The DOI matches its Crossref record; 135 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 55 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Open accessAbstract
ABSTRACT Prior research has provided valuable insights into how and why employees make a decision about the adoption and use of information technologies (ITs) in the workplace. From an organizational point of view, however, the more important issue is how managers make informed decisions about interventions that can lead to greater acceptance and effective utilization of IT. There is limited research in the IT implementation literature that deals with the role of interventions to aid such managerial decision making. Particularly, there is a need to understand how various interventions can influence the known determinants of IT adoption and use. To address this gap in the literature, we draw from the vast body of research on the technology acceptance model (TAM), particularly the work on the determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and: (i) develop a comprehensive nomological network (integrated model) of the determinants of individual level (IT) adoption and use; (ii) empirically test the proposed integrated model; and (iii) present a research agenda focused on potential pre‐ and postimplementation interventions that can enhance employees' adoption and use of IT. Our findings and research agenda have important implications for managerial decision making on IT implementation in organizations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
51 Own result · 35 Own interpretation · 21 No full text of the sources · 13 Sources not found · 7 Own method · 5 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Venkatesh and Speier (1999) investigated the effect of mood during training on user acceptance and found that mood during training played an important role in forming individuals' perceptions of a new IT.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Venkatesh & Speier, 1999 source
The Short-Term Mood Effects section links mood during computer training to perceptions of enjoyment in using the technology. The Discussion reports that negative mood during training reduced intrinsic motivation and intentions to use it, supporting the citing sentence’s broad characterization of the finding. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that experience moderated the effect of computer anxiety on perceived ease of use such that the effect became weaker with increasing experience (CANX × EXP).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“experience moderated the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness such that with increasing experience the effect became stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, TAM3 was able to explain between 52% and 67% of the variance in perceived usefulness across different time periods and models (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that job relevance and output quality had an interactive effect on perceived usefulness such that with increasing output quality, the effect of job relevance on perceived usefulness was stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that experience, in fact, moderated the effect of perceived ease of use (PEOU × EXP) on behavioral intention such that with increasing experience the effect became weaker.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was higher than the correlations across constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As Table 4 shows, internal consistency reliabilities (ICRs) were greater than .70 for all constructs at all points of measurement.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 3 shows that the item loadings were greater than or at least equal to .70 for all constructs at all time periods.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Further, incentive alignment, and an important extrinsic reward, may reduce anxiety and increase perceived enjoyment as extrinsic rewards are considered important drivers of intrinsic motivations (Vallerand, 1997;Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;Ryan & Deci, 2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vallerand, 1997 source
- Partly supportedcites Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that verbal rewards (positive feedback) enhanced self-reported interest, which offers limited support for the possibility that an extrinsic reward could increase enjoyment. But the paper does not assess incentive alignment or anxiety, and its Concluding Comments (pp. 658–659) say tangible rewards generally diminish rather than promote intrinsic motivation. The cited source therefore does not support the proposed effect of incentive alignment. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan & Deci, 2000 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that perceived ease of use, subjective norm, image, and result demonstrability were significant predictors of perceived usefulness at all time periods (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While perceived ease of use was significant at T1 and T2, it was not significant at T3, suggesting a moderating effect of experience in the relationship between perceived ease of use and behavioral intention.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the adjustments-that is, perceived enjoyment and objective usability-were not significant at T1, but they were significant at both T2 and T3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“OU × EXP | | | | .20 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Objective Usability (OU) | .04 | .19 * * | .23 * * * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CANX × EXP | | | | .21 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjective Norm (SN) | .40 * * * | .32 * * * | .13 * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Enjoyment (ENJ) | .02 | .22 * * * | .24 * * * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Result Demonstrability (RES) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .28 * * * | .26 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CPLAY × EXP | | | | -.22 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .33 * * * | .08”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ENJ × EXP | | | | .18 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | .24 * * * | .17 * | .05 | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although longitudinal studies were conducted, the specific moderating role by experience was not tested in Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, in the context of enterprise systems, if an individual perceives that his or her use of the system does not benefit the members of his or her work units but rather benefits members from other work units, the user will perceive a lack of incentive alignment that may lead to low user acceptance and use of the system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we conducted Harmon's single factor test and marker variable test (we used job satisfaction as a marker variable) and did not find any significant common method bias.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used validated items from prior research to test TAM3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our research design allowed us to collect the use data separate from its determinants (e.g., behavioral intention, perceived usefulness, etc.).Particularly, there was at least a 1-month gap between the collection of survey data and the measurement of use.”
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
“Such a design approach helped us overcome the problems associated with common method biases.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
In the paper
“Operationalization of the determinants of perceived ease of use (i.e., computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, computer playfulness, computer anxiety, objective usability, and perceived enjoyment) was consistent with Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh (2000)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It posits that individuals' behavioral intention to use an IT is determined by two beliefs: perceived usefulness, defined as the extent to which a person believes that using an IT will enhance his or her job performance and perceived ease of use, defined as the degree to which a person believes that using an IT will be free of effort.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Ba et al. (2001) argued that while aspects of software engineering (e.g., system characteristics) and technology acceptance (e.g., perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, user satisfaction) are important considerations for system development processes, organizations may fail to gain expected benefits from employees' effective utilization of a system unless employees find that the system fe”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All constructs at each time period exhibited strong psychometric properties and satisfied the criteria of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Ba et al. (2001), incentive alignment does not necessarily mean organizational rewards for using a system.It is a broad concept that entails an individual's perception that the IT fits with his or her job requirements and value system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) noted that PLS has minimal restrictions in terms of distributional assumptions and sample size.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean-centering helps limit potential multicollinearity, evidenced by the low variation inflation factors (VIFs) for all constructs in our model.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived usefulness is an instrumental belief that is conceptually similar to extrinsic motivation and is a cognition (as opposed to emotion) regarding the benefits of using a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Crossover Effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It further theorizes that the effect of external variables (e.g., design characteristics) on behavioral intention will be mediated by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davis et al., 1989 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.Further, the types of ITs were different across the sites.Such variability in organizational settings and types of technologies adds to the potential generalization of our findings.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > METHOD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“TAM constructs-that is, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), and behavioral intention (BI)-were operationalized using items adapted from Davis (1989) and Davis et al. (1989).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incentive alignment has been suggested as the third dimension in systems design (Ba, Stallaert, & Whinston, 2001).The other two dimensions are software engineering and technology acceptance (Ba et al., 2001).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the modification and enhancement activities performed by peers will increase job relevance of a system, improve the output quality of a system, and reduce anxiety related to system use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Peer support
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implementation of interventions is, of course, not a silver bullet for greater IT adoption and effective utilization.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“He also found that the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention to use a system was stronger for individuals who received game-based training.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we can develop a rich understanding of the determinants of IT adoption and use and interventions that can favorably influence these determinants, managers can proactively decide on implementing the right interventions to minimize resistance to new ITs and maximize effective utilization of ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
- Rests on an assumption: Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
In the paper
“Training has been suggested as one of the most important postimplementation interventions that leads to greater user acceptance and system success (see Sharma & Yetton, 2007).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharma & Yetton, 2007 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizational support captures the role of both internal and external experts who can help users deal with the complexity associated with new systems as well as business processes.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Implementation of interventions can increase system development costs substantially.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 emphasizes the unique role and processes related to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use and theorizes that the determinants of perceived usefulness will not influence perceived ease of use and vice versa.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Prior research has suggested that employees' perceptions regarding organizational support-that is, facilitating conditions or perceptions of external control (Taylor & Todd, 1995;Venkatesh, 2000;Venkatesh et al., 2003)-will lead to greater user acceptance of new systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our key argument in this article is that unless organizations can develop effective interventions to enhance IT adoption and use, there is no practical utility of our rich understanding of IT adoption.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that interventions discussed in this article can help organizations generate favorable individuals' reactions toward business process changes and process standards implementation.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“For example, while self-efficacy may have weak influence on perceived usefulness as shown in Agarwal and Karahanna (2000), we argue that this influence will become nonsignificant in the presence of other important social and cognitive constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Agarwal and Karahanna (2000) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 posits that perceptions of external control are important and stable determinants of perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizational support is a key source of perceptions of external control.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, experts can help employees modify certain aspects of a new system, thus increasing job relevance, output quality, and results demonstrability of a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the complexity of ITs, it is increasingly difficult for employees to make effective decisions about adoption, utilization, and coping with new ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Some employees may react favorably to these changes, while the others may perceive these changes as a threat to their well-being (Orlikowski, 2000;Boudreau & Robey, 2005).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Postimplementation Interventions
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 posits that with increasing experience, while the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention will diminish, the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness will increase.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that the role of training will be even more important in the context of complex systems (e.g., enterprise systems) that are more central to employees' work life.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As these systems are more likely to invoke negative reactions from employees because of their disruptive nature, effective training interventions can mitigate these negative reactions and help employees form favorable perceptions toward these systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
“Out of 50 potential users of the system who participated in the training, 39 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system who attended the training, 43 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system, 36 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
“Data were collected from four different organizations-sites A through D-implementing new ITs.”
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Management support in individual-level IT adoption literature has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance.
“While management support has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance, particularly in the individual-level IT adoption literature, we suggest that there is a need to develop a richer conceptualization of management support to enhance our understanding of its role in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.
“There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
“However, much of the prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.
“While peer support is potentially an important intervention that can lead to greater user acceptance, there is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
“However, there is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.
“There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In many cases, users stopped using an enterprise system because they saw no benefits of using the new system.
“In many cases, the users stopped using an enterprise system, as they saw no benefits of using the new system.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts, are prevalent.
“Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts are also prevalent.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
“ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
“Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“the extensive focus of TAM on technology to the neglect of social and psychological parameters (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998;Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) limits its explanatory and predictive utilities, and therefore demands its integration with other frameworks”
From Using T-O-E theoretical framework to study the adoption of ERP solution (2016) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A technology that provides information quickly and easily will lead to improvements in job performance, which in turn will encourage greater use of a given technology (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The adoption of new technologies is shaped by user perceptions and usage patterns (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) as well as student characteristics and experiences (Abdaljaleel et al., 2023; Tiwari et al., 2024).”
From “ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that perceived enjoyment is positively related to perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The scales applied have been verified in preceding studies [12, 28].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, it is proposed that perception of external control is an element that conditions perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that result demonstrability is an antecedent of perceived usefulness [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“which explains that users’ decisions to accept and use a technology are influenced by perceived usefulness, ease of use, and social influence of others.”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Some of the themes identified in this review overlap with previous models conceptualizing engagement with digital health interventions, as well as general technology acceptance and health behavior, such as the Efficiency Model of Support [251], Technology Acceptance Model [253], and Health Belief Model [249].”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our findings are in line with the Technology Acceptance Model”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Information-related characteristics of a system can impact its PU as they can improve productivity and performance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Firstly, considering usability , a reliable, flexible and user-friendly system is more likely to create a positive user experience (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A typical criticism of the TAM is in relation to its lack of practical managerial guidance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) present four generic antecedents to the TAM: i ndividual differences , system characteristics , social influence , and facilitating conditions .”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala (2008)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The model explains approximately 40% of the variance in individuals’ intention to use a new technology and actual use [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It theorizes that individuals’ intention to use new technology is determined by perceived usefulness, defined as “the extent to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will enhance his or her job performance,” and perceived ease of use, defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will be free of effort” [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“TAM's assertion that perceived usefulness is a primary determinant of technology acceptance and subsequent usage behaviors (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
From The impact of AI-assisted pair programming on student motivation, programming anxiety, collaborative learning, and programming performance: a comparative study with traditional pair programming and individual approaches (2025) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
“Specifically the measurements of use and its determinants were separated by 1 month (T1-T2), 3 months (T2-T3) and 2 months (T3-T4).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Procedure
“after initial training (T1), 1 month after implementation (T2), and 3 months after implementation (T3).We also measured self-reported usage at T2, T3, and 5 months after implementation (T4).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“a All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (where 1: strongly disagree; 2: moderately disagree, 3: somewhat disagree, 4: neutral (neither disagree nor agree), 5: somewhat agree, 6: moderately agree, and 7: strongly agree), except computer self-efficacy, which was measured using a 10-point Guttman scale.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“Use (USE) USE1 On average, how much time do you spend on the system each day?”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
“| SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03 |”
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Self-citation(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3352 · Cited by 36,647
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709
Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions
Aiken, L., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1037/10520-147 · Cited by 24,912
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Self-citationIntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Beach L. R., 1996, Decision making in the workplace: A unified perspective, 1
- Cohen D. S., 2005, Why change is an affair of the heart, CIO Magazine
- Gross G., 2005, Standards a must for adoption for health‐care IT, CIO Magazine
- Koch C., 2004, Nike rebounds: How (and why) Nike recovered from its supply chain disaster, CIO Magazine
- Mennecke B. E., 1998, Discovering and overcoming the hidden profile bias in group decision making: The influence of group history and use of a group support system, Journal of MIS, 15, 173
- Overby S., 2002, How to win friends and influence users, CIO Magazine
- Saga V. L., 1994, Diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology, 67
- Vallacher R. R., 1996, The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior, 260
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 8,090
Factors influencing Near Field Communication (NFC) adoption: An extended TAM approach
Dutot, V. (2015) · The Journal of High Technology Management Research · doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2015.04.005 · Cited by 139
ArgueTutor: An Adaptive Dialog-Based Learning System for Argumentation Skills
Wambsganss, T., Kueng, T., Soellner, M., & Leimeister, J. M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445781 · Cited by 138
“We also measured the perceived ease of use and the level of enjoyment of both tools using key constructs [67, 68].”
MethodHong, X., Zhang, M., & Liu, Q. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.691492 · Cited by 174
“Surprisingly, compared with computer self-efficacy, perception of external control influences perceived ease of use in a significantly greater way, which is consistent with previous studies (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
ResultRosli, M. S., Saleh, N. S., Md. Ali, A., Abu Bakar, S., & Mohd Tahir, L. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su141811389 · Cited by 126
“When analyzing the development of TAM3 in situations unrelated to pandemics, it is possible that experience would become the most important factor [66].”
BackgroundIntention to use e-banking services in the Jordanian commercial banks
Yaseen, S. G., & Qirem, I. A. E. (2018) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-05-2017-0082 · Cited by 132
Müller, J. M. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11164333 · Cited by 146
“The TAM3 by Venkatesh and Bala [24] highlights the role of a technology’s Perceived Enjoyment and Objective Usability on its Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness, which is confirmed through H5 to H8 in the context of the three technologies.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMlekus, L., Bentler, D., Paruzel, A., Kato-Beiderwieden, A.-L., & Maier, G. W. (2020) · Gruppe Interaktion Organisation Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO) · doi:10.1007/s11612-020-00529-7 · Cited by 156
“The aim of this study was to extend the TAM (Venkatesh and Bala 2008) by user experience characteristics and test the resulting user experience technology acceptance model.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialPitchay, A. A., Ganesan, Y., Zulkifli, N. S., & Khaliq, A. (2021) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-01-2021-0075 · Cited by 127
Mulla, T. (2022) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2022.101797 · Cited by 162
Older Adults and Smart Technology: Facilitators and Barriers to Use
Harris, M., Blocker, K., & Rogers, W. (2022) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2022.835927 · Cited by 119
“Toconsolidate the numerous other technology models with the iterations of TAM (e.g., TAM2, TAM3; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), proposed the aptly named Unified Theory of the Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT).”
MethodSahi, A. M., Khalid, H., Abbas, A. F., & Khatib, S. F. A. (2021) · Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity · doi:10.3390/joitmc7040230 · Cited by 124
Acceptance of Mobile Health Applications: Examining Key Determinants and Moderators
Nunes, A., Limpo, T., & Castro, S. L. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02791 · Cited by 114
“…the factors that influence individuals’ acceptance and use of ICT have been proposed: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis, 1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 1996), the TAM 2 (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), the TAM 3 (Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), and the UTAUT 2 (Venkatesh et al., 2012).”
BackgroundGroß, M. (2015) · The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research · doi:10.1080/09593969.2014.988280 · Cited by 124
Hung, S., Ku, Y.-C., & Chien, J.-C. (2011) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.09.009 · Cited by 136
“Hence, several theoretical extensions of TAM have been proposed to enhance its explanatory power, such as TAM 2 [28] and TAM 3 [29].”
BackgroundTarhini, A., Elyas, T., Akour, M. A., & Al-Salti, Z. S. (2016) · Higher Education Studies · doi:10.5539/hes.v6n3p72 · Cited by 123
“Previous research has found that a user’s degree of relevant experience moderates a number of relationships within TAM (e.g., Lymperopoulos & Chaniotakis, 2005; Al-Jabri & Al-Khaldi, 1997; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodStudent continuance of learning management system use: A longitudinal exploration
Cheng, M., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.004 · Cited by 140
Sepasgozar, S. M. E., & Davis, S. (2018) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings8060074 · Cited by 144
“(i) the “socio-economic perspective”, focusing on diffusion theories [55]; (ii) the “managerial perspective”, focusing on adoption considering organization procedures [56-58]; and (iii) the “psychological perspective”, focusing on technology acceptance [59, 60].”
BackgroundResistance to facial recognition payment in China: The influence of privacy-related factors
Liu, Y., Yan, W., & Hu, B. (2021) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102155 · Cited by 121
Papakostas, C., Troussas, C., Krouska, A., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2062551 · Cited by 123
“…(TRA) of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) of Davis (1986), TAM-2 of Venkatesh and Davis (2000), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) of Venkatesh et al. (2003), UTAUT-2 of Venkatesh et al. (2012) and TAM-3 of Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
BackgroundAbbasi, M. S., Tarhini, A., Elyas, T., & Shah, F. (2015) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-12-2014-0124 · Cited by 125
“We adopted TAM as foundation of our model due to TAM’s consistent explanatory power, i.e. 40 per cent since creation (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodChinese Older Adults’ Internet Use for Health Information
Wong, C. K. M., Yeung, D. Y.-L., Ho, H. C. Y., Tse, K.-P., & Lam, B. C. Y. (2012) · Journal of Applied Gerontology · doi:10.1177/0733464812463430 · Cited by 129
“For instance, performance expectancy, voluntariness of use, and job relevance (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) have been added to the original TAM.”
BackgroundMethodSocial influence, voluntariness, experience and the internet acceptance
Abbasi, M. S., Chandio, F. H., Soomro, A. F., & Shah, F. (2010) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/17410391111097410 · Cited by 133
“) is the most popular due its parsimonious structure and acceptable explanatory power ( Venkatesh and Bala, 2008”
BackgroundContinuous usage intention of Internet banking: a commitment-trust model
Yuan, Y., Lai, F., & Chu, Z. (2018) · Information Systems and e-Business Management · doi:10.1007/s10257-018-0372-4 · Cited by 126
“In addition, anxiety is supposed to significantly influence IB users’ behavior intention by generating negative perceptions (El-Qirem 2013; Faqih and Jaradat 2015; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundMeasuring the acceptance and adoption of e-learning by academic staff
Al-alak, B. A., & Alnawas, I. A. (2011) · Knowledge Management & E-Learning An International Journal · doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2011.03.016 · Cited by 124
“Venkatesh & Bala (2008) state that when a system (information technology) is reliable and flexible, there is a highly likelihood that the people will have less "system-related anxiety", and this is because of their prior experience.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCo-design of human-centered, explainable AI for clinical decision support
Panigutti, C., Beretta, A., Fadda, D., Giannotti, F., Pedreschi, D., Perotti, A., & Rinzivillo, S. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3587271 · Cited by 127
“• Result Demonstrability: The degree to which an individual believes that the results of using a system are tangible, observable, and communicable [132].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialModeling Factors Affecting Student’s Usage Behaviour of E-Learning Systems in Lebanon
Masa’deh, R., Tarhini, A., Mohammed, A. B., et al. (2016) · International Journal of Business and Management · doi:10.5539/ijbm.v11n2p299 · Cited by 120
E. Koh, C., R. Prybutok, V., D. Ryan, S., & Andy" Wu, Y. (2010) · Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline · doi:10.28945/1326 · Cited by 120
“In terms of theorizing, the TAM was established on a causal chain that centers on intention (the attitude-intention-behavior link in the original TAM or the intention-behavior link in the parsimonious TAM, TAM2, and TAM3).”
Influential“Alexa, let’s talk about my productivity”: The impact of digital assistants on work productivity
Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., RANA, O. F., Ranjan, R. K., & Morgan, G. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.015 · Cited by 148
Artificial intelligence in learning and development: a systematic literature review
Bhatt, P., & Muduli, A. (2022) · European journal of training and development · doi:10.1108/ejtd-09-2021-0143 · Cited by 185
Hohenberger, C., Spörrle, M., & Welpe, I. M. (2016) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.011 · Cited by 122
Ghazal, S., Al‐Samarraie, H., & Aldowah, H. A. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2879677 · Cited by 140
“Typically, when a system is flexible and credible, there is a high probability that students will be motivated or engaged [75].”
BackgroundThe moderating impact of gender on the acceptance of peer-to-peer mobile payment systems
Kalinić, Z., Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., Muñoz‐Leiva, F., & Marinković, V. (2019) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-01-2019-0012 · Cited by 120
Huang, F., Teo, T. P., & Scherer, R. (2020) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1710540 · Cited by 138
Martínez-Román, J. A., & Romero, I. (2016) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-016-0196-x · Cited by 118
“Other research has highlighted the importance of the entrepreneurs’ professional experience (Tang and Murphy, 2012) and their management style (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) in technology adoption, noting that support by the top management is crucial in overcoming barriers against change and the…”
BackgroundExplaining university students’ effective use of e‐learning platforms
Moreno, V. D. A., Jr., Cavazotte, F., & Alves, I. S. (2016) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12469 · Cited by 118
Drivers and outcomes of branded mobile app usage intention
Stocchi, L., Michaelidou, N., & Micevski, M. (2019) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-02-2017-1436 · Cited by 139
Alhumaid, K. F., Habes, M., & Salloum, S. A. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3097753 · Cited by 128
Almulla, M. A. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32220 · Cited by 174
“Out of 42 items, 15 were adapted from studies that developed the TAM, TAM2, and TAM3 Model [59,87,88], while the sources of adaptation for the remaining items are provided in Table 1.”
Aini, Q., Manongga, D., Rahardja, U., Sembiring, I., & Li, Y.-M. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2357860 · Cited by 181
“…EE, PE, SI, FC, HM, PV, HB, and TR. Incorporating” Use behavior” could have led to issues of multicollinearity or obscured the distinct contributions of each predictor variable, as it often closely correlates with PE and EE (Hutabarat et al., 2021; Rofiah & Suhermin, 2022; Venkatesh et al., 2008).”
Employees’ Exploration of Complex Systems: An Integrative View
Liang, H., Peng, Z. C., Xue, Y., Guo, X., & Wang, N. (2015) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2015.1029402 · Cited by 126
“It is measured by a scale adapted from Venkatesh and Bala [109].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialVisinescu, L. L., Sidorova, A., Jones, M. C., & Prybutok, V. R. (2014) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.10.005 · Cited by 120
“TAM3 incorporates factors such as computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, computer anxiety, computer playfulness, perceived enjoyment, objective usability [87].”
BackgroundTarhini, A., HONE, K. S., & Liu, X. (2013) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.026 · Cited by 117
“Consistent with previous empirical research in technology acceptance e.g. [8, 18] and similar work within the e-learning context e.g. [4],[9], the current study adopted a quantitative approach to test the proposed model (see fig1).”
BackgroundResultUnderlying Factors Influencing Consumers’ Trust and Loyalty in E-commerce
Aslam, W., Hussain, A., Farhat, K., & Arif, I. (2019) · Business Perspectives and Research · doi:10.1177/2278533719887451 · Cited by 146
“Over the time, TAM theory evolved into TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and TAM3, which encompasses factors like trust and risk in the context of online commerce (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundBailey, D., Almusharraf, N., & Almusharraf, A. M. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10949-1 · Cited by 157
“These variables are determinants of PU and PEoU, which involve individual differences, system characteristics, social influence, and facilitating conditions (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundAfifa, M. M. A., Van, H. V., & Van, T. L. H. (2022) · Journal of financial reporting & accounting · doi:10.1108/jfra-12-2021-0434 · Cited by 148
FakhrHosseini, S., Chan, K., Lee, C., Jeon, M., Son, H., Rudnik, J., & Coughlin, J. F. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2118851 · Cited by 146
“Similar to TAM2, TAM3 was built to further uncover the determinants of PEU and PU.”
BackgroundSupply chain innovation diffusion: Going beyond adoption
Hazen, B. T., Overstreet, R. E., & Cegielski, C. G. (2012) · The International Journal of Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/09574091211226957 · Cited by 117
Kreijns, K., Vermeulen, M., Kirschner, P. A., van Buuren, H., & Acker, F. V. (2013) · Technology Pedagogy and Education · doi:10.1080/1475939x.2012.754371 · Cited by 117
Jacob, C., Sánchez-Vázquez, A., & Ivory, C. J. (2020) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/18072 · Cited by 120
“Venkatesh and Bala [93] extended the model further to TAM3 by adding computer anxiety or enjoyment.”
BackgroundGerotechnology for Older Adults With Cardiovascular Diseases
Krishnaswami, A., Beavers, C. J., Dorsch, M. P., Dodson, J. A., Creber, R. M., Kitsiou, S., Goyal, P., Maurer, M. S., Wenger, N. K., Croy, D. S., et al. (2020) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.606 · Cited by 120
Elprama, S., Vanderborght, B., & Jacobs, A. (2021) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103615 · Cited by 116
“TAM2 was adapted and resulted by Venkatesh & Bala (2008) and resulted in TAM3, which includes six additional determinants to explain perceived ease of use.”
AlGerafi, M. A. M., Zhou, Y., Alfadda, H. A., & Wijaya, T. T. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3314499 · Cited by 162
“TAM3 has been limited; therefore, researchers have called for its application of the TAM3 in several IT-based contexts to comprehensively understand the acceptance of technology [45], [48].”
InfluentialChen, D., Liu, W., & Liu, X. (2024) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104442 · Cited by 173
Integrating guanxi into technology acceptance: An empirical investigation of WeChat
Chen, L.-S., Goh, C.-F., Sun, Y.-F., & Rasli, A. (2017) · Telematics and informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.003 · Cited by 111
“The underlying reason is that neither theory nor the available empirical evidence can prove such crossover-effects (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundResultInfluential“Think aloud” and “Near live” usability testing of two complex clinical decision support tools
Richardson, S. I., Mishuris, R. G., O’Connell, A., Feldstein, D., Hess, R., Smith, P. R., McCullagh, L., McGinn, T. G., & Mann, D. (2017) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.06.003 · Cited by 116
“Comments made during “Think Aloud” testing about visibility, content, understand-ability and navigation primarily helped to improve the tools ease of use, which is a key driver of technology adoption[21].”
BackgroundHow does the smartphone usage of college students affect academic performance?
Han, S., & Yi, Y. J. (2019) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12306 · Cited by 114
Students' Achievement Emotions and Online Learning in Teacher Education
Stephan, M., Markus, S., & Gläser‐Zikuda, M. (2019) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00109 · Cited by 138
“Consequently, when the online learning system is perceived as easy to be used, the higher will be the student’s perceived ability to use this online system successfully, and hence the student will experience more positive emotions and perform better in an online course (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAl-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Alturki, U., Alrobai, A., Aldraiweesh, A., Alsayed, A. O., & Kamin, Y. (2020) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1728342 · Cited by 132
“Since being hypothesized by Davis (1989), TAM has become popular in social psychology and has evolved into three major upgrades, namely TAM2, UTAUT, and TAM3 (Davis & Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).”
BackgroundHughes, A., Burridge, J., Demain, S., Ellis-Hill, C., Meagher, C., Tedesco-Triccas, L., Turk, R., & Swain, I. (2014) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-124 · Cited by 112
“This model, which has been updated several times [41-43], corresponds with the findings from the survey presented in Table 4 for the high priority given by both HCPs and P&Cs to the ease of set up and use for an ideal technology.”
ResultPHUONG, N. N. D., Ly Thien, L. U. A. N., Vu Van, D. O. N. G., & KHANH, N. L. N. (2020) · Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business · doi:10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no9.505 · Cited by 126
Li, H. (2023) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.8923 · Cited by 159
“The technology acceptance model indicates that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use influenced an individual’s intention or attitude to use new technology (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundAl-Tahitah, A. N., Al-Momani, A. M., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Abdulrab, M., & Hajar, M. A. (2024) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61463-7_13 · Cited by 113
Kuo, R., & Lee, G. (2010) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2010.516018 · Cited by 119
“TAM consistently explains about 40% of the variance in individuals’ intention to use and actual usage (Venkatesh and Bala 2008) and has proven to be a substantial theoretical model that helps to explain and understand individual behaviour in IT adoption.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialToward a Better Understanding of the Intention to Use mHealth Apps: Exploratory Study
(2021) · doi:10.2196/27021 · Cited by 108
“Since its appearance, the TAM has been widely analyzed and expanded in different ways [35].”
BackgroundMethodUses and gratifications and acceptance of Web-based information services: An integrated model
Luo, M. M., & Remus, W. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.042 · Cited by 130
Factors that determine the adoption of Facebook commerce: The moderating effect of age
Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., & Santos, M. A. D. (2017) · Journal of Engineering and Technology Management · doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2017.03.001 · Cited by 114
Ghazali, A. S., Ham, J. R. C., Barakova, E. I., & Markopoulos, P. (2020) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-019-00611-1 · Cited by 121
“As mentioned earlier, we also used perceived enjoyment ( Enjoy ) as a key determinant in our model adopted from TAM 3 [23].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEngagement with information and communication technology and psychological well-being
O'Driscoll, M. P., Brough, P. A., Timms, C., & Sawang, S. (2010) · Research in occupational stress and well being · doi:10.1108/s1479-3555(2010)0000008010 · Cited by 122
Antecedents of information systems user behaviour – extended expectation-confirmation model
Halilović, S., & Čičić, M. (2011) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2011.554575 · Cited by 123
“…are strongly associated and depend on each other (Sharma and Yetton 2007) and where the system use depends on technical and professional support (Venkatesh and Bala 2008) and on the extent of system maintenance in place, then additional modifications on the ECM-IS model extension are necessary.”
BackgroundLazard, A. J., Watkins, I., Mackert, M., Xie, B., Stephens, K. K., & Shalev, H. (2015) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv174 · Cited by 112
The Technology Integration Model (TIM). Predicting the continued use of technology
Shaw, H., Ellis, D. A., & Ziegler, F. V. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.001 · Cited by 110
All the same or different? Revisiting measures of teachers' technology acceptance
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103656 · Cited by 133
KMS adoption: the effects of information quality
Kuo, R., & Lee, G. (2009) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/00251740911004727 · Cited by 116
“The scales of PU, PEOU, and BI in TAM were measured using three items for each element that was adapted from previous researches (Davis, 1989; Dishaw and Strong, 1999; Elena et al., 2006; Mao and Palvia, 2008; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodSystem, scholar or students? Which most influences online MBA course effectiveness?
Arbaugh, J. B. (2014) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12048 · Cited by 111
Alasmari, T. M., & Zhang, K. (2019) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-019-09865-8 · Cited by 112
“Similarly, in Technology Acceptance Model (TAM 3) of Venkatesh and Bala (2008) proposed that system characteristics as determinants of technology acceptance.”
BackgroundAyinaddis, S. G. (2025) · Journal of Innovation & Knowledge · doi:10.1016/j.jik.2025.100682 · Cited by 208
“Various frameworks, especially the technology acceptance model (TAM) developed by Davis et al. (1989) and its extensions, have investigated the drivers of users ’ acceptance and adoption of emerging technologies (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2012).”
Towards improved understanding of reverse logistics – Examining mediating role of return intention
Dixit, S., & Badgaiyan, A. J. (2016) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.021 · Cited by 109
A contextual perspective on consumers' perceived usefulness: The case of mobile online shopping
Sohn, S. (2017) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.05.002 · Cited by 116
Karjaluoto, H., Glavee-Geo, R., Ramdhony, D., Shaikh, A. A., & Hurpaul, A. (2021) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-03-2020-0129 · Cited by 109
Hong, J., Hwang, M., Liu, M.-C., Ho, H.-Y., & Chen, Y. (2013) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.004 · Cited by 115
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) reveal that perceived enjoyment (PE) is a vital determinant for tasks that are entertainment-oriented.”
BackgroundFactors affecting satisfaction and loyalty in online grocery shopping: an integrated model
Sreeram, A., Kesharwani, A., & Desai, S. (2017) · Journal of Indian Business Research · doi:10.1108/jibr-01-2016-0001 · Cited by 123
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2018) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12609 · Cited by 108
“Previous general technology acceptance research has shown that OQ has a positive effect on PU (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundResultDoing Age in a Digitized World—A Material Praxeology of Aging With Technology
Wanka, A., & Gallistl, V. (2018) · Frontiers in Sociology · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2018.00006 · Cited by 108
“One of the most wide-spread models is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), originally developed by Davis (1989) and developed further by him and colleagues (Davis and Venkatesh, 1996; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
MethodSingh, A. K., Sharma, S., & Paliwal, M. (2020) · Interactive Technology and Smart Education · doi:10.1108/itse-05-2020-0070 · Cited by 127
Understanding user acceptance of QR code mobile payment systems in Turkey: An extended TAM
Türker, C., Altay, B. C., & Okumuş, A. (2022) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121968 · Cited by 126
Malaysian SMEs m-commerce adoption: TAM 3, UTAUT 2 and TOE approach
Salimon, M. G., Kareem, O., Mokhtar, S. S. M., Aliyu, O. A., Bamgbade, J. A., & Adeleke, A. Q. (2021) · Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management · doi:10.1108/jstpm-06-2019-0060 · Cited by 107
Factors Influencing Intention to Technological Use in Older Adults. The TAM Model Aplication
Martín‐García, A. V., Redolat, R., & Hernandis, S. P. (2021) · Research on Aging · doi:10.1177/01640275211063797 · Cited by 127
“The initial TAM model has undergone modi fi cations and extensions (e.g., TAM2, TAM3) (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), seeking to improve the predictive power of the model and also trying to respond to technological usage behavior in complex systems such as corporate, educational, and/or social contexts,…”
MethodAgárdi, I., & Alt, M. (2022) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-022-09537-9 · Cited by 156
“Positive social influence can increase the perceived usefulness [84] and perceived ease of use of mobile payment technology [5, 82].”
Kummer, T., Recker, J., & Bick, M. (2016) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.04.002 · Cited by 108
“Finally, an indirect effect on usage intention emerges in models whenever perceived usefulness is present, as would be expected, given the dominant position of the perceived usefulness construct in acceptance models (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundComparing Video and Augmented Reality Assistance in Manual Assembly
Loch, F., Quint, F., & Brishtel, I. (2016) · 2016 12th International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE) · doi:10.1109/ie.2016.31 · Cited by 110
“According to the TAM 3 model of [10] it is one of two determinants of the use intention of a technology.”
BackgroundDeterminants of Adoption of Robotics in Precast Concrete Production for Buildings
Pan, M., & Pan, W. (2019) · Journal of Management in Engineering · doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000706 · Cited by 105
Alsswey, A., & Al‐Samarraie, H. (2019) · Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces · doi:10.1007/s12193-019-00307-w · Cited by 105
E-service quality and actual use of e-banking: Explanation through the Technology Acceptance Model
Ahmad, S., Bhatti, S. H., & Hwang, Y. (2019) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/0266666919871611 · Cited by 142
“Many researchers have settled that perceived usefulness has a significant and positive impact on attitude towards utilizing IT or related frameworks (Davis, 1989a; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundEffect of customer's perception on service robot acceptance
Li, Y., & Wang, C. (2021) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12755 · Cited by 110
Thomas, R. J., O’Hare, G. M. P., & Coyle, D. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122374 · Cited by 119
Weigel, F. K., Hazen, B. T., Cegielski, C. G., & Hall, D. J. (2014) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.03431 · Cited by 116
“Although the TAM has been modified, critiqued, and updated several times [Legris, Ingham, and Collerette, 2003; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis, 2003] and meta-analyses have been done [King and He, 2006; Schepers and Wetzels,…”
MethodCampbell, J. I., Aturinda, I., Mwesigwa, E., Burns, B., Santorino, D., Haberer, J. E., Bangsberg, D. R., Holden, R. J., Ware, N. C., & Siedner, M. J. (2017) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-017-1765-y · Cited by 105
“Subsequent iterations of TAM models have incorporated additional factors such as social norms and technology experience [18, 19].”
BackgroundSEM–ANN based research of factors’ impact on extended use of ERP systems
Zabukovšek, S. S., Kalinić, Z., Bobek, S., & Tominc, P. (2018) · Central European Journal of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10100-018-0592-1 · Cited by 109
Hiran, K. K., & Henten, A. (2019) · International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering and Management · doi:10.1007/s13198-019-00872-z · Cited by 104
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) integrated TAM Version 2 (Venkatesh and Davis 2000) and the model of the perceived ease of use (Venkatesh 2000), and developed a unique model of technology acceptance known as TAM Version 3.”
MethodWhat impacts learning with wearables? An integrated theoretical model
Al‐Emran, M., Al-Maroof, R. S., Al-Sharafi, M. A., & Arpacı, İ. (2020) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1753216 · Cited by 113
“Additionally, the items for enjoyment were adapted from Huang et al. (2007) and Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
Method
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
