J., & Migueláñéz, S. O. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.012 · Cited by 217
Developing an explorative model for SaaS adoption
Wu, W.-W. (2011) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.05.039 · Cited by 192
Mendoza-Tello, J. C., Mora, H., Pujol, F. A., & Lytras, M. D. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2869359 · Cited by 217
“‘Perceived usefulness’ is a TAM construct that influences behavioral intention [47]–[49].”
Background'Just What the Doctor Ordered': A Revised UTAUT for EMR System Adoption and Use by Doctors
Venkatesh, V., Sykes, T. A., & Zhang, X. (2011) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2011.1 · Cited by 191
“Interventions will need to particularly target problematic areas [39].”
BackgroundSelf-citationKurdi, B. H. A., Alshurideh, M. T., Salloum, S. A., Obeidat, Z. M., & Al-dweeri, R. M. (2020) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v14i02.11115 · Cited by 195
Examination of trust and sustainability concerns in autonomous vehicle adoption
Dirsehan, T., & Can, C. (2020) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101361 · Cited by 200
Exploring decisive factors affecting an organization's SaaS adoption: A case study
Wu, W., Lan, L. W., & Lee, Y.-T. (2011) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.02.007 · Cited by 186
“…ersion (Venkatesh & Davis, 1996), TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 000), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technolgy (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003), AM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), TAM-Diffusion Theory Model Lopez-Nicolas, Molina-Castillo, & Bouwman, 2008), among othrs.”
Empirical analysis of internet banking adoption in Poland
Polasik, M., & Wisniewski, T. P. (2009) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/02652320910928227 · Cited by 204
“From the perspective of the former model and more specifically its most recent extension TAM3 ( Venkatesh and Bala, 2008”
Information technology adoption: a review of the literature and classification
Salahshour Rad, M., Nilashi, M., & Mohamed Dahlan, H. (2018) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-017-0534-z · Cited by 181
“13 Extended technology acceptance model (TAM3) Venkatesh and Bala [340] 4”
Ahmad, S. Z., & Khalid, K. (2017) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.03.008 · Cited by 187
“…researcher have expended the TAM model; notably Expectation-Confirmation Model and the TAM (Chong, 2013), TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT1 and UTAUT2) (Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012), but household…”
MethodFactors that influence university students’ intention to use Moodle: a study in Macau
Teo, T. P., Zhou, M., Fan, A. C. W., & Huang, F. (2019) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09650-x · Cited by 184
“Considering the limits in human information processing capacity, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) suggested that TC influences technology users’ PEU.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAlbayati, H. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100203 · Cited by 188
Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement
Brandon-Jones, A., & Kauppi, K. (2018) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-06-2015-0346 · Cited by 181
“Perceived ease of use (PEOU) is defined as the degree to which an individual believes that using a technology is free of effort (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialAn integrated model of self-service technology (SST) usage in a retail context
Demoulin, N. T. M., & Djelassi, S. (2016) · International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management · doi:10.1108/ijrdm-08-2015-0122 · Cited by 181
Tan, G. W., Lee, V., Hew, J.-J., Ooi, K., & Wong, L. (2018) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.09.005 · Cited by 194
Kar, A. K., & Kushwaha, A. K. (2023) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-021-10219-4 · Cited by 182
“The dependent variable captures the contextual (AI) usage experiential or satisfaction score (Asuncion & Lam, 1995; Venkatesh & Speier, 1999; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundLewis, C., Fretwell, C. E., Ryan, J., & Parham, J. B. (2013) · International Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v2n2p22 · Cited by 176
Molino, M., Cortese, C. G., & Ghislieri, C. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17072438 · Cited by 239
“Several empirical and longitudinal studies demonstrated that the TAM is able to explain about 40 percent of variance in intention to use a technology and the use itself [17].”
BackgroundBhardwaj, A. K., Garg, A., & Gajpal, Y. (2021) · Mathematical Problems in Engineering · doi:10.1155/2021/5537395 · Cited by 196
“Furthermore, TAM2 [42] and TAM3 [43] which are extended versions of the TAM framework have also been suggested.”
BackgroundThe role of cooperatives in overcoming the barriers to adoption of renewable energy
Viardot, É. (2013) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.034 · Cited by 174
Investigating end-user acceptance of autonomous electric buses to accelerate diffusion
Herrenkind, B., Brendel, B., Nastjuk, I., Greve, M., & Kolbe, L. M. (2019) · Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.trd.2019.08.003 · Cited by 195
Factors determining behavioral intentions to use Islamic financial technology
Darmansyah, D., Fianto, B. A., Hendratmi, A., & Aziz, P. F. (2020) · Journal of Islamic marketing · doi:10.1108/jima-12-2019-0252 · Cited by 182
Sprenger, D. A., & Schwaninger, A. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00243-4 · Cited by 232
de Luna, I. R., Montoro-Ríos, F. J., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J. (2015) · Information Systems and e-Business Management · doi:10.1007/s10257-015-0284-5 · Cited by 179
“Social context is included in this model through the measurement of subjective norms, defined as the degree to which an individual perceives that people who are important to him/her think he/she should use a specific system or take some action (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundThe Influence of Values on E-learning Adoption
Mehta, A., Morris, N. P., Swinnerton, B. J., & Homer, M. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103617 · Cited by 214
“Technology adoption models generally explain user intention as a function of user perceptions of attributes of the target technology within the context of use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundTelepresence, time distortion, and consumer traits of virtual reality shopping
Han, S., An, M., Han, J. J., & Lee, J. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.056 · Cited by 183
Usman, H., Mulia, D., Chairy, C., & Projo, N. W. K. (2020) · Journal of Islamic marketing · doi:10.1108/jima-01-2020-0020 · Cited by 225
Magni, M., Susan Taylor, M., & Venkatesh, V. (2010) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.03.004 · Cited by 173
“Alternatively, the identification of power users could help users find new uses for the technology in the post-adoption stage (see Sykes et al., 2009; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundSelf-citationChauhan, S., & Jaiswal, M. (2016) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2016.05.005 · Cited by 180
Why do people rideshare? An experimental study
Amirkiaee, S. Y., & Evangelopoulos, N. E. (2018) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.02.025 · Cited by 186
Technology acceptance of virtual reality for travel planning
Disztinger, P., Schlögl, S., & Groth, A. (2017) · Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51168-9_19 · Cited by 178
Balatsoukas, P., Kennedy, C., Buchan, I. E., Powell, J., & Ainsworth, J. D. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3662 · Cited by 162
“Finally, the term “technology acceptance” is used in a broad manner to include both the level of uptake of a given technology, but also more formal studies focused on modeling factors influencing user acceptance of technology, such as the Technology Acceptance Model [26].”
BackgroundParis, H., You, S., & Robert, L. (2018) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00496 · Cited by 181
Tarhini, A., HONE, K. S., & Liu, X. (2013) · International Journal of Information and Education Technology · doi:10.7763/ijiet.2013.v3.233 · Cited by 193
“Due to its acceptable explanatory power and popularity, many studies have used the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in the technology acceptance and adoption literature in the IS implementation area [9] and especially in e-learning context [10]-[17].”
BackgroundMethodHawlitschek, F., Teubner, T., & Gimpel, H. (2016) · 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2016.593 · Cited by 177
“partly based on the assumption of dealing with a clear cut, single, and new technology [43, 44].”
BackgroundEffects of security and privacy concerns on educational use of cloud services
Arpacı, İ., Kılıçer, K., & Bardakçı, S. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.075 · Cited by 194
“…content validity and face validity, the survey instrument was developed based on questionnaire items that had been successfully used in prior studies: security (Salisbury, Pearson, Pearson, & Miller, 2001), attitude (Venkatesh et al., 2003), and behavioural intention (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
MethodSykes, T. A. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39.2.09 · Cited by 176
Revisiting technology-organization-environment (T-O-E) theory for enriched applicability
Awa, H. O., Ukoha, O., & Igwe, S. R. (2017) · The Bottom Line Managing Library Finances · doi:10.1108/bl-12-2016-0044 · Cited by 219
Mei, B., Brown, G. T. L., & Teo, T. (2018) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633117700144 · Cited by 168
“These constructs include (a) perceived ease of use (PEU; Davis, 1989), (b) perceived usefulness (PU; Davis, 1989), (c) self-efficacy (Taylor & Todd, 1995), (d) subjective norms (SN; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), and (e) facilitating conditions (FC; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundPuri, A., Kim, B. Y., Nguyen, O., Stolee, P., Tung, J. Y., & Lee, J. (2017) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.8211 · Cited by 167
“Subsequently, they lack context specificity and artifact specificity, but they can provide more relevant key predictors for technology acceptance [35].”
Predictors for e-government adoption: integrating TAM, TPB, trust and perceived risk.
Xie, Q., Song, W., Peng, X., & Shabbir, M. (2017) · The Electronic Library · doi:10.1108/el-08-2015-0141 · Cited by 167
“…2000), TAM3 EL 35,1 4 D ow nl oa de d by T ec hn ic al U ni ve rs ity o f M un ic h U ni ve rs ity L ib ra ry A t 0 6: 04 0 5 Ju ly 2 01 8 (P T ) (Venkatesh and Bola, 2008) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003), which have put forward other…”
BackgroundDemographics, attitudes, and technology readiness
Rojas‐Méndez, J. I., Parasuraman, A., & Papadopoulos, N. G. (2017) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/mip-08-2015-0163 · Cited by 194
Larivière, B., Joosten, H., Malthouse, E. C., van Birgelen, M., Aksoy, P., Kunz, W. H., & Huang, M. (2013) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/09564231311326996 · Cited by 184
“…technological self-efficacy and readiness including role clarity, role ability, and role motivation (Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002; Meuter et al. , 2005; Rogers, 1962; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) are likely to play an important role in the adoption of mobile technology.”
BackgroundLearning management systems and technology acceptance models: A systematic review
Al-Nuaimi, M. N., & Al‐Emran, M. (2021) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10513-3 · Cited by 227
“…acceptance theorization presents a paradigm shift towards a more inclusive framework that encompasses both the instrumental factors linked to the system and personal factors linked to the users’ subjective experience (Cho et al., 2009; Van der Linden & van de Leemput, 2015; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundConsumers' willingness to adopt and use WeChat wallet: An empirical study in South Africa
Matemba, E. D., & Li, G. (2017) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.12.001 · Cited by 171
Intelligent contract adoption in the construction industry: Concept development
McNamara, A. J., & Sepasgozar, S. M. E. (2020) · Automation in Construction · doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103452 · Cited by 169
Ullah, F., Sepasgozar, S. M. E., Thaheem, M. J., & Al-Turjman, F. M. (2021) · Environmental Technology & Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.eti.2021.101527 · Cited by 166
Bröhl, C., Nelles, J., Brandl, C., Mertens, A., & Nitsch, V. (2019) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-019-00593-0 · Cited by 165
Living with a Vacuum Cleaning Robot
Fink, J., Bauwens, V., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-013-0190-2 · Cited by 165
“are relevant for describing people’s perception of a robot and crucial for the adoption of technology [38].”
BackgroundUser response to mandatory IT use: a coping theory perspective
Bhattacherjee, A., Davis, C. J., Connolly, A. J., & Hikmet, N. (2017) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/s41303-017-0047-0 · Cited by 189
“…extensions to the IT context, such as the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989), TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003), and UTAUT2 (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu,…”
MethodeHealth literacy research—Quo vadis?
Griebel, L., Enwald, H., Gilstad, H., Pohl, A.-L., Moreland, J., & Sedlmayr, M. (2017) · Informatics for Health and Social Care · doi:10.1080/17538157.2017.1364247 · Cited by 166
Employing the technology acceptance model in social media: A systematic review
Al-Qaysi, N., Nordin, N. M., & Al‐Emran, M. (2020) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10197-1 · Cited by 199
“Moreover, it is claimed that TAM has been widely used in many application areas, which in turn, enhances its validity and explanatory power (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundRamírez-Correa, P. E., Arenas-Gaitán, J., & Rondán-Cataluña, F. J. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140460 · Cited by 160
“Moreover, it is proposed that perception of external control is an element that conditions perceived ease of use [12].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialKaur, S., & Arora, S. (2020) · Journal of Asia Business Studies · doi:10.1108/jabs-08-2019-0252 · Cited by 163
To Advance AI Use in Education, Focus on Understanding Educators
Kizilcec, R. F. (2023) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-023-00351-4 · Cited by 190
“TAM has been a widely used and well-performing predictive model of technology adoption in a large variety of organizational and personal contexts (Adams, Nelson & Todd, 1992 ; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000 ; Lee et al., 2003 ; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
MethodEnterprise resource planning adoption and satisfaction determinants
Costa, C. J., Ferreira, E., Bento, F., & Aparicio, M. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.090 · Cited by 161
“Taking the previous model into consideration (TAM2), Venkatesh and Bala (2008) suggested an enhanced new model: TAM3.”
BackgroundMethodIntention to use new mobile payment systems: a comparative analysis of SMS and NFC payments
Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., de Luna, I. R., & Montoro-Ríos, F. J. (2017) · Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja · doi:10.1080/1331677x.2017.1305784 · Cited by 175
“Social influences in the form of subjective norms are used as factors both in models of technology acceptance and in their subsequent adaptations (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWill smartwatches last? factors contributing to intention to keep using smart wearable technology
Dehghani, M. A., Kim, K. J., & Dangelico, R. M. (2018) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.007 · Cited by 183
Al-Rahmi, A. M., Shamsuddin, A., Alturki, U., Aldraiweesh, A., Yusof, F. M., Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Aljeraiwi, A. A. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13147770 · Cited by 222
“To investigate the different contexts in which learners can use social media platforms to enhance information quality, perceived fit, and system quality effects on teaching and learning.”
BackgroundShu, X.-Y., & Gu, X.-Q. (2023) · Syst. · doi:10.3390/systems11020075 · Cited by 149
Leong, L.-Y., Ooi, K., Chong, A. Y., & Lin, B. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.004 · Cited by 162
“In comparison to the TAM3 by Venkatesh and Bala (2008) which posits that SI directly influence PU while PSE and PE directly influence PEOU, we have instead simplified the model by investigating the direct impacts of SI, PSE and PE towards IU of mobile entertainment.”
ResultExamining the determinants and outcomes of mobile app engagement - A longitudinal perspective
McLean, G. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.015 · Cited by 183
DeLone & McLean models of information system success: Critical meta-review and research directions
Jeyaraj, A. (2020) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102139 · Cited by 247
An Evaluation of Gamified Training: Using Narrative to Improve Reactions and Learning
Armstrong, M. B., & Landers, R. N. (2017) · Simulation & Gaming · doi:10.1177/1046878117703749 · Cited by 158
“Positive attitudes toward playing games have been found to predict intention to play games (Hsu & Lu, 2004), which should in turn predict game play behaviors (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundStudents' Acceptance of Tablet PCs and Implications for Educational Institutions
El-Gayar, O., Moran, M., & Hawkes, M. L. (2011) · Educational Technology & Society · Cited by 159
The role of privacy concerns in the sharing economy
Lutz, C., Hoffmann, C. P., Bucher, E. L., & Fieseler, C. (2017) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2017.1339726 · Cited by 169
“While the first can be explained using technology acceptance models (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003) and the second is in line with findings on perceived situational normality (Li et al., 2008; McKnight & Chervany, 2002), we find the third finding to be…”
BackgroundThe effect of organizational support on ERP implementation
Lee, D., Lee, S. M., Olson, D. L., & Chung, S. H. (2010) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/02635571011020340 · Cited by 158
Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter?
Teo, T. P., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2015) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.1672 · Cited by 164
“Attitude toward computing technology To successfully implement and integrate educational technology in school instruction depends, to a great extent, on the teachers’ attitudes (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundSun, Y., Liu, L., Peng, X., Dong, Y., & Barnes, S. J. (2013) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-013-0131-9 · Cited by 160
“Users ’ continuance intention to use SNS intensifies and their usefulness perception enhances when users perceive their friends ’ or relatives ’ usage pressure and they anticipate more friends or relatives using the SNS in the future (Baker and White 2010; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundMorosan, C. V. (2013) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-11-2012-0221 · Cited by 167
Wu, I., & Chiu, M.-L. (2017) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.11.004 · Cited by 174
“It has been widely used in various IS contexts to explore user acceptance (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
MethodAl-Maatouk, Q., Othman, M. S., Aldraiweesh, A., Alturki, U., Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Aljeraiwi, A. A. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2990420 · Cited by 189
“In addition, human computer interaction (HCI) has recently attempted to analyze user behavior in order to improve the design of social technologies [76], [94].”
BackgroundAltalhi, M. M. (2020) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10317-x · Cited by 178
“The finding that computer self-efficacy plays a significant effect on attitude accords with empirical studies in e-learning (Pellas 2014), effort expectancy (Mikalef et al. 2016; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Chang et al. 2017), and performance expectancy (Althunibat 2015).”
ResultNeural network modeling of consumer satisfaction in mobile commerce: An empirical analysis
Kalinić, Z., Marinković, V., Kalinic, L., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J. (2021) · Expert systems with applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114803 · Cited by 157
When computers take the lead: The automation of leadership
Wesche, J. S., & Sonderegger, A. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.027 · Cited by 157
Bala, H., & Venkatesh, V. (2013) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2013/37.4.06 · Cited by 160
“…and define it as the extent to which an employee believes that an ES is relatively difficult to understand and use, which is consistent with the definition and drivers of perceived ease of use in the prior literature (e.g., Venkatesh 1999, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Venkatesh and Davis 1996).”
ResultSelf-citationPredicting the use of smartphone-based Augmented Reality (AR): Does telepresence really help?
Kim, H.-C., & Hyun, M. Y. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.001 · Cited by 167
“Even though usefulness is well known as a mediator (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), studies' results have differed.”
BackgroundMethodChauhan, S. (2015) · Info · doi:10.1108/info-02-2015-0018 · Cited by 194
Imaginal and emotional experiences in pleasure-oriented IT usage: A hedonic consumption perspective
Wu, J., & Holsapple, C. W. (2013) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2013.09.003 · Cited by 163
“For example , Venkatesh [ 83 ] and Venkatesh and Bala [ 84 ] conceptualize playfulness as a key determinant of PEOU , which , in turn , predicts behavioral intention .”
BackgroundFactors influencing secondary school teachers’ adoption of teaching blogs
Lai, H., & Chen, C.-P. (2010) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.010 · Cited by 160
“School support refers to the degree towhich an individual believes that schools are committed to successful blog implementation and use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialA study of factors enhancing smart grid consumer engagement
Park, C., Kim, H.-J., & Kim, Y. S. (2014) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.017 · Cited by 154
Salimon, M. G., Yusoff, R. Z., & Mokhtar, S. S. M. (2017) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-05-2016-0060 · Cited by 165
Field trial of Tiramisu: crowd-sourcing bus arrival times to spur co-design
Zimmerman, J., Tomasic, A., Garrod, C., Yoo, D., Hiruncharoenvate, C., Aziz, R., Thiruvengadam, N. R., Huang, Y., & Steinfeld, A. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979187 · Cited by 150
Factors affecting consumers’ mobile payment behavior: A meta-analysis
Liu, Z., Ben, S., & Zhang, R. (2019) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-019-09349-4 · Cited by 152
“Ven-katesh and Bala [11] integrated multiple factors, which affect consumers’ perceived ease of use, into the TAM2 model to create a more comprehensive TAM3 model.”
MethodAnxiety, crowding, and time pressure in public self-service technology acceptance
Gelbrich, K., & Sattler, B. (2014) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-02-2012-0051 · Cited by 157
“In the context of computer usage, technology anxiety is shown to decrease perceived ease of use and subsequent intention to use (e.g. Phang et al., 2006; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKhan, M. N., Ashraf, M. A., Seinen, D., Khan, K. U., & Laar, R. A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648253 · Cited by 178
“…technology, specifically enjoying SM, is conducive to the perception of PEU and is perceived as useful for CL. PE pertains to the intrinsic motivation or the affective element that affects the PEU and user acceptance constructs of the TAM (Van der Heijden et al., 2003; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundWu, H., Wang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2024) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7708 · Cited by 174
“The TAM is a framework that explains users’ technology adoption (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Influential factors for mobile learning acceptance among Chinese users
Hao, S., Dennen, V. P., & Li, M. (2016) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9465-2 · Cited by 154
“These models added other personal and environmental moderating factors (e.g., TAM2, Venkatesh and Davis 2000; TAM3, Venkatesh and Bala 2008; and UTAUT, Venkatesh et al. 2003).”
BackgroundInfluential
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
