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 3,801–3,900 of 8,090
Agarwal, A., Sebastian, M. P., & Krishnan, S. (2026) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-025-10672-5 · Cited by 12
The influence of generative artificial intelligence usage on employees’ innovative job performance
Zhang, H., Zhu, L., Zhang, A., & Shohruh, K. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327786 · Cited by 8
Guo, D., & Ogbodo, J. N. (2026) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-026-06553-0 · Cited by 6
Shroff, S. J., Soni, R. N., & Rohira, S. (2026) · Journal of Financial Services Marketing · doi:10.1057/s41264-026-00344-z · Cited by 6
Siegel, Z., Quinkert, E. M., Pai, J., Miller, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2026) · JMIR Aging · doi:10.2196/70012 · Cited by 6
“Yet, additional domains and extensions have been added over time, including the “Attitudes Toward Using” domain [70,71].”
Davor, I., Boateng, F. O., Osei-Tutu, P., Bosompem, A. O., Patience, A. S., & Adusei, L. A. (2026) · Journal of mathematics science and technology education. · doi:10.12973/jmste.3.1.1 · Cited by 9
Understanding brand loyalty and disloyalty formation among consumers’ of short life-cycle products
Ramachandran, S. (2015) · Cited by 6
El-Masri, M. (2020) · Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations · doi:10.4018/jeco.2020070106 · Cited by 5
An extended UTAUT2 perspective - determinants of mobile banking use intention and use behavior
Kaplan, H. E., & Gürbüz, E. (2020) · Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi · doi:10.25287/ohuiibf.734288 · Cited by 6
Καπετανέας, Ν., & Kitsios, F. (2022) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95947-0_32 · Cited by 6
Technology Enabling the New Normal: How Students Respond to Classes
Ullah, M. S., Khandakar, M. S. A., Aziz, M. A., & Kee, D. M. H. (2022) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v23i4.6295 · Cited by 6
Technology Acceptance Factors for Implementing the E-Government Systems in Saudi Arabia
Amin, S. F., Saad, A. B., & Lajis, A. (2022) · Advances in Internet of Things · doi:10.4236/ait.2022.124008 · Cited by 6
Measuring Behavioural Cybersecurity: An Overview of Options
van Steen, T. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35017-7_29 · Cited by 6
Wang, P.-C., Liu, F.-C., Lee, D., et al. (2023) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture13081476 · Cited by 6
Students’ emotional experiences in learning translation memory systems: A narrative-based study
Hao, Y. (2023) · The International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research · doi:10.12807/ti.115202.2023.a10 · Cited by 10
“What we have seen in the breakup letter above, aside from a “disheartening” experience, is a trade-off relation between ease of use and usefulness (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundZhang, X., & Zhou, M. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12106-8 · Cited by 6
“Meanwhile, the TAM3 proposed by Venkatesh and Bala (2008) introduces new constructs such as perceived enjoyment, computer self-efficacy, and anxiety to explain technology adoption and continued use.”
Path analytic investigation of the intention to adopt open government data in Qatar (TAM revisited)
El-Kassem, R. C., & Al-Kubaisi, A. J. (2023) · Transforming Government People Process and Policy · doi:10.1108/tg-06-2023-0074 · Cited by 6
Application of mobile-based web app to enhance simple suturing skills of nurse practitioners
Su, J., Wu, C., Hong, W.-T., Chen, P.-S., Hung, K., & Wang, C. (2023) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105959 · Cited by 7
A Model for the Acceptance and Use of Online Meeting Tools
Taş, M., & Kiraz, A. (2023) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems11120558 · Cited by 6
“The technology acceptance model (TAM) proposes that beliefs regarding the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the system influence attitude [27,28,30].”
InfluentialKim, J. S., & Lucas, A. F. (2023) · Cornell Hospitality Quarterly · doi:10.1177/19389655231216123 · Cited by 6
“It also aligns with previous studies that revealed a positive effect of facilitating conditions (or perceived behavioral control) on effort expectancy (or perceived ease of use; Bervell & Umar, 2017; Nordhoff et al., 2020; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialChen, B., Yan, C., Wang, B., Zou, J., & Tu, S. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26206 · Cited by 12
“In 1989, Venkatesh V et al. [13] proposed a more extensive and comprehensive model, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), based on the modifications and adjustments made by previous researchers.”
MethodHilale, H., & Chakor, A. (2024) · Telematics and Informatics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.teler.2024.100139 · Cited by 6
Hai-yin, S., & Guo, R. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2331859 · Cited by 7
“…2009; Legris et al., 2003; Maranguni � c & Grani � c, 2015), therefore, an extended Technology Acceptance Model with various external variables that may have an impact during the adoption or acceptance of new technologies (ETAM) emerged subsequently (Venkatesh & Bala 2008; Venkatesh & Davis 2000).”
Gündüz, N., Zaim, S., & Erzurumlu, Y. O. (2024) · International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijphm-11-2022-0102 · Cited by 6
Han, F. (2024) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.8814 · Cited by 6
“First, unlike the theory of planned behaviour (Taylor & Todd, 1995) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), which place much emphasis on understanding the social factors and interperson al interactions on students’ acceptance and adoption of technologies…”
BackgroundAn fsQCA approach to identifying pathways to K-9 students’ online learning engagement
Ma, Y., Zuo, M., Yan, Y., Luo, H., & Wang, K. (2024) · Distance Education · doi:10.1080/01587919.2024.2338704 · Cited by 7
“…in the final analyses. the teaching and social presence subscales were adapted from the community of inquiry instrument (arbaugh et al., 2008). the items measuring perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of technology were adapted from the instrument validated by Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
Why do citizens not prefer to use e-scooters? Views of the public in the Netherlands
Dirsehan, T. (2024) · Travel Behaviour and Society · doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2024.100863 · Cited by 6
Gutema, H., Bulcha, G., Abamecha, F., Kebede, Y., Gerbaba, M. J., Noll, J., Sori, D. A., & Koricha, Z. B. (2024) · BMC Digital Health · doi:10.1186/s44247-024-00094-9 · Cited by 6
“Nine items designed on a 5-point Likert scale, adapted from the literature [32–34], were used to measure the extent to which pregnant mothers believe that using mobile phone-based messaging for MNH would enhance their maternal and newborn health practices.”
MethodInfluentialOwusu‐Sekyere, E., Hatab, A. A., Lagerkvist, C. J., et al. (2024) · Precision Agriculture · doi:10.1007/s11119-024-10167-4 · Cited by 7
“The attitudinal and behavioural constructs included were obtained from the literature (Landmann et al., 2021; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Basic human values and the adoption of cryptocurrency
Stanciu, A., BERNARDES, M., Lechner, C. M., & Lechner, C. M. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1395674 · Cited by 8
“For instance, a derivative of the TPB applied in understanding the use of technology is the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) which may inform a complementary framework in the study of intention to buy cryptocurrency (Jariyapan et al., 2021).”
BackgroundThe influence of implicit self-theories on ChatGPT usage
Dinh, T. D. (2024) · International Journal of Information and Learning Technology · doi:10.1108/ijilt-02-2024-0026 · Cited by 7
Talk to engage: The influence of smartphone voice assistants on consumers’ brand engagement
Zaki, H. O., Omar, N. A., Hashim, S., Kamarulzaman, Y., & Lada, S. (2024) · Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science · doi:10.1080/21639159.2024.2362660 · Cited by 7
“TAM focuses on the factors influencing the acceptance of technology, such as perceived usefulness and ease of use, as studied by Davis (1989), Venkatesh and Bala (2008), and Maruping et al. (2017).”
X-NR: Towards An Extended Reality-Driven Human Evaluation Framework for Neural-Rendering
Stacchio, L., Balloni, E., Gorgoglione, L., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71707-9_25 · Cited by 6
AI-driven innovations for enhancing mental health care in Tanzania: opportunities and challenges
Mwogosi, A., Mambile, C., Shao, D. D., & Kibinda, N. M. (2024) · Mental Health and Social Inclusion · doi:10.1108/mhsi-10-2024-0180 · Cited by 10
Nzobonimpa, S., Savard, J., Caron, I., & Lawarée, J. (2024) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-02103-x · Cited by 6
“For example, Venkatesh (2000) integrated control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion, while Venkatesh and Bala (2008) proposed a new model they called TAM3 in which they emphasize the role of experience in moderating the effect of adopting a new information technology system.”
Alesanco-Llorente, M., Lara, E. M. R., Borondo, J. P., & Pascual, C. O. (2024) · Journal of Global Fashion Marketing · doi:10.1080/20932685.2024.2420621 · Cited by 8
“The advantages offered by the new CAN+C model over previous technology acceptance models can be seen in the R 2 values obtained in their respective applications (Pelegrin-Borondo, Arias-Oliva, et al., 2017; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012).”
Assessing the utility of a virtual reality arson crime scene investigation simulation
Halford, E., Keningale, P., Hussain, A. T., & Condon, C. (2024) · Policing A Journal of Policy and Practice · doi:10.1093/police/paae122 · Cited by 8
BIM adoption predictors for health and safety management among construction SMEs
Sila, N., Agumba, J. N., & Adebowale, O. J. (2024) · Construction Innovation · doi:10.1108/ci-04-2024-0100 · Cited by 6
Poudel, R. L., & Bastakoti, C. K. (2024) · Prithvi Journal of Research and Innovation · doi:10.3126/pjri.v6i1.72853 · Cited by 8
“This finding supports previous research (Budhathoki et al., 2024; Davis, 1989; Menon & Shilpa, 2023; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) but contrasts with other studies (Romero-Rodriguez et al., 2023; Strzelecki, 2023; Venkatesh et al., 2012) that found effort expectancy significantly influenced mobile…”
Is virtual reality head-mounted display accepted by coaches to enhance sport performance?
Mascret, N., Montagne, G., Devrièse-Sence, A., & Kulpa, R. (2025) · Virtual Reality · doi:10.1007/s10055-025-01104-5 · Cited by 6
“While it may seem surprising to investigate technol - ogy acceptance before use, an a priori measurement can on the contrary contribute to a better understanding of the first step leading to the actual deployment of this technology (Venkatesh and Bala 2008 ).”
InfluentialHalford, E., Hussain, A. T., Keningale, P., & Condon, C. (2025) · International Journal of Police Science & Management · doi:10.1177/14613557251316088 · Cited by 6
“Accordingly, we suggest that users are more likely to actively embrace and advocate for the adoption of VR, a view supported by the literature (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
InfluentialYan, M., Deng, C., Gao, J., & Wang, H. (2025) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106853 · Cited by 6
Desire to Die Communication Training for Professionals: Developing Online Formats
Boström, K., Dojan, T., Doll, A., Montag, T., Voltz, R., & Kremeike, K. (2025) · Palliative Medicine Reports · doi:10.1089/pmr.2024.0075 · Cited by 6
“58,59 12 – 14 The credibility of our website is enhanced by professional credentials and reliable sources.”
Ouendi, N., Avril, E., Dervaux, B., Pudlo, P., & Wallard, L. (2025) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x251352613 · Cited by 7
“33 – 35 The UTAUT model explains around 70% of intentions to use new technologies.”
Empirical Practice in Software Engineering
Jedlitschka, A., Guzmán, L., Jung, J., Lampasona, C., & Steinbach, S. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37395-4_15 · Cited by 7
Internet browsing behavior: a case study of executive postgraduate students in Ghana
Hinson, R. E. (2011) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/0266666911414382 · Cited by 6
“A TAM 3 has also been proposed (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundTowards the Success of ERP Systems: Case Study in Two Moroccan Companies
Bighrissen, B., Ettamiri, E. M., & Cherkaoui, C. (2013) · Journal of Enterprise Resource Planning Studies · doi:10.5171/2012.731113 · Cited by 6
Mangin, J.-P. L., Bourgaul, N., Calvo-Porral, C., et al. (2014) · The Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · Cited by 6
Kramer, T., Heinzl, A., & Neben, T. (2017) · Proceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2017.041 · Cited by 6
Knowledge Management and decision making based on informal learning activities in business
García‐Peñalvo, F. J., & Conde, M. Á. (2013) · Gredos (University of Salamanca) · Cited by 6
Information Technology Usage in the Islamic Perspective: A Systematic Literature Review
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Zeki, A. M., Alias, N. B., et al. (2017) · The Anthropologist · doi:10.1080/09720073.2017.1335758 · Cited by 6
Successful Aging among Older Adults Using Computers: a Systematic Review
Saare, M. A., Hussain, A., & . (2018) · International Journal of Engineering & Technology · doi:10.14419/ijet.v7i3.20.18730 · Cited by 6
“An analysis of the cost incurred may assist the older adults to understand the high cost of technology, and what gain it brings [45].”
BackgroundTeachers' Beliefs Towards Blended Learning in Higher Education: A Mixed-Methods Study
Gómez, M. C. S., Martín‐García, A. V., & Mena, J. (2019) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20798-4_16 · Cited by 6
Hawwash, D., Sharp, M., Argaw, A., Kolsteren, P., & Lachat, C. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030943 · Cited by 6
Sah, Y. J., Makki, T. W., Cotten, S. R., & Rikard, R. V. (2020) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764220919140 · Cited by 7
“In extensions of TAM, scholars examined the notion of perceived playfulness, which refers to users’ expectancies for deriving pleasure and enjoyment from their interactions with specific devices (e.g., Rauniar et al., 2014; Sledgianowski & Kulviwat, 2009).”
MethodSingh, R., Sajnani, M., & Gupta, P. K. (2020) · International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (Trends and Future Directions) (ICRITO) · doi:10.1109/icrito48877.2020.9198031 · Cited by 6
“The concept of willingness to adopt the technology was traditionally explained by Davis (1989) [2];Venkatesh et al (2003) [3], which was typically applied on consumers through ‘Technology acceptance model’(TAM).”
BackgroundTECHNOLOGY ADOPTION FAILURE THROUGH THE PRISM OF ORGANIZATIONAL REGULATION MODEL
Fomin, V. V., Heldal, I., & Wijkmark, C. H. (2018) · Cited by 6
Teacher supported behaviors affecting MOOC learners’ intention based on TAM and SOR Model
Ge, W., Bai, H., Wu, H., et al. (2020) · International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT) · doi:10.1109/eitt50754.2020.00013 · Cited by 6
Michelot, F., Poëllhuber, B., Bérubé, B., et al. (2021) · Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire · doi:10.18162/ritpu-2021-v18n1-04 · Cited by 6
Abdurakhimovna, T. S., Alzubi, M. M. S., & Aljounaidi, A. (2021) · International Journal Of All Research Writings · Cited by 6
Perspective for the Use of Adoption Theories in Artificial Intelligence
Martins, R. D. V., Alturas, B., & Alexandre, I. (2021) · Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) · doi:10.23919/cisti52073.2021.9476340 · Cited by 8
“A combination of the TAM2 [6] and a posteriori study [7] allow to the development of new release of TAM, the TAM3 [8].”
BackgroundE-Recruitment: Extending Technology Acceptance Model in the Indonesian Context
Irawan, D. A., Adiputra, I., & Arshanty, R. P. (2021) · International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech) · doi:10.1109/icimtech53080.2021.9534918 · Cited by 6
“On the other hand, perceived ease of use influenced behavioural intention [40].”
BackgroundChinese K-12 Teachers’ Acceptance of Augmented Reality based on Technology Acceptance Model
Ma, J., Liu, Q., Yu, S., Liu, M., Liu, J., & Wu, L. (2021) · International Symposium on Educational Technology · doi:10.1109/iset52350.2021.00058 · Cited by 6
The Role of Virtual Environment in Online Retailing: State of the Art and Research Challenges
Poggesi, S., Mari, M., Kamangar, A., et al. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14074131 · Cited by 6
Examining Higher Education Students' Intention of Adopting MOOCs
Singh, S. (2022) · International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction · doi:10.4018/ijthi.299358 · Cited by 6
Ulfert, A., Probst, D., & Scherer, S. (2022) · Technology Mind and Behavior · doi:10.1037/tmb0000071 · Cited by 6
The Move Towards Cashless Society: How to Improve Consumers’ Use of Bank Cards in Retail Stores?
Ettis, S. A., & Mohamed, E. M. (2022) · Studies in Business and Economics · doi:10.2478/sbe-2022-0002 · Cited by 7
Parmar, H. S., Tahvildar, A., Ghasemi, E., Jung, S., Davis, F. D., & Walden, E. A. (2022) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102531 · Cited by 6
Hoffmann, J., Reimer, A., Mause, L., Müller, A., Neo-CamCare, Dresbach, T., & Scholten, N. (2022) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08072-5 · Cited by 7
ALEN App: Argumentative Writing Support To Foster English Language Learning
Wambsganss, T., Caines, A., & Buttery, P. (2022) · Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.bea-1.18 · Cited by 8
“2) Post-survey: In the post-survey of study 1 (ten participants), we measured the perceived ease-of-use, the intention to use, and the perceived usefulness for the participants following the technology acceptance model of Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
MethodResultAN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC
ALTAY, Ş., & Inan, G. G. (2022) · Pazarlama ve Pazarlama Araştırmaları Dergisi · doi:10.15659/ppad.15.2.997751 · Cited by 11
Shetty, D. K., Bhagawati, J., Shetty, S., Rodrigues, L. R., Kumar, A., Tilwani, P., Vanahalli, M. K., Kishore, B., Rao, A., Malarout, N., et al. (2022) · Engineered Science · doi:10.30919/es8e678 · Cited by 7
Luzsa, R., Mayr, S., Syrmoudis, E., Großklags, J., Kuebler-Wachendorff, S., & Kranz, J. J. (2022) · Mensch und Computer (MuC) · doi:10.1145/3543758.3543762 · Cited by 6
“The present study adds a cross-situational perspective and tests how technology acceptance and competency [11, 42, 43, 59, 60], privacy-related attitudes [6, 9, 44, 54], and sociodemographic variables predict whether individuals are open to switching used services and whether they are interested in…”
BackgroundNg, A. P. P., Liu, K. S. N., Cheng, W. H. G., Wong, C. K. H., Cheng, J. K. Y., Lam, J. S. M., Or, C. K., Tse, E. T. Y., & Lam, C. L. K. (2022) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/s12955-022-02047-0 · Cited by 6
Luzsa, R., & Mayr, S. (2022) · Mensch und Computer (MuC) · doi:10.1145/3543758.3547540 · Cited by 6
“…be conceptualized both as users’ situation-and context-related attitude towards using a specific technological artifact (e.g. in the Technology Acceptance Model TAM) [31, 32], or as a cross-situationally stable personality trait that expresses overall openness towards us-ing new technologies [19].”
BackgroundDigitalization, Sustainability and Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review
Lertpiromsuk, S., & Ueasangkomsate, P. (2022) · doi:10.1109/temscon-aspac52831.2022.9916555 · Cited by 6
“Lastly, the additional variables, which influence perceived usefulness, were introduced in the latest model of technology acceptance (TAM3) [18].”
Law, M. J. J., Ridzwan, M. I. Z., Ripin, Z. M., Hamid, I. J. A., Law, K. S., Karunagaran, J., & Cajee, Y. (2022) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2022.2134472 · Cited by 6
Purohit, A., Chopra, G., & Dangwal, P. G. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su142113862 · Cited by 6
E-learning as a supplementary tool for enhanced students’ satisfaction
Pheng, H. S., Chin, T. A., Lai, L. Y., et al. (2022) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0072901 · Cited by 6
Financial reporting preparer’s satisfaction and intention to switch to XBRL reporting: A Model
Uyob, R., Bahador, K. M. K., & Saad, R. A. J. (2022) · Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business · doi:10.17687/jeb.v10i2.938 · Cited by 6
“TAM has been studied extensively, and researchers have expanded into new technology acceptance theories such as TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis,2000), TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) and UTAUT (Venkatesh et al.,2003).”
BackgroundMa, Z. G., Christensen, K., Rasmussen, T. F., & Jôrgensen, B. N. (2022) · Energy Informatics · doi:10.1186/s42162-022-00238-z · Cited by 6
FINANCIAL PLANNING FOR MILLENNIALS AND GEN-Z (STUDY OF MILLENNIALS AND GEN-Z FINANCIAL BEHAVIOR)
Susanto, Y. B., Setiawan, J., & Ariyanto, S. (2022) · Ultima Management Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen · doi:10.31937/manajemen.v14i1.2533 · Cited by 6
Usability and acceptance of crowd-based early warning of harmful algal blooms
Manik, L. P., Albasri, H., Puspasari, R., et al. (2023) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.14923 · Cited by 6
“Moreover, latent variables could be added in subsequent studies, based on the second version of the TAM created by Venkatesh & Davis (2000) or the third version by Venkatesh & Bala (2008) .”
The Critical Success Factors of Metaverse Adoption in Education
Andembubtob, D. R., Keikhosrokiani, P., & Abdullah, N. L. (2023) · Advances in marketing, customer relationship management, and e-services book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-7029-9.ch009 · Cited by 6
Huda, M. Q., Hidayah, N. A., Zakaria, N. A., & Khudzaeva, E. (2023) · Journal of Applied Engineering and Technological Science (JAETS) · doi:10.37385/jaets.v4i2.1873 · Cited by 6
“Furthermore, this theory is extended again with TAM3 (Venkatesh, 2008) by including the determinants of perceived ease of use (Venkatesh, 2000).”
BackgroundFostering Digital Sustainability in Higher Education Through e-Learning Concepts
Khoyratty, B., & Devi, B. N. (2023) · Approaches to global sustainability, markets, and governance · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-2456-1_1 · Cited by 7
Danner, M., Hadžić, B., Weber, T., Zhu, X., & Rätsch, M. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-39059-3_21 · Cited by 8
Ronquillo, C., Dahinten, V. S., Bungay, V., & Currie, L. M. (2023) · JMIR Nursing · doi:10.2196/44435 · Cited by 8
“Despite technology acceptance models growing in complexity through the incorporation of more variables that are thought to shape technology use behaviors (eg, the development of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology [UTAUT] [6-8] and the various iterations of the Technology Acceptance Model 3 [TAM3] […”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHarunavamwe, M., & Kanengoni, H. (2023) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1002691 · Cited by 8
Hick, S., Biermann, H., & Ziefle, M. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-02575-0 · Cited by 9
Segbenya, M., Minadzi, V. M., Bervell, B., & Somuah, B. A. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100380 · Cited by 6
GRAAL—modeling, prototyping and assessing a gamified responsible augmented assembly line system
Agati, S. S., Hounsell, M. D. S., & Paterno, A. S. (2024) · The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · doi:10.1007/s00170-024-13460-8 · Cited by 12
“TAM 3 was used because it was statistically validated [42], used in several studies [43], and had a theoretical evolution of its constructs [44].”
What Drives Mobile Payment Fin Tech Adoption in India?
Srivastava, S., Mohta, A., & Shunmugasundaram, V. (2024) · Global Business Review · doi:10.1177/09721509241238556 · Cited by 14
Ruiz-Figueroa, I., Minguela, M. Á., & Gómez, P. M. (2024) · Journal of Gerontological Social Work · doi:10.1080/01634372.2024.2339977 · Cited by 6
“The extent to which the activity of using a specific system is perceived to be enjoyable (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundGuo, H., Ye, Y., Lin, Y.-C., Khan, A., Chen, S., & Liou, J.-H. (2024) · Cogent Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/23311886.2024.2356721 · Cited by 12
“…2000). therefore, according to past studies (Bhattacherjee & hikmet, 2008; el-Gayar et al., 2011; F. huang et al., 2019; h. M. lai & Chen, 2011; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), this study concluded that sn has three antecedents, including peer influence, instructor influence, and institutional…”
Londoño, P. A. V., Rodas, H. C., & Builes, J. A. J. (2024) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v19i05.46619 · Cited by 6
Uncertainty Avoidance and Technology Acceptance in Emerging Economies: A Comparative Study
Vörös, T., & Choudrie, J. (2011) · Open Research (Auckland University of Technology) · Cited by 6
Quimno, V., Imran, A., & Turner, T. (2013) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 6
Against All Odds - A Story of a Successful Mobile System Acceptance among a Tough Crowd
Järveläinen, J., & Vahtera, A. (2010) · IFIP International Federation for Information Processing/IFIP · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16283-1_30 · Cited by 7
“However, a Technology acceptance model 3 was presented in 2009 [14].”
Correa, P. R., Cataluña, F. J. R., & Arenas-Gaitán, J. (2013) · Interciencia · Cited by 6
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
