The DOI matches its Crossref record; 135 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 55 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Open accessAbstract
ABSTRACT Prior research has provided valuable insights into how and why employees make a decision about the adoption and use of information technologies (ITs) in the workplace. From an organizational point of view, however, the more important issue is how managers make informed decisions about interventions that can lead to greater acceptance and effective utilization of IT. There is limited research in the IT implementation literature that deals with the role of interventions to aid such managerial decision making. Particularly, there is a need to understand how various interventions can influence the known determinants of IT adoption and use. To address this gap in the literature, we draw from the vast body of research on the technology acceptance model (TAM), particularly the work on the determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and: (i) develop a comprehensive nomological network (integrated model) of the determinants of individual level (IT) adoption and use; (ii) empirically test the proposed integrated model; and (iii) present a research agenda focused on potential pre‐ and postimplementation interventions that can enhance employees' adoption and use of IT. Our findings and research agenda have important implications for managerial decision making on IT implementation in organizations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
51 Own result · 35 Own interpretation · 21 No full text of the sources · 13 Sources not found · 7 Own method · 5 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Venkatesh and Speier (1999) investigated the effect of mood during training on user acceptance and found that mood during training played an important role in forming individuals' perceptions of a new IT.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Venkatesh & Speier, 1999 source
The Short-Term Mood Effects section links mood during computer training to perceptions of enjoyment in using the technology. The Discussion reports that negative mood during training reduced intrinsic motivation and intentions to use it, supporting the citing sentence’s broad characterization of the finding. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that experience moderated the effect of computer anxiety on perceived ease of use such that the effect became weaker with increasing experience (CANX × EXP).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“experience moderated the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness such that with increasing experience the effect became stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, TAM3 was able to explain between 52% and 67% of the variance in perceived usefulness across different time periods and models (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that job relevance and output quality had an interactive effect on perceived usefulness such that with increasing output quality, the effect of job relevance on perceived usefulness was stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that experience, in fact, moderated the effect of perceived ease of use (PEOU × EXP) on behavioral intention such that with increasing experience the effect became weaker.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was higher than the correlations across constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As Table 4 shows, internal consistency reliabilities (ICRs) were greater than .70 for all constructs at all points of measurement.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 3 shows that the item loadings were greater than or at least equal to .70 for all constructs at all time periods.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Further, incentive alignment, and an important extrinsic reward, may reduce anxiety and increase perceived enjoyment as extrinsic rewards are considered important drivers of intrinsic motivations (Vallerand, 1997;Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;Ryan & Deci, 2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vallerand, 1997 source
- Partly supportedcites Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that verbal rewards (positive feedback) enhanced self-reported interest, which offers limited support for the possibility that an extrinsic reward could increase enjoyment. But the paper does not assess incentive alignment or anxiety, and its Concluding Comments (pp. 658–659) say tangible rewards generally diminish rather than promote intrinsic motivation. The cited source therefore does not support the proposed effect of incentive alignment. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan & Deci, 2000 source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that perceived ease of use, subjective norm, image, and result demonstrability were significant predictors of perceived usefulness at all time periods (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While perceived ease of use was significant at T1 and T2, it was not significant at T3, suggesting a moderating effect of experience in the relationship between perceived ease of use and behavioral intention.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the adjustments-that is, perceived enjoyment and objective usability-were not significant at T1, but they were significant at both T2 and T3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“OU × EXP | | | | .20 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Objective Usability (OU) | .04 | .19 * * | .23 * * * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CANX × EXP | | | | .21 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjective Norm (SN) | .40 * * * | .32 * * * | .13 * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Enjoyment (ENJ) | .02 | .22 * * * | .24 * * * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Result Demonstrability (RES) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .28 * * * | .26 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CPLAY × EXP | | | | -.22 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .33 * * * | .08”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ENJ × EXP | | | | .18 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | .24 * * * | .17 * | .05 | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although longitudinal studies were conducted, the specific moderating role by experience was not tested in Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, in the context of enterprise systems, if an individual perceives that his or her use of the system does not benefit the members of his or her work units but rather benefits members from other work units, the user will perceive a lack of incentive alignment that may lead to low user acceptance and use of the system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we conducted Harmon's single factor test and marker variable test (we used job satisfaction as a marker variable) and did not find any significant common method bias.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used validated items from prior research to test TAM3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our research design allowed us to collect the use data separate from its determinants (e.g., behavioral intention, perceived usefulness, etc.).Particularly, there was at least a 1-month gap between the collection of survey data and the measurement of use.”
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
“Such a design approach helped us overcome the problems associated with common method biases.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
In the paper
“Operationalization of the determinants of perceived ease of use (i.e., computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, computer playfulness, computer anxiety, objective usability, and perceived enjoyment) was consistent with Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh (2000)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It posits that individuals' behavioral intention to use an IT is determined by two beliefs: perceived usefulness, defined as the extent to which a person believes that using an IT will enhance his or her job performance and perceived ease of use, defined as the degree to which a person believes that using an IT will be free of effort.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Ba et al. (2001) argued that while aspects of software engineering (e.g., system characteristics) and technology acceptance (e.g., perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, user satisfaction) are important considerations for system development processes, organizations may fail to gain expected benefits from employees' effective utilization of a system unless employees find that the system fe”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All constructs at each time period exhibited strong psychometric properties and satisfied the criteria of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Ba et al. (2001), incentive alignment does not necessarily mean organizational rewards for using a system.It is a broad concept that entails an individual's perception that the IT fits with his or her job requirements and value system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) noted that PLS has minimal restrictions in terms of distributional assumptions and sample size.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean-centering helps limit potential multicollinearity, evidenced by the low variation inflation factors (VIFs) for all constructs in our model.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived usefulness is an instrumental belief that is conceptually similar to extrinsic motivation and is a cognition (as opposed to emotion) regarding the benefits of using a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Crossover Effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It further theorizes that the effect of external variables (e.g., design characteristics) on behavioral intention will be mediated by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davis et al., 1989 source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.Further, the types of ITs were different across the sites.Such variability in organizational settings and types of technologies adds to the potential generalization of our findings.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > METHOD
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“TAM constructs-that is, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), and behavioral intention (BI)-were operationalized using items adapted from Davis (1989) and Davis et al. (1989).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incentive alignment has been suggested as the third dimension in systems design (Ba, Stallaert, & Whinston, 2001).The other two dimensions are software engineering and technology acceptance (Ba et al., 2001).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the modification and enhancement activities performed by peers will increase job relevance of a system, improve the output quality of a system, and reduce anxiety related to system use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Peer support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implementation of interventions is, of course, not a silver bullet for greater IT adoption and effective utilization.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“He also found that the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention to use a system was stronger for individuals who received game-based training.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we can develop a rich understanding of the determinants of IT adoption and use and interventions that can favorably influence these determinants, managers can proactively decide on implementing the right interventions to minimize resistance to new ITs and maximize effective utilization of ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
- Rests on an assumption: Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
In the paper
“Training has been suggested as one of the most important postimplementation interventions that leads to greater user acceptance and system success (see Sharma & Yetton, 2007).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharma & Yetton, 2007 source
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizational support captures the role of both internal and external experts who can help users deal with the complexity associated with new systems as well as business processes.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Implementation of interventions can increase system development costs substantially.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 emphasizes the unique role and processes related to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use and theorizes that the determinants of perceived usefulness will not influence perceived ease of use and vice versa.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Prior research has suggested that employees' perceptions regarding organizational support-that is, facilitating conditions or perceptions of external control (Taylor & Todd, 1995;Venkatesh, 2000;Venkatesh et al., 2003)-will lead to greater user acceptance of new systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
What the sources say
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our key argument in this article is that unless organizations can develop effective interventions to enhance IT adoption and use, there is no practical utility of our rich understanding of IT adoption.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that interventions discussed in this article can help organizations generate favorable individuals' reactions toward business process changes and process standards implementation.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“For example, while self-efficacy may have weak influence on perceived usefulness as shown in Agarwal and Karahanna (2000), we argue that this influence will become nonsignificant in the presence of other important social and cognitive constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Agarwal and Karahanna (2000) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 posits that perceptions of external control are important and stable determinants of perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizational support is a key source of perceptions of external control.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, experts can help employees modify certain aspects of a new system, thus increasing job relevance, output quality, and results demonstrability of a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the complexity of ITs, it is increasingly difficult for employees to make effective decisions about adoption, utilization, and coping with new ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Some employees may react favorably to these changes, while the others may perceive these changes as a threat to their well-being (Orlikowski, 2000;Boudreau & Robey, 2005).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Postimplementation Interventions
What the sources say
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 posits that with increasing experience, while the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention will diminish, the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness will increase.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that the role of training will be even more important in the context of complex systems (e.g., enterprise systems) that are more central to employees' work life.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As these systems are more likely to invoke negative reactions from employees because of their disruptive nature, effective training interventions can mitigate these negative reactions and help employees form favorable perceptions toward these systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
“Out of 50 potential users of the system who participated in the training, 39 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system who attended the training, 43 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system, 36 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
“Data were collected from four different organizations-sites A through D-implementing new ITs.”
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Management support in individual-level IT adoption literature has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance.
“While management support has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance, particularly in the individual-level IT adoption literature, we suggest that there is a need to develop a richer conceptualization of management support to enhance our understanding of its role in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.
“There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
“However, much of the prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.
“While peer support is potentially an important intervention that can lead to greater user acceptance, there is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
“However, there is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.
“There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In many cases, users stopped using an enterprise system because they saw no benefits of using the new system.
“In many cases, the users stopped using an enterprise system, as they saw no benefits of using the new system.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts, are prevalent.
“Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts are also prevalent.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
“ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
“Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“the extensive focus of TAM on technology to the neglect of social and psychological parameters (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998;Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) limits its explanatory and predictive utilities, and therefore demands its integration with other frameworks”
From Using T-O-E theoretical framework to study the adoption of ERP solution (2016) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A technology that provides information quickly and easily will lead to improvements in job performance, which in turn will encourage greater use of a given technology (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The adoption of new technologies is shaped by user perceptions and usage patterns (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) as well as student characteristics and experiences (Abdaljaleel et al., 2023; Tiwari et al., 2024).”
From “ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that perceived enjoyment is positively related to perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The scales applied have been verified in preceding studies [12, 28].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, it is proposed that perception of external control is an element that conditions perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that result demonstrability is an antecedent of perceived usefulness [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“which explains that users’ decisions to accept and use a technology are influenced by perceived usefulness, ease of use, and social influence of others.”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Some of the themes identified in this review overlap with previous models conceptualizing engagement with digital health interventions, as well as general technology acceptance and health behavior, such as the Efficiency Model of Support [251], Technology Acceptance Model [253], and Health Belief Model [249].”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our findings are in line with the Technology Acceptance Model”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Information-related characteristics of a system can impact its PU as they can improve productivity and performance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Firstly, considering usability , a reliable, flexible and user-friendly system is more likely to create a positive user experience (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A typical criticism of the TAM is in relation to its lack of practical managerial guidance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) present four generic antecedents to the TAM: i ndividual differences , system characteristics , social influence , and facilitating conditions .”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala (2008)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The model explains approximately 40% of the variance in individuals’ intention to use a new technology and actual use [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It theorizes that individuals’ intention to use new technology is determined by perceived usefulness, defined as “the extent to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will enhance his or her job performance,” and perceived ease of use, defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will be free of effort” [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“TAM's assertion that perceived usefulness is a primary determinant of technology acceptance and subsequent usage behaviors (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
From The impact of AI-assisted pair programming on student motivation, programming anxiety, collaborative learning, and programming performance: a comparative study with traditional pair programming and individual approaches (2025) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
“Specifically the measurements of use and its determinants were separated by 1 month (T1-T2), 3 months (T2-T3) and 2 months (T3-T4).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Procedure
“after initial training (T1), 1 month after implementation (T2), and 3 months after implementation (T3).We also measured self-reported usage at T2, T3, and 5 months after implementation (T4).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“a All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (where 1: strongly disagree; 2: moderately disagree, 3: somewhat disagree, 4: neutral (neither disagree nor agree), 5: somewhat agree, 6: moderately agree, and 7: strongly agree), except computer self-efficacy, which was measured using a 10-point Guttman scale.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“Use (USE) USE1 On average, how much time do you spend on the system each day?”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
“| SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03 |”
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Self-citation(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3352 · Cited by 36,647
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709
Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions
Aiken, L., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1037/10520-147 · Cited by 24,912
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Self-citationIntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Beach L. R., 1996, Decision making in the workplace: A unified perspective, 1
- Cohen D. S., 2005, Why change is an affair of the heart, CIO Magazine
- Gross G., 2005, Standards a must for adoption for health‐care IT, CIO Magazine
- Koch C., 2004, Nike rebounds: How (and why) Nike recovered from its supply chain disaster, CIO Magazine
- Mennecke B. E., 1998, Discovering and overcoming the hidden profile bias in group decision making: The influence of group history and use of a group support system, Journal of MIS, 15, 173
- Overby S., 2002, How to win friends and influence users, CIO Magazine
- Saga V. L., 1994, Diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology, 67
- Vallacher R. R., 1996, The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior, 260
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 3,201–3,300 of 8,090
Exploring the Impact of Optimum Stimulation Level on Individual Perceptions of IT Innovations
Gu, R., Jiang, Z. J., Oh, L., & Wang, K. (2018) · ACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3184444.3184450 · Cited by 10
“…empirical support with regard to relationships with both PIIT (Agarwal, Sambamurthy, & Stair, 2000; Davis & Yi, 2012; Lewis et al., 2003; Thatcher & Perrewé, 2002) and PEOU5 (Agarwal et al., 2000; Hong, Thong, Wong, & Tam, 2002; Lewis et al., 2003; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 1996).”
BackgroundStudy of User Acceptance and Satisfaction of a Mandatory Government-Regulated Information System
Wibowo, T. (2017) · CommIT (Communication and Information Technology) Journal · doi:10.21512/commit.v11i1.3896 · Cited by 10
“TAM, with the addition of the constructs of trust and perceived risk, has been proposed for the use of e-commerce acceptance study [6].”
BackgroundShohieb, S. M. (2018) · International Conference on Software and Computer Applications (ICSCA) · doi:10.1145/3185089.3185147 · Cited by 10
“The growth of educational games within the last years has largely inspired learning procedures [1-3].”
BackgroundBeyond signed T-shirts: A socio-technological model of equity crowdfunding adoption
Guirado, C. E., Zorita, C. M. D. I., & Castro, C. G. (2018) · Journal of Innovation Economics & Management · doi:10.3917/jie.pr1.0024 · Cited by 10
Conceptual Study on Malaysian Male Consumption Behaviour Towards Skin Care Products
Tan, C.-E., Ahmad, F., & Choong, Y. O. (2018) · Cited by 10
Grady, A., Wolfenden, L., Rissel, C. E., Green, S., Reilly, K., & Yoong, S. L. (2018) · Health Promotion Journal of Australia · doi:10.1002/hpja.220 · Cited by 10
Sustainability Simulation and Assessment of Bicycle Network Design and Maintenance Environment
Ginters, E., Mezītis, M., & Aizstrauta, D. (2018) · International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications · doi:10.1109/iconic.2018.8601225 · Cited by 10
“Approaches such as diffusion of innovations, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) or Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [13, 14, 15] focus on technology adoption and technology acceptance from individual’s perspective during the decision-making process.”
BackgroundThe Impact of Individual Beliefs and Expectations on BIM Adoption in the AEC Industry
Batarseh, S., & Kamardeen, I. (2018) · EPiC series in education science · doi:10.29007/v8xl · Cited by 10
Measuring the moderating effect of age, gender and educational level on UMKM go digital program
Tikno, & Amelia, P. (2019) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/1.5098273 · Cited by 10
Adapting the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) For Business Events: The Event Organizer Perspectives
Sangkaew, P., Jago, L., & Gkritzali, A. (2019) · Event Management · doi:10.3727/152599519x15506259855832 · Cited by 11
THE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT OF DETERMINANTS INFLUENCING BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS EMBEDDEDNESS
Grubljesic, T., Coelho, P. S., & Jaklič, J. (2014) · Issues in Information Systems · doi:10.48009/1_iis_2014_106-117 · Cited by 10
Student use of university digital collections: the role of technology and educators
Shephard, A. J., & Pookulangara, S. (2019) · Museum Management and Curatorship · doi:10.1080/09647775.2019.1638818 · Cited by 10
TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL AND TRUST IN EXPLAINING CUSTOMER INTENTION TO USE INTERNET BANKING
Putra, A., Suprapti, N. W. S., Yasa, N. N. K., et al. (2019) · Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences · doi:10.18551/rjoas.2019-07.29 · Cited by 10
“This result is in line with previous research by Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
ResultCoetzee, M. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24463-7_16 · Cited by 10
Gow, C. X., Wong, S. C., & Lim, C. S. (2019) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation · doi:10.1177/2319510x19872597 · Cited by 12
“Eight years later, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) developed TAM3 by combining TAM2 and the determinants model of perceived ease of use.”
MethodSarkam, N. A. (2019) · International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v9-i13/6510 · Cited by 11
Factors Affecting Consumers Intention to use Blockchain Based Services (BBS) in the Hotel Industry
Hasan, M. T., & TJPRC (2020) · International journal of mechanical and production engineering research and development · doi:10.24247/ijmperdjun2020846 · Cited by 10
“Perceived utility refers to the assumption of the prospective customer that using a particular technology can improve their efficiency in an organizational setting [42].”
BackgroundEinflussfaktoren bei der Social-Media-Nutzung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation
Hennig, A., & Kohler, S. (2020) · Publizistik · doi:10.1007/s11616-020-00618-z · Cited by 10
Biermann, H., Philipsen, R., Brell, T., & Ziefle, M. (2019) · Human-Intelligent Systems Integration · doi:10.1007/s42454-020-00015-x · Cited by 10
“The TAM was subsequently extended in more differentiated versions (Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Venkatesh et al. 2003; Venkatesh et al. 2012): for example, demographic variables and other user characteristics as well as conditions of use (e.g., the voluntary nature of use)…”
BackgroundA TAM-Based Model of Technological Factors Affecting Use of E-Tourism
Alkhatib, G. I., & Bayouq, S. T. (2020) · International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management in the Digital Age · doi:10.4018/ijthmda.20210701.oa1 · Cited by 10
Technological acceptance of Moodle through latent variable modeling – a systematic mapping study
García-Murillo, G., Hernández, P. N., & Rodriǵuez, R. S. (2020) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1857786 · Cited by 16
“(7) A large number of hypotheses have been tested with mixed results using TAM, TAM3, UTAUT, and UTAU2 as the base model.”
BackgroundInfluentialEnablers for IoT Regarding Wearable Medical Devices to Support Healthy Living: The Five Facets
Değerli, M., & Özkan, S. (2021) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-9897-5_10 · Cited by 10
How user behaviour is moderated by affective commitment on point of sale terminal
Oloveze, A. O., Oteh, O. U., Nwosu, H. E., & Obasi, R. O. (2021) · Rajagiri Management Journal · doi:10.1108/ramj-05-2020-0019 · Cited by 11
Mehta, P., Singla, H., Saha, R., & Tyagi, S. (2021) · Paradigm A Management Research Journal · doi:10.1177/09718907211003712 · Cited by 10
“Intention to use was measured with a four-item measure (Amirtha & Sivakumar, 2018; Davis, 1989; Klopping & McKinney, 2004; Venkatesh et al., 2003 a,b; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2012).”
MethodWaheed, A., Zhang, Q., Farrukh, M. H. M., & Khan, S. Z. (2021) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440211006714 · Cited by 10
“Despite, different models and theories were proposed by experts since 1970s, including technology acceptance model by Davis (1986), technology acceptance model (TAM2) by Venkatesh and Davis (2000), and technology acceptance model (TAM3) by Venkatesh and Bala (2008), respectively.”
MethodArifah, I. D. C., & Juniarti, R. P. (2021) · Advances in economics, business and management research/Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research · doi:10.2991/aebmr.k.210522.005 · Cited by 12
Nebot, M. Á. L., Villanueva, M. S., & Esteve‐Mon, F. M. (2021) · Revista Interuniversitaria de Investigación en Tecnología Educativa · doi:10.6018/riite.470331 · Cited by 21
Implementation Of LMS-CIDOS In Polytechnic English Language Classroom: Issues And Challenges
Hasnan, M. T. M. T., & Mohin, M. (2021) · Asian Journal of University Education · doi:10.24191/ajue.v17i4.16253 · Cited by 11
Formella-Zimmermann, S., Kleespies, M. W., & Dierkes, P. W. (2022) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.817598 · Cited by 10
“…it easier to do my studies”) and PEOU (e.g., “I find the virtual setup easy to use”) introduced by Davis in 1989, this study also investigated PE (Liaw and Huang, 2003; Yi and Hwang, 2003; Serenko, 2008; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) with items such as “I find using the virtual setup to be enjoyable.””
BackgroundMethodFostering Digital Media-Realted Competences of Student Teachers
Grassinger, R., Bernhard, G., Müller, W., Schnebel, S., Stratmann, J., Weitzel, H., Aumann, A., Gaidetzka, M., Günther, V., Heiberger, L., et al. (2022) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-022-01135-8 · Cited by 22
“(2) On the level of lectures the acceptance of digital media in teaching–learning processes [41] or the increased use of digital media during lectures are of interest.”
BackgroundThe Influence of Information Security on the Adoption of Cloud Computing: An Exploratory Analysis
Opala, O. J., Rahman, S., & Alelaiwi, A. A. (2015) · International journal of Computer Networks & Communications · doi:10.5121/ijcnc.2015.7404 · Cited by 10
Modeling Persuasive Discourse to Adaptively Support Students’ Argumentative Writing
Wambsganß, T., & Niklaus, C. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.599 · Cited by 11
“The measured argumentation (Toulmin, 2003), the perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1991), and the perceived usefulness (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) in an evaluation provided promising results for us-ing our approach in different large-scale learning scenarios to offer quality education with individual…”
BackgroundMethodExamining the Moderating Role of Gender in Arabian Workers’ Acceptance of Computer Technology
Hu, H.-F., Al‐Gahtani, S. S., & Hu, P. J. (2013) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.03304 · Cited by 10
“Our results related to the direct effects of the intention antecedents are consistent with the findings of prior research [Chau and Hu, 2001; Davis, 1989; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008], with the exception of a mediating influence of attitude on the impact of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on intention.”
BackgroundResultNew and emerging threats of cyber crime and terrorism
Luiijf, H. A. M. (2014) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800743-3.00003-7 · Cited by 10
To Use or Not to Use—ERP Resistance is the Question: The Roles of Tacit Knowledge and Complexity
Freeze, R. D., & Schmidt, P. J. (2015) · Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education · doi:10.1111/dsji.12059 · Cited by 11
Social networking services as a facilitator for scientists' sharing activities.
Kalb, H., Pirkkalainen, H., Pawlowski, J. Μ., & Schoop, E. (2011) · European Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 10
Evaluating the Impact of Electronic Health Records on Clinical Reasoning Performance
Wills, M. J., El-Gayar, O., & Deokar, A. V. (2012) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.254 · Cited by 10
“Other variations followed, including Combined Technology Acceptance Model –Theory of Planned Behavior (TAM-TPB) [55], Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) [58], the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [59] and Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) [57] .”
MethodReducing risks in crisis management by GIS adoption
Fathizahraei, M., Marthandan, G., Raman, M., & Asadi, A. (2014) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-014-1474-z · Cited by 13
Mueller, D., & Zimmermann, V. (2009) · International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC) · doi:10.3991/ijac.v2i3.940 · Cited by 10
“More-over, the determinants of PU and PEOU don’t show any crossover effects, the determinants of PU will not influence PEOU and vice versa [70].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFactors influencing trust in Ambient Assisted Living Technology: A scenario-based analysis
Steinke, F., Bading, N., Fritsch, T., & Simonsen, S. (2014) · Gerontechnology · doi:10.4017/gt.2013.12.2.002.00 · Cited by 11
Proudfoot, J. G., Boyle, R., & Schuetzler, R. M. (2016) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2016.02.008 · Cited by 10
“Evaluations of a variety of system types have used the TAM model to predict system adoption, including email, ecommerce, and executive information systems [4,30,31].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWook, M., Yusof, Z. M., & Nazri, M. Z. A. (2014) · Journal of Applied Sciences · doi:10.3923/jas.2014.2129.2138 · Cited by 10
Intention of use of home broker systems from the stock market investors' perspective
Jóia, L. A., Gutman, L. F. D., & Moreno, V. D. A., Jr. (2016) · The Journal of High Technology Management Research · doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2016.10.008 · Cited by 10
Exploratory Study of Internet Banking Technology Adoption
Safeena, R., Kammani, A., & Date, H. (2017) · International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications · doi:10.4018/ijesma.2017040102 · Cited by 10
A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING THE LEVEL OF CONVENIENCE OF TRANSPORT TICKETING SYSTEMS
Zalar, D., Ušpalytė−Vitkūnienė, R., Rebolj, D., et al. (2017) · Transport · doi:10.3846/16484142.2017.1300783 · Cited by 10
Attitudes Towards Mobile Devices in Estonian Basic Education: Using the Framework of the UTAUT Model
Adov, L., Must, O., & Pedaste, M. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58515-4_25 · Cited by 10
Tounkara, T. M. (2019) · Artificial intelligence for engineering design analysis and manufacturing · doi:10.1017/s089006041900009x · Cited by 10
“TAM has become one of the most widely used models for Information Technology (IT) adoption (Davis, 1989; King and He 2006; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
MethodSubjektive Sicherheit zur Steigerung der Akzeptanz des automatisierten und vernetzten Fahrens
Drewitz, U., Wilbrink, M., Oehl, M., Jipp, M., & Ihme, K. A. (2021) · Forschung im Ingenieurwesen · doi:10.1007/s10010-021-00500-y · Cited by 10
Kauer, M., Theuerling, H., & Bruder, R. (2012) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2012.724085 · Cited by 10
“For the field of PU (TAM 2, Venkatesh and Davis 2000) and PEOU (TAM 3, Venkatesh and Bala 2008), extensive work was done to determine the prerequisites.”
BackgroundMolnar, A., Weerakkody, V., El‐Haddadeh, R., et al. (2013) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38862-0_27 · Cited by 10
“…Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Bandura, 1986), Technology Ac-ceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and extended TAM 2 (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), TAM 3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), Model of PC Utilisation (Thompson et al, 1991), Motivation Model (Davis…”
BackgroundLarge-scale migration to an open source office suite: An innovation adoption study in Finland
Karjalainen, M. (2010) · Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University) · Cited by 10
Boughanzai, F., Ouhassan, Y., Majdoubi, R., & Hadjoudja, A. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13833-w · Cited by 14
“Following TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008 ) and trust-based frameworks (Gefen et al., 2003 ), anxiety and trust are conceptualized as affective constructs representing teachers’ emotional responses to AI technologies.”
InfluentialExploring the drivers of users' adoption of museum digital humans
Mo, J., Chen, H., Ye, C., Wang, Z., & Chen, C. (2026) · npj Heritage Science · doi:10.1038/s40494-026-02313-0 · Cited by 11
Fosser, S. M., Nadar, M., Habib, B., Weir, D. L., Chan, F. K. I., Halabieh, R. E., Vachon, J., Thakur, M., Tran, T., Bustillo, M., et al. (2021) · JAMIA Open · doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab037 · Cited by 9
“The questionnaire was developed using the extended versions of the technology acceptance model.(33) In this way, users’ impressions, experiences, and perspectives were incorporated into the design and development process to enhance the usability of the product.”
MethodMobile-Assisted Language Learning for EFL: A Conceptual Framework based on the Meta-UTAUT Model
Razzak, M. R., & Jassem, S. (2021) · Asia-Pacific Journal of Educational Management Research · doi:10.21742/ajemr.2021.6.2.02 · Cited by 10
The dissemination and impacts of deceptive eWOM: a dynamic process perspective
Shih, C.-F., Huang, S., & Huang, H. (2022) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2022.2063759 · Cited by 11
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) * The same instrument is measured at time 1 and time 2.”
BackgroundInfluentialNarbutaitienė, J., Carlstedt, A. B., & Fischl, C. (2023) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2023.2174605 · Cited by 9
“An individual’s intention to use new technology is explained in the technology acceptance model [48,49].”
BackgroundTelenursing: The view of care professionals in selected EU countries. A pilot study
Marco-Franco, J. E., Santos, M. R., Martínez, I. B., et al. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16760 · Cited by 9
“As reported, our questionnaire [28] has been inspired by previous experiences of healthcare staff already teleworking [35–38]; by general questionnaires on the incorporation of technologies [39,40]; and by a previous design focusing on patients’ behaviour towards telenursing (TISQ) [17].”
BackgroundMethodThe Use of New Technologies in Logistics: Drone (UAV) Use in Last Mile Delivery
Toraman, Y., & Öz, T. (2023) · Sosyoekonomi · doi:10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2023.04.05 · Cited by 18
Wang, H., Qi, C., & Ding, L. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-49795-7 · Cited by 9
Fan, S. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3346448 · Cited by 9
“This is because users typically prefer platforms that do not require substantial time or effort to learn [66].”
BackgroundInfluentialSongkram, N. (2024) · International Journal of Information and Education Technology · doi:10.18178/ijiet.2024.14.2.2047 · Cited by 9
“Furthermore, Venkatesh and Bala [13] investigated individual variations in computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, enjoyment of computer play, and perceptions of external control.”
BackgroundChristian, M., Yulita, H., Sander, O. A., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-54019-6_25 · Cited by 9
Neshaei, S. P., Rietsche, R., Su, X., & Wambsganss, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3640543.3645169 · Cited by 9
Enhancing Procedural Writing Through Personalized Example Retrieval: A Case Study on Cooking Recipes
Mejia‐Domenzain, P., Frej, J., Neshaei, S. P., Mouchel, L., Nazaretsky, T., Wambsganß, T., Bosselut, A., & Käser, T. (2024) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00405-1 · Cited by 10
“Behavioral intention (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) ImaginingIwouldwritearecipeinthefuture,IwoulduseRELEXforit.”
InfluentialWeChat Adoption among Older Adults and Urban-Rural Differences in China
Lu, Q., Rong, B., Meng, X., Luo, X., Chen, Q., Xi, G., & Yang, H. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2364475 · Cited by 10
“In order to reveal the driving mechanism for urban-rural older adults to adopt WeChat, we analyzed DTMIM using fsQCA, and the results are as follows: (1) None of the five conditions alone can constitute necessary conditions for high ATU (non-high ATU) or high AU (non-high AU).”
InfluentialExploring the effects of personal and situational factors on cyber aggression
Tennakoon, H., Betts, L. R., Chandrakumara, A., Saridakis, G., & Hand, C. (2024) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2024-3-7 · Cited by 15
“…norms can be defined as what an individual would perceive to be acceptable behaviour, depending on the attitudes and behaviours of people who are close or important to them (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977; Rejón-Guardia et al., 2020; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundDigital competence of students in higher education: an assessment framework in Vietnam
Pham, T. L., & Dau, T. T. K. (2024) · Asian Education and Development Studies · doi:10.1108/aeds-04-2024-0080 · Cited by 17
Cabrilo, S., Leung, R., Tsai, F.-S., & Dahms, S. (2024) · Journal of Organizational Change Management · doi:10.1108/jocm-08-2023-0315 · Cited by 11
Arroyabe, I. F. D., Watson, T., & Phillips, I. W. (2024) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi16110395 · Cited by 8
Sae-tae, K., & Wang, Q. (2024) · Telematics and Informatics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.teler.2024.100179 · Cited by 22
Jia, Y., Zheng, K., Liu, X., et al. (2025) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-05-2024-0645 · Cited by 9
FinTech Innovations for Sustainable Banking
Iddrisu, K., Yakubu, I. N., & Asongu, S. A. (2025) · Sustainable development goals series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-80744-2_4 · Cited by 10
Assessing the validity of utaut among higher education instructors: a meta-analysis
Noureddine, R., Boote, D. N., & Campbell, L. O. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13449-0 · Cited by 13
“Ensuring that the user interface is designed with instructors needs in mind, or designing training interventions to reduce unfamiliarity and complexity in use can make a substantial difference (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Brüggemann, P., Martinez, L. F., & Pauwels, K. H. (2025) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-025-09960-8 · Cited by 12
“In contrast, micro-level theories focus on how individual businesses develop, implement, and integrate technological innovations within their strategic and operational frameworks [29–42].”
InfluentialYu, X., Hu, Y., Hu, Y., & Li, K. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13530-8 · Cited by 14
“The scales for PU, PEOU, and BI were obtained from Davis ( 1989 ), while constructs for subjective norm items were drawn from Venkatesh and Bala (2008), service quality items from Chiu et al. (2007), self-efficacy items from Bhattacherjee et al. (2008), and facilitating condition items from…”
Aprile, I. G., Germanotta, M., Fasano, A., Siotto, M., Mauro, M. C., Pavan, A., Nicora, G., Sgandurra, G., Malovini, A. L., Oreni, L. M., et al. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14082692 · Cited by 10
“Several questionnaires will be provided to patients to analyse the following: • Acceptability and usability a. Technology Acceptance Model [69]: after 5 sessions, after 15 sessions, at T1; b. Ad hoc questionnaire for needs and available solutions and perception of their relative complexity: at T0 and T1; • Satisfactio…”
InfluentialGilmore, J. N., Whims, T., Blair, B. W., Katarzynski, B., & Steffen, L. (2025) · Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565251337576 · Cited by 12
“Further re fi nement of TAM added additional sets of conditions and circumstances which might contribute to the acceptance of technology (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
Text Entry for XR Trove (TEXT): Collecting and Analyzing Techniques for Text Input in XR
Bhatia, A., Mughrabi, M. H., Abdlkarim, D., Luca, M. D., González-Franco, M., Ahuja, K., & Seifi, H. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713382 · Cited by 13
Kwaro, D., Mendt, S., Muma, J. O., Munga, S., Gunga, H., Heim, Z. H., Matzke, I., Bunker, A., Barteit, S., & Maggioni, M. A. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01601-6 · Cited by 12
“ThisapproachalignswiththeTechnologyAcceptanceModel (TAM),whichhighlightstheperceivedusefulnessandeaseofuseaskey factorsin fl uencing the adoption and continued use of new technology 20 .”
González-Rodríguez, M. R., Díaz-Fernández, M. C., Caber, M., & Albayrak, T. (2025) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2024.2436655 · Cited by 10
“…sensation seeking (Hoyle et al., 2002; Vishwakarma et al., 2020a), seven items for hedonic value (enjoyment) (Davis et al., 1992; He et al., 2018; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), three items for utilitarian value (W. J. Lee & Kim, 2021; Mano & Oliver, 1993), five items for intention to reuse 360º VTs…”
Artificial intelligence (AI) powered chatbots: factors in uptake among early adopters
Ju, B., Stewart, B. J., Park, S., & Walker, J. J. (2025) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/ajim-12-2024-0994 · Cited by 11
Wang, M., Ramasamy, S. S., Dawod, A. Y., & Yu, X. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15070855 · Cited by 22
Technical field-evaluation of exoskeleton-assisted overhead work among carpenters
Brandt, M., Jacobsen, S. S., Skals, S., et al. (2025) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2025.104582 · Cited by 9
Simba, A., Rambe, P., & Jones, P. K. (2025) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.103038 · Cited by 10
Keller, T., Guggemos, J., & Warwas, J. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100785 · Cited by 18
Halford, E. (2025) · Policing A Journal of Policy and Practice · doi:10.1093/police/paaf027 · Cited by 11
Díaz, G. M. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15070923 · Cited by 15
Enhancing informal learning recognition through TRAILER project
Conde, M. Á., García‐Peñalvo, F. J., Zangrando, V., et al. (2013) · DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.3107.5362 · Cited by 9
Impact of Collaborative Work on Technology Acceptance: A Case Study from Virtual Computing
Konak, A., Kulturel-Konak, S., Nasereddin, M., & Bartolacci, M. R. (2017) · Journal of Information Technology Education Research · doi:10.28945/3622 · Cited by 8
Factors Influencing Office-Workers' Purchase Intention though Social Media
Liang, C., & Dang, H. T. (2015) · International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management · doi:10.4018/ijcrmm.2015010101 · Cited by 9
The Extension of TAM Model in the Use of Point of Sale (Pos) in Minimarkets in Padang, Indonesia
Yuhelmi, Trianita, M., & Dharma, S. H. (2019) · KnE Social Sciences · doi:10.18502/kss.v3i14.4300 · Cited by 9
“Lastly, [14] extended amore complete TAMmodel called TAM 3 by adding variable 4, variable Anchor (Computer Self Efficacy, Perception of External Control, Computer Anxiety and computer Playfulness) and 2 adjustment variables (Perceived Enjoyment and Objective Usability) and 2 variables moderating (experience and volunt…”
BackgroundWhat Influences Urbanites’ Mobile Payment Adoption? The Moderating Roles of Demographic Divides
Hee, O. C., Ying, K. N., Kowang, T. O., & Lim, L.-P. (2020) · Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities · doi:10.47836/pjssh.28.4.42 · Cited by 9
Lehmann, S., Ruf, E., & Misoch, S. (2021) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-70807-8_2 · Cited by 13
Interactive AR App for Real-Time Analysis of Resistive Circuits
Álvarez‐Marín, A., Velázquez‐Iturbide, J. Á., & Campos-Villarroel, R. (2021) · IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje · doi:10.1109/rita.2021.3089917 · Cited by 11
Livet, M., Levitt, J. M., Cardenas, A., Thomas, J., Lee, A., Pathak, S., & Curran, G. M. (2021) · JACCP JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY · doi:10.1002/jac5.1493 · Cited by 9
“Bachelor's 6 (22) MS/MA/MSN 6 (22) RN 1 (5) MD 5 (23) PhD 1 (5) Professional role Provider (e.”
BackgroundImpact of Computer-Based Assessments on the Science’s Ranks of Secondary Students
Rodríguez, E. A. S., Vilas, A. F., & Redondo, R. P. D. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11136169 · Cited by 9
“It is also aligned with the guidelines to achieve a successful acceptance among practitioners [18,20].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialEvaluating Consumer Acceptance of the Commercial Fleet of Methanol Vehicles in China
Li, C., Negnevitsky, M., Wang, X., et al. (2021) · Frontiers in Energy Research · doi:10.3389/fenrg.2021.792982 · Cited by 9
Kadylak, T., Blocker, K. A., Kovac, C. E., & Rogers, W. A. (2022) · Gerontechnology · doi:10.4017/gt.2022.21.1.486.06 · Cited by 10
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
