The DOI matches its Crossref record; 135 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 55 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Open accessAbstract
ABSTRACT Prior research has provided valuable insights into how and why employees make a decision about the adoption and use of information technologies (ITs) in the workplace. From an organizational point of view, however, the more important issue is how managers make informed decisions about interventions that can lead to greater acceptance and effective utilization of IT. There is limited research in the IT implementation literature that deals with the role of interventions to aid such managerial decision making. Particularly, there is a need to understand how various interventions can influence the known determinants of IT adoption and use. To address this gap in the literature, we draw from the vast body of research on the technology acceptance model (TAM), particularly the work on the determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and: (i) develop a comprehensive nomological network (integrated model) of the determinants of individual level (IT) adoption and use; (ii) empirically test the proposed integrated model; and (iii) present a research agenda focused on potential pre‐ and postimplementation interventions that can enhance employees' adoption and use of IT. Our findings and research agenda have important implications for managerial decision making on IT implementation in organizations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
51 Own result · 35 Own interpretation · 21 No full text of the sources · 13 Sources not found · 7 Own method · 5 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Venkatesh and Speier (1999) investigated the effect of mood during training on user acceptance and found that mood during training played an important role in forming individuals' perceptions of a new IT.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Venkatesh & Speier, 1999 source
The Short-Term Mood Effects section links mood during computer training to perceptions of enjoyment in using the technology. The Discussion reports that negative mood during training reduced intrinsic motivation and intentions to use it, supporting the citing sentence’s broad characterization of the finding. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that experience moderated the effect of computer anxiety on perceived ease of use such that the effect became weaker with increasing experience (CANX × EXP).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“experience moderated the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness such that with increasing experience the effect became stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, TAM3 was able to explain between 52% and 67% of the variance in perceived usefulness across different time periods and models (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that job relevance and output quality had an interactive effect on perceived usefulness such that with increasing output quality, the effect of job relevance on perceived usefulness was stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that experience, in fact, moderated the effect of perceived ease of use (PEOU × EXP) on behavioral intention such that with increasing experience the effect became weaker.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was higher than the correlations across constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As Table 4 shows, internal consistency reliabilities (ICRs) were greater than .70 for all constructs at all points of measurement.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 3 shows that the item loadings were greater than or at least equal to .70 for all constructs at all time periods.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Further, incentive alignment, and an important extrinsic reward, may reduce anxiety and increase perceived enjoyment as extrinsic rewards are considered important drivers of intrinsic motivations (Vallerand, 1997;Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;Ryan & Deci, 2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vallerand, 1997 source
- Partly supportedcites Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that verbal rewards (positive feedback) enhanced self-reported interest, which offers limited support for the possibility that an extrinsic reward could increase enjoyment. But the paper does not assess incentive alignment or anxiety, and its Concluding Comments (pp. 658–659) say tangible rewards generally diminish rather than promote intrinsic motivation. The cited source therefore does not support the proposed effect of incentive alignment. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan & Deci, 2000 source
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that perceived ease of use, subjective norm, image, and result demonstrability were significant predictors of perceived usefulness at all time periods (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While perceived ease of use was significant at T1 and T2, it was not significant at T3, suggesting a moderating effect of experience in the relationship between perceived ease of use and behavioral intention.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the adjustments-that is, perceived enjoyment and objective usability-were not significant at T1, but they were significant at both T2 and T3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“OU × EXP | | | | .20 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Objective Usability (OU) | .04 | .19 * * | .23 * * * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CANX × EXP | | | | .21 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjective Norm (SN) | .40 * * * | .32 * * * | .13 * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Enjoyment (ENJ) | .02 | .22 * * * | .24 * * * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Result Demonstrability (RES) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .28 * * * | .26 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CPLAY × EXP | | | | -.22 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .33 * * * | .08”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ENJ × EXP | | | | .18 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | .24 * * * | .17 * | .05 | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although longitudinal studies were conducted, the specific moderating role by experience was not tested in Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, in the context of enterprise systems, if an individual perceives that his or her use of the system does not benefit the members of his or her work units but rather benefits members from other work units, the user will perceive a lack of incentive alignment that may lead to low user acceptance and use of the system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we conducted Harmon's single factor test and marker variable test (we used job satisfaction as a marker variable) and did not find any significant common method bias.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used validated items from prior research to test TAM3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our research design allowed us to collect the use data separate from its determinants (e.g., behavioral intention, perceived usefulness, etc.).Particularly, there was at least a 1-month gap between the collection of survey data and the measurement of use.”
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
“Such a design approach helped us overcome the problems associated with common method biases.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
In the paper
“Operationalization of the determinants of perceived ease of use (i.e., computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, computer playfulness, computer anxiety, objective usability, and perceived enjoyment) was consistent with Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh (2000)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It posits that individuals' behavioral intention to use an IT is determined by two beliefs: perceived usefulness, defined as the extent to which a person believes that using an IT will enhance his or her job performance and perceived ease of use, defined as the degree to which a person believes that using an IT will be free of effort.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Ba et al. (2001) argued that while aspects of software engineering (e.g., system characteristics) and technology acceptance (e.g., perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, user satisfaction) are important considerations for system development processes, organizations may fail to gain expected benefits from employees' effective utilization of a system unless employees find that the system fe”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All constructs at each time period exhibited strong psychometric properties and satisfied the criteria of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Ba et al. (2001), incentive alignment does not necessarily mean organizational rewards for using a system.It is a broad concept that entails an individual's perception that the IT fits with his or her job requirements and value system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) noted that PLS has minimal restrictions in terms of distributional assumptions and sample size.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean-centering helps limit potential multicollinearity, evidenced by the low variation inflation factors (VIFs) for all constructs in our model.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived usefulness is an instrumental belief that is conceptually similar to extrinsic motivation and is a cognition (as opposed to emotion) regarding the benefits of using a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Crossover Effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It further theorizes that the effect of external variables (e.g., design characteristics) on behavioral intention will be mediated by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davis et al., 1989 source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.Further, the types of ITs were different across the sites.Such variability in organizational settings and types of technologies adds to the potential generalization of our findings.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > METHOD
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“TAM constructs-that is, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), and behavioral intention (BI)-were operationalized using items adapted from Davis (1989) and Davis et al. (1989).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incentive alignment has been suggested as the third dimension in systems design (Ba, Stallaert, & Whinston, 2001).The other two dimensions are software engineering and technology acceptance (Ba et al., 2001).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the modification and enhancement activities performed by peers will increase job relevance of a system, improve the output quality of a system, and reduce anxiety related to system use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Peer support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implementation of interventions is, of course, not a silver bullet for greater IT adoption and effective utilization.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“He also found that the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention to use a system was stronger for individuals who received game-based training.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we can develop a rich understanding of the determinants of IT adoption and use and interventions that can favorably influence these determinants, managers can proactively decide on implementing the right interventions to minimize resistance to new ITs and maximize effective utilization of ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
- Rests on an assumption: Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
In the paper
“Training has been suggested as one of the most important postimplementation interventions that leads to greater user acceptance and system success (see Sharma & Yetton, 2007).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharma & Yetton, 2007 source
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizational support captures the role of both internal and external experts who can help users deal with the complexity associated with new systems as well as business processes.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Implementation of interventions can increase system development costs substantially.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 emphasizes the unique role and processes related to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use and theorizes that the determinants of perceived usefulness will not influence perceived ease of use and vice versa.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Prior research has suggested that employees' perceptions regarding organizational support-that is, facilitating conditions or perceptions of external control (Taylor & Todd, 1995;Venkatesh, 2000;Venkatesh et al., 2003)-will lead to greater user acceptance of new systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
What the sources say
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our key argument in this article is that unless organizations can develop effective interventions to enhance IT adoption and use, there is no practical utility of our rich understanding of IT adoption.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that interventions discussed in this article can help organizations generate favorable individuals' reactions toward business process changes and process standards implementation.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“For example, while self-efficacy may have weak influence on perceived usefulness as shown in Agarwal and Karahanna (2000), we argue that this influence will become nonsignificant in the presence of other important social and cognitive constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Agarwal and Karahanna (2000) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 posits that perceptions of external control are important and stable determinants of perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizational support is a key source of perceptions of external control.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, experts can help employees modify certain aspects of a new system, thus increasing job relevance, output quality, and results demonstrability of a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the complexity of ITs, it is increasingly difficult for employees to make effective decisions about adoption, utilization, and coping with new ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Some employees may react favorably to these changes, while the others may perceive these changes as a threat to their well-being (Orlikowski, 2000;Boudreau & Robey, 2005).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Postimplementation Interventions
What the sources say
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 posits that with increasing experience, while the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention will diminish, the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness will increase.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that the role of training will be even more important in the context of complex systems (e.g., enterprise systems) that are more central to employees' work life.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As these systems are more likely to invoke negative reactions from employees because of their disruptive nature, effective training interventions can mitigate these negative reactions and help employees form favorable perceptions toward these systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
“Out of 50 potential users of the system who participated in the training, 39 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system who attended the training, 43 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system, 36 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
“Data were collected from four different organizations-sites A through D-implementing new ITs.”
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Management support in individual-level IT adoption literature has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance.
“While management support has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance, particularly in the individual-level IT adoption literature, we suggest that there is a need to develop a richer conceptualization of management support to enhance our understanding of its role in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.
“There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
“However, much of the prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.
“While peer support is potentially an important intervention that can lead to greater user acceptance, there is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
“However, there is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.
“There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In many cases, users stopped using an enterprise system because they saw no benefits of using the new system.
“In many cases, the users stopped using an enterprise system, as they saw no benefits of using the new system.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts, are prevalent.
“Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts are also prevalent.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
“ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
“Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“the extensive focus of TAM on technology to the neglect of social and psychological parameters (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998;Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) limits its explanatory and predictive utilities, and therefore demands its integration with other frameworks”
From Using T-O-E theoretical framework to study the adoption of ERP solution (2016) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A technology that provides information quickly and easily will lead to improvements in job performance, which in turn will encourage greater use of a given technology (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The adoption of new technologies is shaped by user perceptions and usage patterns (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) as well as student characteristics and experiences (Abdaljaleel et al., 2023; Tiwari et al., 2024).”
From “ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that perceived enjoyment is positively related to perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The scales applied have been verified in preceding studies [12, 28].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, it is proposed that perception of external control is an element that conditions perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that result demonstrability is an antecedent of perceived usefulness [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“which explains that users’ decisions to accept and use a technology are influenced by perceived usefulness, ease of use, and social influence of others.”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Some of the themes identified in this review overlap with previous models conceptualizing engagement with digital health interventions, as well as general technology acceptance and health behavior, such as the Efficiency Model of Support [251], Technology Acceptance Model [253], and Health Belief Model [249].”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our findings are in line with the Technology Acceptance Model”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Information-related characteristics of a system can impact its PU as they can improve productivity and performance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Firstly, considering usability , a reliable, flexible and user-friendly system is more likely to create a positive user experience (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A typical criticism of the TAM is in relation to its lack of practical managerial guidance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) present four generic antecedents to the TAM: i ndividual differences , system characteristics , social influence , and facilitating conditions .”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala (2008)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The model explains approximately 40% of the variance in individuals’ intention to use a new technology and actual use [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It theorizes that individuals’ intention to use new technology is determined by perceived usefulness, defined as “the extent to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will enhance his or her job performance,” and perceived ease of use, defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will be free of effort” [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“TAM's assertion that perceived usefulness is a primary determinant of technology acceptance and subsequent usage behaviors (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
From The impact of AI-assisted pair programming on student motivation, programming anxiety, collaborative learning, and programming performance: a comparative study with traditional pair programming and individual approaches (2025) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
“Specifically the measurements of use and its determinants were separated by 1 month (T1-T2), 3 months (T2-T3) and 2 months (T3-T4).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Procedure
“after initial training (T1), 1 month after implementation (T2), and 3 months after implementation (T3).We also measured self-reported usage at T2, T3, and 5 months after implementation (T4).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“a All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (where 1: strongly disagree; 2: moderately disagree, 3: somewhat disagree, 4: neutral (neither disagree nor agree), 5: somewhat agree, 6: moderately agree, and 7: strongly agree), except computer self-efficacy, which was measured using a 10-point Guttman scale.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“Use (USE) USE1 On average, how much time do you spend on the system each day?”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
“| SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03 |”
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Self-citation(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3352 · Cited by 36,647
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709
Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions
Aiken, L., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1037/10520-147 · Cited by 24,912
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Self-citationIntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Beach L. R., 1996, Decision making in the workplace: A unified perspective, 1
- Cohen D. S., 2005, Why change is an affair of the heart, CIO Magazine
- Gross G., 2005, Standards a must for adoption for health‐care IT, CIO Magazine
- Koch C., 2004, Nike rebounds: How (and why) Nike recovered from its supply chain disaster, CIO Magazine
- Mennecke B. E., 1998, Discovering and overcoming the hidden profile bias in group decision making: The influence of group history and use of a group support system, Journal of MIS, 15, 173
- Overby S., 2002, How to win friends and influence users, CIO Magazine
- Saga V. L., 1994, Diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology, 67
- Vallacher R. R., 1996, The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior, 260
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 4,901–5,000 of 8,090
TARCAN, G. Y., & Çelik, Y. (2016) · DergiPark (Istanbul University) · Cited by 3
Adoption of Online Social Networks to Communicate with Financial Institutions
Sánchez, R. A., Martínez-López, F. J., Ordáz, M. G., Sánchez‐Franco, M. J., & Yousafzai, S. (2017) · Journal of Promotion Management · doi:10.1080/10496491.2016.1267675 · Cited by 3
“…and customer satisfaction (M. K. Chang, Cheung, & Lai, 2005; Chong, Ooi, Lin, & Bao, 2012; Fan-Yun & Kai-I, 2011; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). and Benbasat (1991) adapt the characteristics of the IDT, re fi ning a set of constructs to study the acceptance of a…”
BackgroundForschungsstand und theoretischer Hintergrund
Döring, N. M., & Bortz, J. (2015) · Springer-Lehrbuch · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41089-5_6 · Cited by 3
A Critical Review on the Impact Factors of BIM Application
Wang, Y., Xue, X., & Li, Y. (2013) · International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications · doi:10.4156/jdcta.vol7.issue8.69 · Cited by 3
“A TAM 3 has also been proposed [20].”
BackgroundCataldo, A., & Alcayaga, L. Z. (2016) · Innovar · doi:10.15446/innovar.v26n60.55550 · Cited by 5
The Factors Influencing Information Technology Non-Acceptance: Approach by Grounded Theory
Lee, W.-K., & Park, J.-H. (2015) · The Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.5859/kais.2015.24.4.83 · Cited by 3
“), 혁신확산이 론 (innovation diffusion theory) (Moore and Benbasat, 1991), 이성적행동이론 (theory of reasoned action, 이하 TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) 또는 (Davis 1989; Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008 ( 이웅규 , 2015).”
A Method to Support the Adoption of Reuse Technology in Large Software Organizations
Amorim, L., & Mendonça, M. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-35122-3_6 · Cited by 3
Yang, S. J., & Lee, Y. J. (2016) · The Journal of the Korea Contents Association · doi:10.5392/jkca.2016.16.06.236 · Cited by 3
“개념 요인 정의 기술수용 모델 [44] 지각된 용이성(PEOU) 특정 시스템을 사용하는데 노력이 없는 정도 지각된 유용성(PU) 특정 시스템을 사용하여 기능이 향상되는 정도 지각된 쇼핑 가치 [23] 실용성 가치(UV) 제품 구매하는 데 쇼핑의 효율성 과 효과성 쾌락적 가치(HV) 쇼핑 경험의 즐거움과 재미 모바일 상호 작용성 속도 (SYN) [33] 소통의 속도 풍부한 콘텐츠 (RI) [45] 제안된 정보의 포맷의 다양성과 넓은 범위 능동적 통제 (AC) [33] 제공된 콘텐츠에 대한 사용자의 통제가능성 맥락적 서비스 (CON) [27] 사용자 자신과 타사용자의…”
Next Generation Information-Based Infrastructures
Luiijf, H. A. M. (2013) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2964-6.ch015 · Cited by 3
Knautz, K., & Baran, K. S. (2016) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110418163 · Cited by 3
Maryam, A., & Ibrahim, R. (2015) · Cited by 3
Huang, T. K., & Huang, E. Y. (2017) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2017.011 · Cited by 3
“Over the past two decades, the technology acceptance model (TAM) has successfully explained the adoption of new information technology [31] [32], and consistently predicted about 40% of the variance in users’ intentions to use information technology and actual usage [33].”
BackgroundTechnology Adoption at the BOP Markets: Insights from Turk Telekom’s Focus on Inclusive Business
Yurdakul, D., Yalçın, S. M., & Gürhan‐Canlı, Z. (2017) · CSR, sustainability, ethics & governance · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54603-2_19 · Cited by 3
Oré, S. B., & Rodriguez, L. L. (2017) · International Conference on Information Communication and Management (ICICM) · doi:10.1145/3134383.3134411 · Cited by 3
Assessment of the Disposition of Future Secondary Education Teachers Towards Mobile Learning
Sánchez‐Prieto, J. C., Migueláñéz, S. O., & García‐Peñalvo, F. J. (2017) · Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) · doi:10.1145/3144826.3145374 · Cited by 3
“Finally, there are two later versions of the model, TAM2 [19] y TAM3 [20], who intend to integrate the most relevant findings of studies conducted with expanded TAM models.”
MethodEvaluation of acceptance of a composting toilet prototype for people in slum area in Indonesia
Ito, R., Tanie, M., Ushijima, K., et al. (2017) · Desalination and Water Treatment · doi:10.5004/dwt.2017.20880 · Cited by 3
L’adoption d’un ERP en ligne par les PME : entre frilosité et nécessité
Paquet, P., & Paviot, G. (2017) · Revue internationale P M E Économie et gestion de la petite et moyenne entreprise · doi:10.7202/1042667ar · Cited by 3
Neue Geschäftsmodelle für Dienstleistungsinnovationen im Automobilhandel für die Elektromobilität
Proff, H., Szybisty, G., Fojcik, T. M., et al. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-20748-9_2 · Cited by 3
Akzeptanz von Smart Glasses für die Aus- und Weiterbildung
Berkemeier, L., Niemöller, C., Metzger, D., et al. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-56551-3_10 · Cited by 3
The Need for a Use Perspective on Architectural Coordination
Bischoff, S. (2017) · The enterprise engineering series · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69584-6_9 · Cited by 4
The Acceptance of Mobile Applications in Health Insurance Claim Procedure
Tang, M. H., & Yeh, C. C. (2018) · International Conference on E-Society, E-Education and E-Technology (ICSET) · doi:10.1145/3268808.3268810 · Cited by 3
“Perceived ease of use, defined as the degree to which a person believes that using an IT will be free of efforts, is another important construct in TAM [39].”
BackgroundEvaluating Usability during the Web Application Development Process
Valentim, N., Nascimento, E., & Conte, T. U. (2018) · doi:10.1145/3275245.3275275 · Cited by 3
“Após a finalização da inspeção de usabilidade, o engenheiro de software preencheu um Questionário Pós-Inspeção baseado no Modelo de Aceitação de Tecnologia ( Technology Acceptance Model - TAM 3), proposto por Venkatesh e Bala [19].”
BackgroundSeo, S. (2018) · The Korean Society of Costume · doi:10.7233/jksc.2018.68.7.060 · Cited by 3
Design the Technological Society for an Aging Population
McLaughlin, A. C., Pryor, M., & Feng, J. (2019) · Advances in human and social aspects of technology book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7949-6.ch010 · Cited by 3
Cardless banking in the Nelson Mandela Metropole: A means of financial inclusion for the excluded
Kinsman, J. E. (2019) · Journal of Economic and Financial Sciences · doi:10.4102/jef.v12i1.182 · Cited by 3
Evaluation of Online Consulting Using Co-browsing: What Factors Are Related to Good User Experience?
Mutuura, K., Papageorgiou, A., & Christ, O. (2019) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-19135-1_1 · Cited by 3
“The data does not support differentiation of all postulated constructs in the TAM3 when collected through a mixed methods design [4] combined with single-item measures [5].”
MethodTagliafico, L. A., Cavalletti, A., Marafioti, C., et al. (2019) · TECNICA ITALIANA-Italian Journal of Engineering Science · doi:10.18280/ti-ijes.632-412 · Cited by 3
“There is a significant number of parameters that can be considered as measurable variables: time, anxiety, perceived adaptability, perceived enjoyment, perceived sociability, social influence, culture, perceived case of use, system’s reliability and trust [17-20].”
BackgroundThe Determinants of Consumer Purchase Intention of Online Game Voucher
Yuniar, L. P., Hidayanto, A. N., Ruldeviyani, Y., & Budi, N. F. A. (2019) · International Conference on Data Science and Information Technology (DSIT) · doi:10.1145/3352411.3352428 · Cited by 3
“Likewise based on the TAM 3 model, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use are determinants that influence behavioral intention [15].”
BackgroundMethodCloud Computing Services Adoption by University Students: Pilot Study Results
Almazroi, A. A., Shen, H., Mohammed, F., et al. (2019) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33582-3_99 · Cited by 3
Karkonasasi, K., Cheah, Y., Mousavi, S. A., & Baharudin, A. S. (2019) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33582-3_90 · Cited by 3
Pimenta, R. M., & Gomes, J. C. (2019) · Revista de Humanidades Digitales · doi:10.5944/rhd.vol.4.2019.25245 · Cited by 3
Lee, G. K. Y. (2019) · Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews · doi:10.18510/hssr.2019.7135 · Cited by 3
“…1991), Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior, (Taylor and Todd, 1995), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1989), Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), and Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) have been proposed.”
BackgroundThe Role of Intelligence in e-Learning Usage: An Extension of UTAUT Model
Universitas Alazhar Indonesia, I., & Panjaitan, E. S. (2019) · International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering · doi:10.30534/ijatcse/2019/79862019 · Cited by 3
Translation and Affect: Essays on Sticky Affects and Translational Affective Labour
Koskinen, K. (2020) · Cited by 3
Ogunsanya, O., Solanke, O. E., & Olatoye, A. (2020) · doi:10.7176/ikm/10-2-02 · Cited by 3
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) reported that the effect of computer anxiety on online resources will decline with increasing experience as students will have more accurate perception of the effort needed to use online resources.”
BackgroundRequirements for an eModeration System in Private Schools in South Africa
Rajamany, V., van Staden, C. J., & van Biljon, J. A. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44999-5_46 · Cited by 3
Macpherson, C. F., Stegenga, K. A., Erickson, J. M., et al. (2020) · Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology · doi:10.1089/jayao.2019.0160 · Cited by 3
“Acceptance of a given technologybased resource depends, in part, on key attributes, including its perceived usefulness, the extent to which it can enhance job performance, and its perceived ease of use.(12) Incorporating the C-SCAT-generated image in the context of the clinic visit may assist providers to conduct focu…”
BackgroundStudents’ selection of teamwork tools in software engineering education: lessons learned
Colomo‐Palacios, R., Samuelsen, T., Lumbreras, C. C., et al. (2020) · TECNALIA Publications (Fundación TECNALIA Research & Innovation) · Cited by 4
Al-Sharafi, M. A., Arshah, R. A., Alajmi, Q., Herzallah, F. A. T., & Qasem, Y. A. M. (2018) · Indian Journal of Science and Technology · doi:10.17485/ijst/2018/v11i20/91928 · Cited by 3
Acceptance, Preferences and Willingness to Pay Analysis for Flying Cars and Passenger Drones
Duwe, D., & Sprenger, A. (2019) · International Conference on Innovation in Science and Technology (IICIST) · doi:10.33422/6th-istconf.2019.07.418 · Cited by 6
“Further research led to refinements and development of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [11], TAM3 [12] and an increasing amount of further impacting factors [13, 14].”
MethodFACTORS INFLUENCING THE ADOPTION OF E-LEARNING IN EDUCATIONAL AND CORPORATE SECTORS
Jabeen, S. S., & Sadique, Z. (2020) · EDULEARN proceedings · doi:10.21125/edulearn.2020.0335 · Cited by 3
“E-learning is interpreted differently by different people.”
BackgroundInfluentialFactors Affecting the Adoption of Self-Service Technology (SST) in the Public Sector
Ongena, G., Staat, S., & Ravesteijn, P. (2020) · International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age · doi:10.4018/ijpada.2020070102 · Cited by 3
Dijital Bankacılık Kullanımına Teknoloji Kabulü Temelli Bir Yaklaşım
Esen, F. S. (2020) · Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi · doi:10.17671/gazibtd.664854 · Cited by 4
“Teknoloji Kabul Modeli [6] (Technology Acceptance Model) Söz konusu modele sonraki çalışmalarda eklemeler yapılmıştır [7,8].”
Kasim, M. A., Hanafi, S. R. M., & Sukı, N. M. (2020) · Journal of Islamic marketing · doi:10.1108/jima-07-2019-0154 · Cited by 3
The Development of an Integrated Scale of Technology Use in Physics
Korur, F., Yerdelen-Damar, S., & Saglam, H. (2021) · Research in Learning Technology · doi:10.25304/rlt.v29.2432 · Cited by 3
“These two perceptions together influence individuals’ intentions to use certain technologies which ultimately influence their technology use behaviours (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialMETHOD ACCEPTED - FIELDS OF ACTION FOR INCREASING METHODS APPLICATION IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
Wallisch, A., Nicklas, S. J., & Paetzold, K. (2021) · Proceedings of the Design Society · doi:10.1017/pds.2021.465 · Cited by 3
“However, other approaches concretely distinguish between the attitude of the acceptor and his or her observable behaviour (e.g. Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundFrahlich, P., Gafert, M., Diamond, L. M., et al. (2021) · Cited by 3
Aldholay, A. H., Isaac, O., Jalal, A. N., Salim, F. A. A., & Mutahar, A. M. (2021) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-82616-1_21 · Cited by 3
A Review of e-Learning System Success Models
Rankapola, M. E., & Zuva, T. (2021) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90318-3_42 · Cited by 3
EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF OPTIMUM STIMULATION LEVEL ON INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTIONS OF IT INNOVATIONS
Gu, R., Jiang, Z. J., Oh, L. B., & Wang, K. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 3
Rudhumbu, N., Plessis, D., & Mudau, P. K. (2021) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.20.11.20 · Cited by 5
“Various studies tha t include studies by Venkatesh and Bala (2008) and Teo et al. (2008) found that the success of technology adoption and actual use by teachers in schools depends to a large extent on their attitudes towards ICT, since attitudes, whether negative or positive, define how a person…”
BackgroundDynamics of Contextual Factors, Technology Paradox, and Job Performance in Smartphone Usage
Alhadad, M., Omar, R., & Dashti, M. (2021) · International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction · doi:10.4018/ijthi.293192 · Cited by 3
“The adoption of technology has been linked by the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1985), decomposed theory of planned behavior (DTPB; Taylor & Todd, 1995), technology acceptance model (TAM; Davis, Bogozzi, & Warshaw, 1989), TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000…”
A Preliminary Classification of Usage Measures in Information System Acceptance
Lallmahomed, M. Z. I., Rahim, N. Z. A., Ibrahim, R. B., & Rahman, A. A. (2012) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2791-8.ch008 · Cited by 3
User Acceptance of Computer Technology at Work in Arabian Culture
Hu, H.-F., Hu, P. J., & Al‐Gahtani, S. S. (2018) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5201-7.ch071 · Cited by 3
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASUREMENT TOOL TO EVALUATE THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE IN AN E-LEARNING SYSTEM
Safsouf, Y., & Poirier, K. M. A. F. (2020) · doi:10.33965/el2020_202007l013 · Cited by 3
“These factors were derived from several models: the TAM3 model (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), the Expectation Confirmation Model (ECM) (Bhattacherjee, 2001), the DeLone and McLean Information Success Systems Model (D&M ISS) (Delone and Mclean, 2003) and the Self-Regulated Learning Theory (SRL)…”
MethodExpanded Technological Acceptance Model for the Sub-Saharan African Environment (ETAM-4SAE)
(2020) · International Conferences on Science, Engineering, Technology & Waste Management (SETWM), Agricultural, Chemical, Biological & Environmental Sciences (ACBES) and Education, Economics, Humanities & Social Sciences (EEHSS) · doi:10.17758/eares10.eap1120405 · Cited by 3
Az e-egészségügyi megoldások fogyasztói fogadtatása Magyarországon
Lányi, B., & Törõcsik, M. (2022) · Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review · doi:10.14267/veztud.2022.07.06 · Cited by 3
ÖZEL, S. (2022) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2022.sep.01 · Cited by 3
Understanding the neurodynamic process of decision-making for mobile application downloading
Parmar, H. S., Davis, F. D., & Walden, E. A. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278753 · Cited by 3
ANALYSIS OF E-WALLET USING INTENTIONS AMONG MILLENIAL GENERATION
Anggraeni, F. D., Rabiyah, U., Pontoh, G. T., et al. (2021) · Journal of International Conference Proceedings · doi:10.32535/jicp.v4i2.1433 · Cited by 3
Color-gameplay, global-local processing tradeoffs: Towards personalized/generative HCI playfulness
Lee, C., & Kok, W.-L. (2022) · International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Education (WAIE) · doi:10.1109/waie57417.2022.00011 · Cited by 3
Understanding the Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care
Sides, T., Farrell, T., & Ismail, D. K. B. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35989-7_65 · Cited by 3
Szőke-Milinte, E. (2023) · Mester és Tanítvány · doi:10.61178/mt.2023.i.1.3 · Cited by 4
Lecturer Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions to Use Learning Management Systems in Vietnam
Thach, P. N., & Lai, P. H. (2022) · Journal of Open Flexible and Distance Learning · doi:10.61468/jofdl.v25i2.465 · Cited by 3
“It can be in the form of technical, financial, and academic resources that institutions provide for online teaching (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Islamic FinTech and MSMEs: The Role of Religiosity and Product Knowledge
Majid, R. (2024) · Al-Muzara ah · doi:10.29244/jam.12.2.321-335 · Cited by 3
A Framework for Industry-Relevant Ontology Development
Abdullah, N. S., Sadiq, S. W., & Indulska, M. (2011) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 3
EMPIRICAL study on consumer acceptance of mobile applications in Jakarta Indonesia
Nawangsari, S., Wibowo, E. P., & Budiarto, R. (2017) · International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC) · doi:10.1109/iac.2017.8280575 · Cited by 4
“Associated with the low levels of adoption of this software technology, the previous researchers have explored several theories to explain the social and psychological factors that, among others, cause this problem, [5,22].”
BackgroundIrawan, S., Foster, S., & Tanner, K. (2018) · AJIS. Australasian journal of information systems/AJIS. Australian journal of information systems/Australian journal of information systems · doi:10.3127/ajis.v22i0.1828 · Cited by 8
“Recent studies suggested that future research should explore the actual implementation and focus on the importance of managerial interventions (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialSatry, F., & Belkadi, E. (2019) · European Scientific Journal ESJ · doi:10.19044/esj.2019.v15n4p284 · Cited by 3
Digital local information services in developing countries: Evidence from Colombia
van Klyton, A. C., Mesías, J. F. T., & Muñoz, W. C. (2020) · Journal of Librarianship and Information Science · doi:10.1177/0961000620907970 · Cited by 3
Measuring Consumer Trust in Online Booking Application
Andre, H., Sihombing, P. P., Sfenrianto, S., et al. (2019) · International Conference on Information Technology, Information Systems and Electrical Engineering (ICITISEE) · doi:10.1109/icitisee48480.2019.9003737 · Cited by 3
“Perceived easy of use also affects perceived usefulness, which means that if someone feels the system is easy to use, the system is useful for users, and if the system is more difficult to use, the lower the interest of someone or consumers to use it and the slower a person or consumer and community groups in adopting…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGeneration of hazard relation diagrams: formalization and tool support
Tenbergen, B., & Weyer, T. (2020) · Software & Systems Modeling · doi:10.1007/s10270-020-00799-1 · Cited by 3
“To measure usability, we adapted suitable items from the technology acceptance model version 3 (TAM3, see [75]) and the task-technology fit model (TTF, see [34]).”
MethodFactors Predisposing Academics towards the Use of Blended Strategies
Torrisi‐Steele, G. (2014) · International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology · doi:10.4018/ijavet.2014070101 · Cited by 3
Akbarruddin, M. N. A., Zahari, M. S. M., Hadi, H. A., Suhaimi, M. Z., & Ramli, A. M. (2018) · International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · Cited by 3
Ocampo, J. C., & Ullauri-Ugarte, M. P. (2021) · Revista Electrónica Educare · doi:10.15359/ree.25-3.10 · Cited by 2
Fisher, M., Abbott, M., & Lyytinen, K. (2014) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137348920_3 · Cited by 3
Nogueira, D. R. (2014) · doi:10.11606/t.12.2014.tde-05112014-161527 · Cited by 2
Hackermeier, I. (2012) · Electronic Theses of LMU Munich (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München) · doi:10.5282/edoc.13976 · Cited by 3
Mobile technology in college instruction: Faculty perceptions and barriers to adoption
Hauptman, P. H. (2015) · Lincoln (University of Nebraska) · Cited by 3
Nel, J. (2013) · SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) · Cited by 2
Mucheneh, O. M. (2014) · Kenyatta University Institutional Repository (Kenyatta University) · Cited by 3
TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE IN ORGANIZATIONS
Stewart, L. (2013) · K-State Research Exchange (Kansas State University) · Cited by 3
Towards the Adoption of Anti-spoofing ProtocolsPreprint
Hu, H., Peng, P., & Wang, G. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.06654 · Cited by 3
“racking [2]. Below, we discuss three adoption theories related to our study. TAM. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is the most basic theory that models user intention to adopt new technologies [40], [39]. The model describes the key factors that influence user decision, the most important of which are perceived useful…”
BackgroundDesigning social cues for effective persuasive robots
Ghazali, A. S. (2019) · TU/e Research Portal · Cited by 3
Discovering the Sweet Spot of Human-Computer Configurations: A Case Study in Information ExtractionPreprint
Mackeprang, M., Müller-Birn, C., & Stauss, M. T. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.07065 · Cited by 2
“For further information we refer to Venkatesh & Bala [59].”
Accepting Robots as Assistants: A Social, Personal, and Principled Matter
Turja, T. (2019) · Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University) · Cited by 3
Factors that Determine Continuous Intention to Use Mobile Payments in MalawiPreprint
Ntaukira, J., Maliwichi, P., & Khomba, J. K. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.09944 · Cited by 3
“…adoption, and Proceedings of the 1st Virtual Conference on Implications of Information and Digital Technologies for Development, 2021 according to different scholars, it consistently explains between 40% to 50 % of user acceptance and actual usage (Surendran, 2012; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundCoordination Between Learning Locations in the Context of Digital TransformationPreprint
Kröll, M. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3868448 · Cited by 3
Verfürth, M. (2020) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-77065/v1 · Cited by 3
Exploring the Factors Influencing Big Data Technology Acceptance
Rahman, M. (2000) · doi:10.15760/etd.7389 · Cited by 3
Sajan, D., & Joseph, C. S. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4158901 · Cited by 3
Felser, K. (2022) · doi:10.46289/fv55re19 · Cited by 3
Aldwsry, M. (2012) · UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) · Cited by 3
Modelling financial services adoption through an intermediary in South Africa : TAM and SEM approach
Wentzel, J. P. (2013) · UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) · Cited by 3
Mandatory and Voluntary Adoption of RFID
Hossain, M. A., & Quaddus, M. (2014) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-5202-6.ch132 · Cited by 3
Bozan, K., & Mooney, D. (2019) · Healthcare delivery in the information age · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-17347-0_25 · Cited by 1
Consumers' foresight for the digital Turkish lira: an empirical study
AYDIN, İ., Çelik, Z., Yiğenoğlu, K., & Cesur, A. (2022) · Journal of Financial Services Marketing · doi:10.1057/s41264-022-00201-9 · Cited by 2
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) further modified TAM2 and created TAM3.”
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
