The DOI matches its Crossref record; 135 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 55 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Open accessAbstract
ABSTRACT Prior research has provided valuable insights into how and why employees make a decision about the adoption and use of information technologies (ITs) in the workplace. From an organizational point of view, however, the more important issue is how managers make informed decisions about interventions that can lead to greater acceptance and effective utilization of IT. There is limited research in the IT implementation literature that deals with the role of interventions to aid such managerial decision making. Particularly, there is a need to understand how various interventions can influence the known determinants of IT adoption and use. To address this gap in the literature, we draw from the vast body of research on the technology acceptance model (TAM), particularly the work on the determinants of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and: (i) develop a comprehensive nomological network (integrated model) of the determinants of individual level (IT) adoption and use; (ii) empirically test the proposed integrated model; and (iii) present a research agenda focused on potential pre‐ and postimplementation interventions that can enhance employees' adoption and use of IT. Our findings and research agenda have important implications for managerial decision making on IT implementation in organizations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
51 Own result · 35 Own interpretation · 21 No full text of the sources · 13 Sources not found · 7 Own method · 5 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Venkatesh and Speier (1999) investigated the effect of mood during training on user acceptance and found that mood during training played an important role in forming individuals' perceptions of a new IT.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Venkatesh & Speier, 1999 source
The Short-Term Mood Effects section links mood during computer training to perceptions of enjoyment in using the technology. The Discussion reports that negative mood during training reduced intrinsic motivation and intentions to use it, supporting the citing sentence’s broad characterization of the finding. The copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that experience moderated the effect of computer anxiety on perceived ease of use such that the effect became weaker with increasing experience (CANX × EXP).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“experience moderated the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness such that with increasing experience the effect became stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, TAM3 was able to explain between 52% and 67% of the variance in perceived usefulness across different time periods and models (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that job relevance and output quality had an interactive effect on perceived usefulness such that with increasing output quality, the effect of job relevance on perceived usefulness was stronger.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that experience, in fact, moderated the effect of perceived ease of use (PEOU × EXP) on behavioral intention such that with increasing experience the effect became weaker.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was higher than the correlations across constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As Table 4 shows, internal consistency reliabilities (ICRs) were greater than .70 for all constructs at all points of measurement.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 3 shows that the item loadings were greater than or at least equal to .70 for all constructs at all time periods.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Further, incentive alignment, and an important extrinsic reward, may reduce anxiety and increase perceived enjoyment as extrinsic rewards are considered important drivers of intrinsic motivations (Vallerand, 1997;Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;Ryan & Deci, 2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vallerand, 1997 source
- Partly supportedcites Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that verbal rewards (positive feedback) enhanced self-reported interest, which offers limited support for the possibility that an extrinsic reward could increase enjoyment. But the paper does not assess incentive alignment or anxiety, and its Concluding Comments (pp. 658–659) say tangible rewards generally diminish rather than promote intrinsic motivation. The cited source therefore does not support the proposed effect of incentive alignment. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan & Deci, 2000 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that perceived ease of use, subjective norm, image, and result demonstrability were significant predictors of perceived usefulness at all time periods (see Table 5).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While perceived ease of use was significant at T1 and T2, it was not significant at T3, suggesting a moderating effect of experience in the relationship between perceived ease of use and behavioral intention.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the adjustments-that is, perceived enjoyment and objective usability-were not significant at T1, but they were significant at both T2 and T3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Perceived Usefulness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
- Rests on an assumption: The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“OU × EXP | | | | .20 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Objective Usability (OU) | .04 | .19 * * | .23 * * * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CANX × EXP | | | | .21 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjective Norm (SN) | .40 * * * | .32 * * * | .13 * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Enjoyment (ENJ) | .02 | .22 * * * | .24 * * * | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Result Demonstrability (RES) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .28 * * * | .26 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CPLAY × EXP | | | | -.22 * * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | .22 * * * | .26 * * * | .33 * * * | .08”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ENJ × EXP | | | | .18 * *”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | .24 * * * | .17 * | .05 | .04”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although longitudinal studies were conducted, the specific moderating role by experience was not tested in Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, in the context of enterprise systems, if an individual perceives that his or her use of the system does not benefit the members of his or her work units but rather benefits members from other work units, the user will perceive a lack of incentive alignment that may lead to low user acceptance and use of the system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we conducted Harmon's single factor test and marker variable test (we used job satisfaction as a marker variable) and did not find any significant common method bias.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used validated items from prior research to test TAM3.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our research design allowed us to collect the use data separate from its determinants (e.g., behavioral intention, perceived usefulness, etc.).Particularly, there was at least a 1-month gap between the collection of survey data and the measurement of use.”
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
“Such a design approach helped us overcome the problems associated with common method biases.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Measurement · plain
In the paper
“Operationalization of the determinants of perceived ease of use (i.e., computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, computer playfulness, computer anxiety, objective usability, and perceived enjoyment) was consistent with Venkatesh (2000).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh (2000)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It posits that individuals' behavioral intention to use an IT is determined by two beliefs: perceived usefulness, defined as the extent to which a person believes that using an IT will enhance his or her job performance and perceived ease of use, defined as the degree to which a person believes that using an IT will be free of effort.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Ba et al. (2001) argued that while aspects of software engineering (e.g., system characteristics) and technology acceptance (e.g., perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, user satisfaction) are important considerations for system development processes, organizations may fail to gain expected benefits from employees' effective utilization of a system unless employees find that the system fe”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All constructs at each time period exhibited strong psychometric properties and satisfied the criteria of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Ba et al. (2001), incentive alignment does not necessarily mean organizational rewards for using a system.It is a broad concept that entails an individual's perception that the IT fits with his or her job requirements and value system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) noted that PLS has minimal restrictions in terms of distributional assumptions and sample size.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean-centering helps limit potential multicollinearity, evidenced by the low variation inflation factors (VIFs) for all constructs in our model.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > We used Partial Least Squares (PLS), a component-based structural equation modeling technique, to analyze our data. PLS-Graph, version 3, build 1126 was used
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived usefulness is an instrumental belief that is conceptually similar to extrinsic motivation and is a cognition (as opposed to emotion) regarding the benefits of using a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Crossover Effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It further theorizes that the effect of external variables (e.g., design characteristics) on behavioral intention will be mediated by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > BACKGROUND
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davis et al., 1989 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.Further, the types of ITs were different across the sites.Such variability in organizational settings and types of technologies adds to the potential generalization of our findings.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > METHOD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“TAM constructs-that is, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), and behavioral intention (BI)-were operationalized using items adapted from Davis (1989) and Davis et al. (1989).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incentive alignment has been suggested as the third dimension in systems design (Ba, Stallaert, & Whinston, 2001).The other two dimensions are software engineering and technology acceptance (Ba et al., 2001).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Incentive alignment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ba et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the modification and enhancement activities performed by peers will increase job relevance of a system, improve the output quality of a system, and reduce anxiety related to system use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Peer support
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The implementation of interventions is, of course, not a silver bullet for greater IT adoption and effective utilization.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“He also found that the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention to use a system was stronger for individuals who received game-based training.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Venkatesh, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we can develop a rich understanding of the determinants of IT adoption and use and interventions that can favorably influence these determinants, managers can proactively decide on implementing the right interventions to minimize resistance to new ITs and maximize effective utilization of ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
- Rests on an assumption: Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
In the paper
“Training has been suggested as one of the most important postimplementation interventions that leads to greater user acceptance and system success (see Sharma & Yetton, 2007).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sharma & Yetton, 2007 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizational support captures the role of both internal and external experts who can help users deal with the complexity associated with new systems as well as business processes.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Implementation of interventions can increase system development costs substantially.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 emphasizes the unique role and processes related to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use and theorizes that the determinants of perceived usefulness will not influence perceived ease of use and vice versa.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Prior research has suggested that employees' perceptions regarding organizational support-that is, facilitating conditions or perceptions of external control (Taylor & Todd, 1995;Venkatesh, 2000;Venkatesh et al., 2003)-will lead to greater user acceptance of new systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our key argument in this article is that unless organizations can develop effective interventions to enhance IT adoption and use, there is no practical utility of our rich understanding of IT adoption.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that interventions discussed in this article can help organizations generate favorable individuals' reactions toward business process changes and process standards implementation.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“For example, while self-efficacy may have weak influence on perceived usefulness as shown in Agarwal and Karahanna (2000), we argue that this influence will become nonsignificant in the presence of other important social and cognitive constructs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Agarwal and Karahanna (2000) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 posits that perceptions of external control are important and stable determinants of perceived ease of use.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizational support is a key source of perceptions of external control.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, experts can help employees modify certain aspects of a new system, thus increasing job relevance, output quality, and results demonstrability of a system.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Organizational support
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the complexity of ITs, it is increasingly difficult for employees to make effective decisions about adoption, utilization, and coping with new ITs.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Implications for Decision Making
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Some employees may react favorably to these changes, while the others may perceive these changes as a threat to their well-being (Orlikowski, 2000;Boudreau & Robey, 2005).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Postimplementation Interventions
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TAM3 posits that with increasing experience, while the effect of perceived ease of use on behavioral intention will diminish, the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness will increase.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Theoretical Contributions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that the role of training will be even more important in the context of complex systems (e.g., enterprise systems) that are more central to employees' work life.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As these systems are more likely to invoke negative reactions from employees because of their disruptive nature, effective training interventions can mitigate these negative reactions and help employees form favorable perceptions toward these systems.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Training
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants who completed all measurement points are representative of the initial user populations at the four sites.
“Out of 50 potential users of the system who participated in the training, 39 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system who attended the training, 43 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
“Out of 51 potential users of the new system, 36 provided usable responses at all points of measurement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The four sites' data can be pooled for the PLS analysis despite differences in industry, organizational context, and technology.
“Data were collected from four different organizations-sites A through D-implementing new ITs.”
“The research sites represented different industries, organizational contexts, and functional areas.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Management support in individual-level IT adoption literature has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance.
“While management support has been conceptualized and operationalized as organizational mandate and compliance, particularly in the individual-level IT adoption literature, we suggest that there is a need to develop a richer conceptualization of management support to enhance our understanding of its role in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.
“There is limited research on the role of incentive alignment in IT adoption contexts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Much prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.
“However, much of the prior research on training in the context of IT adoption has been conducted for simple ITs, such as word processing and e-mail.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.
“While peer support is potentially an important intervention that can lead to greater user acceptance, there is little or no research on the role of peer support in the context of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.
“However, there is little or no scientific research aimed at identifying and linking interventions with specific determinants of IT adoption.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.
“There have been numerous cases of enterprise system failures because of user resistance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In many cases, users stopped using an enterprise system because they saw no benefits of using the new system.
“In many cases, the users stopped using an enterprise system, as they saw no benefits of using the new system.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts, are prevalent.
“Other types of reactions, such as avoidance, sabotage, workarounds, and shortcuts are also prevalent.”
The paper relies on this without support.
ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.
“ITs are becoming increasingly complex and implementation costs are very high.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.
“Implementation failures of many of today's ITs cost millions of dollars for organizations.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“the extensive focus of TAM on technology to the neglect of social and psychological parameters (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998;Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) limits its explanatory and predictive utilities, and therefore demands its integration with other frameworks”
From Using T-O-E theoretical framework to study the adoption of ERP solution (2016) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A technology that provides information quickly and easily will lead to improvements in job performance, which in turn will encourage greater use of a given technology (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The adoption of new technologies is shaped by user perceptions and usage patterns (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) as well as student characteristics and experiences (Abdaljaleel et al., 2023; Tiwari et al., 2024).”
From “ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that perceived enjoyment is positively related to perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The scales applied have been verified in preceding studies [12, 28].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, it is proposed that perception of external control is an element that conditions perceived ease of use [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is proposed that result demonstrability is an antecedent of perceived usefulness [12].”
From Gender and Acceptance of E-Learning: A Multi-Group Analysis Based on a Structural Equation Model among College Students in Chile and Spain (2015) · cites this paper as [12]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“which explains that users’ decisions to accept and use a technology are influenced by perceived usefulness, ease of use, and social influence of others.”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Some of the themes identified in this review overlap with previous models conceptualizing engagement with digital health interventions, as well as general technology acceptance and health behavior, such as the Efficiency Model of Support [251], Technology Acceptance Model [253], and Health Belief Model [249].”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our findings are in line with the Technology Acceptance Model”
From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [253]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Information-related characteristics of a system can impact its PU as they can improve productivity and performance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Firstly, considering usability , a reliable, flexible and user-friendly system is more likely to create a positive user experience (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A typical criticism of the TAM is in relation to its lack of practical managerial guidance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala, 2008
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) present four generic antecedents to the TAM: i ndividual differences , system characteristics , social influence , and facilitating conditions .”
From Examining the antecedents of the technology acceptance model within e-procurement (2018) · cites this paper as Venkatesh and Bala (2008)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The model explains approximately 40% of the variance in individuals’ intention to use a new technology and actual use [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It theorizes that individuals’ intention to use new technology is determined by perceived usefulness, defined as “the extent to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will enhance his or her job performance,” and perceived ease of use, defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using [a new technology] will be free of effort” [39].”
From An Assessment of How Clinicians and Staff Members Use a Diabetes Artificial Intelligence Prediction Tool: Mixed Methods Study (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“TAM's assertion that perceived usefulness is a primary determinant of technology acceptance and subsequent usage behaviors (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
From The impact of AI-assisted pair programming on student motivation, programming anxiety, collaborative learning, and programming performance: a comparative study with traditional pair programming and individual approaches (2025) · cites this paper as Venkatesh & Bala, 2008
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
In the citing paper
“Currently, many studies contributing to the adoption research of mHealth for youths are based on the technology acceptance model, an information systems theory that models user’s acceptance of technology mainly based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use [48-50].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [50]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Measurement
“Specifically the measurements of use and its determinants were separated by 1 month (T1-T2), 3 months (T2-T3) and 2 months (T3-T4).”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Procedure
“after initial training (T1), 1 month after implementation (T2), and 3 months after implementation (T3).We also measured self-reported usage at T2, T3, and 5 months after implementation (T4).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“a All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (where 1: strongly disagree; 2: moderately disagree, 3: somewhat disagree, 4: neutral (neither disagree nor agree), 5: somewhat agree, 6: moderately agree, and 7: strongly agree), except computer self-efficacy, which was measured using a 10-point Guttman scale.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Additional information
“Use (USE) USE1 On average, how much time do you spend on the system each day?”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > Explaining and Predicting Behavioral Intention and Use
“The two-way interaction between subjective norm and voluntariness (SN × EXP) indicated that the effect of subjective norm on behavioral intention was stronger in a mandatory context.”
§ Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions > CONCLUSIONS
“| SN × VOL | .29 * * * | .22 * * * | .17 * | .03 |”
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Self-citation(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3352 · Cited by 36,647
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709
Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions
Aiken, L., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1037/10520-147 · Cited by 24,912
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Self-citationIntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Beach L. R., 1996, Decision making in the workplace: A unified perspective, 1
- Cohen D. S., 2005, Why change is an affair of the heart, CIO Magazine
- Gross G., 2005, Standards a must for adoption for health‐care IT, CIO Magazine
- Koch C., 2004, Nike rebounds: How (and why) Nike recovered from its supply chain disaster, CIO Magazine
- Mennecke B. E., 1998, Discovering and overcoming the hidden profile bias in group decision making: The influence of group history and use of a group support system, Journal of MIS, 15, 173
- Overby S., 2002, How to win friends and influence users, CIO Magazine
- Saga V. L., 1994, Diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology, 67
- Vallacher R. R., 1996, The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior, 260
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–600 of 8,090
Towards a Mobile App Diffusion of Innovations model: A multinational study of mobile wallet adoption
Shaw, N., Eschenbrenner, B., & Brand, B. M. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102768 · Cited by 105
The role of compatibility in predicting business intelligence and analytics use intentions
Jaklič, J., Grublješič, T., & Popovič, A. (2018) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.08.017 · Cited by 103
Sullivan, Y. W., & Koh, C. E. (2019) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.014 · Cited by 104
Hohenberger, C., Lee, C., & Coughlin, J. F. (2019) · Financial Planning Review · doi:10.1002/cfp2.1047 · Cited by 123
“One possible explanation is experience in a field can elicit different levels of affective reactions (i.e., anxiety and joy) (Bandura et al., 1982; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialTeachers’ motivation to adopt technology in higher education
Sharma, L., & Srivastava, M. (2019) · Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1108/jarhe-07-2018-0156 · Cited by 145
Siepmann, C., & Kowalczuk, P. (2021) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-021-00458-3 · Cited by 105
Consumers’ perceptions of last mile drone delivery
Leon, S., Chen, C., & Ratcliffe, A. (2021) · International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications · doi:10.1080/13675567.2021.1957803 · Cited by 109
“…users’ acceptance and use of a technology derives from a behavioural intention that is based on attitudes, perceptions of usefulness and ease-of-use, and other factors such as individual differences, system characteristics, social influences and facilitating conditions (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundElderly Persons and Internet Use
Ramón-Jerónimo, M. Á., Peral, B. P., & Arenas-Gaitán, J. (2013) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439312473421 · Cited by 117
“While classical approaches consider BI the main factor affecting USE (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), the role of RES and ENJ seem to be different in the case of elderly persons.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHuang, F., & Teo, T. P. (2019) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09722-y · Cited by 129
Ngubelanga, A., & Duffett, R. G. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13115973 · Cited by 103
“Jaradat and Al-Mashaqba [39] adopted the extended TAM3 and determined that perceived ease of use positively influenced perceived usefulness in terms of the use of m-commerce among Jordanian students.”
BackgroundInfluentialRibino, P. (2023) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-023-10540-1 · Cited by 105
“Such models have been extended to incorporate additional variables such as subjective norms, computer playfulness, and enjoyment (Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundJou, M., Tennyson, R. D., Wang, J., & Huang, S.-Y. (2015) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.004 · Cited by 103
Fan, G., Liu, D., Zhang, R., & Pan, L. (2025) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-025-00537-3 · Cited by 109
Informal learning recognition through a cloud ecosystem
García‐Peñalvo, F. J., Johnson, M. W., Alves, G. R., et al. (2013) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2013.08.004 · Cited by 102
“In addition, surveys were used to gather user perceptions of the system, including a system usability scale (SUS) [51] to determine final user satisfaction and a perception of ease of use (PEOU) evaluation following the Venkatesh and Bala adaption of TAM3 [52].”
MethodDesign characteristics of virtual learning environments: state of research
Mueller, D., & Strohmeier, S. (2011) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.017 · Cited by 110
Mobile applications in the hospitality industry
Kwon, J. M., Bae, J.-I. S., & Blum, S. C. (2013) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/17579881311302365 · Cited by 102
An integrated adoption model for e-books in a mobile environment: Evidence from South Korea
Lee, S. (2012) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2012.01.006 · Cited by 103
How do post-usage factors and espoused cultural values impact mobile payment continuation?
Lu, J., Wei, J. C., Yu, C., & Liu, C. (2016) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2016.1208773 · Cited by 103
“Pookulangara and Koesler (2011) examined the cultural in fl uence on consumer intention of using social networking websites and its impact on purchase intention by using an adapted TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala 2008) and Srite and Karahanna ’ s espoused national cultural value dimensions.”
MethodDurak, H. Y. (2018) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s12528-018-9200-6 · Cited by 103
“This model behaves in a more comprehensive way than other models because it tries to explain the relationships between the intervening factors and the perceived ease-of-use and determinants of the perceived benefit (Venkatesh and Bala 2008, s. 302–303).”
BackgroundJokisch, M. R., Schmidt, L. I., Doh, M., Marquard, M., & Wahl, H. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106408 · Cited by 127
Açikgöz, F., & Perez‐Vega, R. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1987677 · Cited by 110
“Most of these factors are based on the TAM and its derivatives (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012) with PEOU and PU identified in most studies as significant drivers of intention to adopt and use intelligent conversational agents (Rietz et…”
BackgroundAn alternative model of self-service retail technology adoption
Kaushik, A. K., & Rahman, Z. (2015) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-08-2014-0276 · Cited by 116
The adoption of remote work platforms after the Covid-19 lockdown: New approach, new evidence
Sahut, J. M., & Lissillour, R. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113345 · Cited by 102
Jariyapan, P., Mattayaphutron, S., Gillani, S. N., & Shafique, O. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.814087 · Cited by 102
“Moreover, an extension of the technology acceptance model (TAM3), which is considered the most appropriate model to study the behavioural intention of users toward new technology, has been used concerning cryptocurrency.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialComparative Study of BIM Acceptance between Korea and the United States
Lee, S., & Yu, J.-H. (2015) · Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001076 · Cited by 100
Telemedicine-Assisted Self-Management Program for Type 2 Diabetes Patients
von Storch, K., Graaf, E. T.-D., Wunderlich, M., Rietz, C., Polidori, M. C., & Woopen, C. (2019) · Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1089/dia.2019.0056 · Cited by 108
“25 Additionally, two categories from previous qualitative research were added: (1) feeling of being controlled and (2) sense of security, which were not covered by the TAM3.”
InfluentialSecond-hand shopping and brand loyalty: The role of online collaborative redistribution platforms
Abbes, I., Hallem, Y., & Taga, N. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101885 · Cited by 109
Cao, D., Sun, Y., Goh, E., Wang, R., & Kuiavska, K. (2021) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.103124 · Cited by 104
Pope, C., Halford, S., Turnbull, J., Prichard, J., Calestani, M., & May, C. (2013) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-111 · Cited by 101
“Venkatesh V, Bala H: Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions.”
BackgroundHotel guests’ social media acceptance in luxury hotels
Dieck, M. C. T., Jung, T. H., Kim, W. G., & Moon, Y. J. (2017) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-10-2015-0552 · Cited by 113
“Both the literature (Ayeh et al., 2013b; Ha and Stoel, 2009; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) and interviewees confirmed the importance of enjoyment on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of SMNs. Enjoyment is defined as a pleasant, pleasurable, and enjoyable engagement on SMNs…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential“It's not actually that horrible”
Colnago, J., Devlin, S., Oates, M., et al. (2018) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174030 · Cited by 100
“Factors behind technology adoption decisions have been explored [26, 27], with a particular focus on the interactions of usability, value, and adoption.”
BackgroundMobile Learning Adoption: A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model from 2017 to 2020
Alsharida, R. A. F., Hammood, M. M., & Al‐Emran, M. (2021) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v16i05.18093 · Cited by 101
Use of Telehealth in Mental Health (MH) Services During and After COVID-19
Molfenter, T. D., Heitkamp, T., Murphy, A., Tapscott, S. L., Behlman, S., & Cody, O. J. (2021) · Community Mental Health Journal · doi:10.1007/s10597-021-00861-2 · Cited by 106
The influence of teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning on their technology acceptance
Teo, T. P., & Zhou, M. (2016) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2016.1143844 · Cited by 122
“…aspects of technology use intention, such as hedonic motivation (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012), enjoyment, self-ef fi cacy, learning goals (Yi & Hwang, 2003), effort and performance expectancy (Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013), computer ef fi cacy, and computer anxiety (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundBerx, N., Decré, W., Morag, I., Chemweno, P. K., & Pintelon, L. M. (2021) · Computers & Industrial Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cie.2021.107827 · Cited by 110
Assessing Artificial Intelligence Technology Acceptance in Managerial Accounting
Vărzaru, A. A. (2022) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics11142256 · Cited by 101
“These two primary constructs formed the basis of later improved models by adding antecedent variables to the two constructs [62,63].”
BackgroundAlmaiah, M. A., Al-Rahmi, A. M., Alturise, F., Hassan, L. H., Lutfi, A., Alrawad, M., Alkhalaf, S., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Al-sharaieh, S., & Aldhyani, T. H. H. (2022) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics11233926 · Cited by 128
“More importantly, recent cryptographic advances have enabled all modern payment services, such as digital payments and smart credit/debit cards, to provide a better degree of financial safety [139], which is often supported by standard systems engineering security criteria [140].”
BackgroundHew, T.-S., & Kadir, S. L. S. A. (2016) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.01.004 · Cited by 104
Nonadopters of Online Social Network Services: Is It Easy to Have Fun Yet?
Hu, T. “., Poston, R. S., & Kettinger, W. J. (2011) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.02925 · Cited by 102
“These factors are consistent with TAM [Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008], modified to take into account the context of adoption of pleasure-oriented hedonic technology [Van der Heijden, 2004].”
Social Network System in Classroom: Antecedents of Edmodo © Adoption
Thongmak, M. (2013) · Journal of e-Learning & Higher Education · doi:10.5171/2013.657749 · Cited by 102
“TAM3 also specifies that both perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are significantly related to new information technologies adoption in the workplace (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMobile health and cardiac rehabilitation in older adults
Bostrom, J., Sweeney, G., Whiteson, J. H., & Dodson, J. A. (2019) · Clinical Cardiology · doi:10.1002/clc.23306 · Cited by 102
“that the key factors for the adoption of a new technology are its perceived ease of use and its perceived usefulness.(62) Perceived difficulty”
BackgroundAL: An Adaptive Learning Support System for Argumentation Skills
Wambsganss, T., Niklaus, C., Cetto, M., Söllner, M., Handschuh, S., & Leimeister, J. M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376732 · Cited by 101
Behl, A., & Dutta, P. (2020) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102140 · Cited by 105
Riaz, M. U., Guang, L. X., Zafar, M., Shahzad, F., Shahbaz, M., & Lateef, M. (2020) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2020.1846790 · Cited by 117
Perceived values and motivations influencing m-commerce use: A nine-country comparative study
Ashraf, A. R., Thongpapanl, N., Anwar, A., Lapa, L., & Venkatesh, V. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102318 · Cited by 106
Self-citationRajendran, T., & Yunus, M. M. (2021) · International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development · doi:10.6007/ijarped/v10-i1/8939 · Cited by 98
Fu-hai, A., Xi, L., & Yu, J. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11959-3 · Cited by 144
“Technology acceptance, that is, how technology emerges and is adopted (Joo et al., 2018 ; Cheung & Vogel, 2013 ), has been studied using various theories (Mathieson, 1991 ; Ajzen, 1991 ; Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006 ) and models (Davis, 1989 ; Venkatesh & Thong, 2012 ; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008 ).”
Empathic voice assistants: Enhancing consumer responses in voice commerce
Mari, A., Mandelli, A., & Algesheimer, R. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114566 · Cited by 124
Lehto, T., & B, H. O.-K. A. (2013) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2013.866162 · Cited by 98
“In their review of technology acceptance research, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) argued that attitudinal constructs are significant predictors only when performance and effort expectancies are not incorporated in the model.”
BackgroundRamkumar, M., Schoenherr, T., Wagner, S. M., & Jenamani, M. (2019) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.06.003 · Cited by 96
Tarhini, A., Teo, T. P., & Tarhini, T. (2015) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-015-9381-9 · Cited by 97
“2 Methodology 2.1 Participants In line with empirical research in technology acceptance (Venkatesh et al. 2003; Venkatesh and Bala 2008) and e-learning (Cavus 2013; Tarhini et al. 2013c), the current study adopted a quantitative approach to test the ElAM (see Fig.”
MethodInfluentialAcceptance of virtual worlds as learning space
Tokel, S. T., & İşler, V. (2013) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2013.820139 · Cited by 98
“Furthermore, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) suggested TAM3, by adding the experience and voluntariness as determinants of both PU and ease of use to in fl uence the BI.”
BackgroundMethodUnderstanding the internal audit function in a digitalised business environment
Betti, N., & Sarens, G. (2020) · Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change · doi:10.1108/jaoc-11-2019-0114 · Cited by 96
Social influence and UTAUT in predicting digital immigrants’ technology use
Joa, C. Y., & Magsamen‐Conrad, K. (2021) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2021.1892192 · Cited by 104
“…of empirical data on the e ff ective interventions, which possibly interferes with greater adoption rates and better usage of new technology, disadvantages intervention designers and managers who need to make informed decisions about how to design e ff ective interventions (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundHashimy, L., Jain, G., & Grifell‐Tatjé, E. (2022) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-01-2022-0030 · Cited by 112
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Aldraiweesh, A. A., Alturki, U., Alamri, M., Bin Saud, M. S., Kamin, Y. B., Aljeraiwi, A. A., & Alhamed, O. A. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2906668 · Cited by 96
“Moreover, in this research, big data adoption is the important element in constructing models for technology utilization [23], [41] According to Venkatesh and Bala [41] these said models and philosophies are from philosophies of TRA which consider big data use as the role of attitude concerning specific behavioral and…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLaumer, S., Maier, C., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2016) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2016.1 · Cited by 100
“…et al, 2011) to explain why and how employees accept or resist IS implementation (Williams et al, 2009; Schwarz et al, 2014) and how organizations can address and in fl uence employees ’ reactions (Sharma & Yetton, 2003, 2007; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Rodon et al, 2011; Ngwenyama & Nielsen, 2014).”
BackgroundThe behavioral intentions of Hong Kong primary teachers in adopting educational technology
Wong, G. K. W. (2016) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9426-9 · Cited by 108
“A subjective norm is a determinant of perceived usefulness in TAM2 and The behavioral intentions of Hong Kong primary teachers … TAM3.”
BackgroundInfluentialAlmaiah, M. A. (2018) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-018-9694-6 · Cited by 96
“Also, previous studies agreed upon the need for adding other variables to the original model (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
RetractedReychav, I., Beeri, R., Balapour, A., Raban, D. R., Sabherwal, R., & Azuri, J. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.024 · Cited by 101
Network Path Analysis for developing an enhanced TAM model: A user-centric e-learning perspective
Baby, A., & Kannammal, A. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.024 · Cited by 96
An ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used to treat skin diseases in northern Pakistan
Malik, K., Ahmad, M., Zafar, M. N., Ullah, R., Mahmood, H. M., Parveen, B., Rashid, N., Sultana, S., Shah, S. N., & Lubna (2019) · BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12906-019-2605-6 · Cited by 112
Hoffmann, C. P., & Lutz, C. (2019) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.225 · Cited by 106
Kavota, J. K., Kamdjoug, J. R. K., & Wamba, S. F. (2020) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102068 · Cited by 105
Adoption of delivery services in light of the COVID pandemic: Who and how long?
Wang, X., Kim, W., Holguín‐Veras, J., & Schmid, J. (2021) · Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.tra.2021.10.012 · Cited by 95
Investigating Users’ Acceptance of the Metaverse with an Extended Technology Acceptance Model
Wu, R., & Yu, Z. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2241295 · Cited by 111
“Several important extensions of TAM are TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al., 2012).”
Brenner, F., Ortner, T. M., & Fay, D. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00863 · Cited by 117
“Despite all theoretical refinements (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), the technology acceptance model suggests that the fundamental variables in determining the acceptance of new technology are perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.”
BackgroundContent creation on the Internet: a social cognitive perspective on the participation divide
Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2015) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2014.991343 · Cited by 95
“Self-ef fi cacy has variously been shown to drive users ’ willingness or ability to use ICT (Compeau et al., 1999; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBuying an electric car: A rational choice or a norm-directed behavior?
Bobeth, S., & Kastner, I. (2020) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2020.06.009 · Cited by 103
Hussain, A., Ma, Z., Li, M., Jameel, A., Kanwel, S., Ahmad, S., & Ge, B. (2025) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-024-02648-8 · Cited by 152
“The “Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)” [57], “TAM 2” [22, 57], and “TAM 3“ [23] are advanced iterations of the technology acceptance model.”
eLearning Acceptance and Adoption Challenges in Higher Education
Ahmad, S., Mohd Noor, A. S., Alwan, A. A., Gulzar, Y., Khan, W. Z., & Reegu, F. A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15076190 · Cited by 95
Understanding the impact of financial incentives on NFC mobile payment adoption
Zhao, H., Anong, S. T., & Zhang, L. (2019) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-08-2018-0229 · Cited by 93
Presenting hotels in virtual reality: does it influence the booking intention?
Israel, K., Zerres, C., & Tscheulin, D. K. (2019) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-03-2018-0020 · Cited by 98
Blockchain technology in corporate governance: disrupting chain reaction or not?
Singh, H., Jain, G., Munjal, A., & Rakesh, S. (2019) · Corporate Governance · doi:10.1108/cg-07-2018-0261 · Cited by 100
User acceptance of augmented reality welding simulator in engineering training
Papakostas, C., Troussas, C., Krouska, A., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2021) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10418-7 · Cited by 103
Feng, Y., Chen, H., & Xie, Q. (2023) · Journal of Interactive Advertising · doi:10.1080/15252019.2023.2284355 · Cited by 83
“Other research extended Davis’s (1989) TAM and identified some determinants of perceived ease of use (e.g., Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Br € ohl et al. 2019).”
BackgroundMethodLessons learned from robotic vacuum cleaners entering the home ecosystem
Vaussard, F., Fink, J., Bauwens, V., Rétornaz, P., Hamel, D., Dillenbourg, P., & Francesco Mondada, C. (2013) · Robotics and Autonomous Systems · doi:10.1016/j.robot.2013.09.014 · Cited by 95
“These are important factors for the adoption of technology in homes [13,14].”
BackgroundBreward, M., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2017) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2017.0706 · Cited by 95
How Important Are Enjoyment and Mobility for Mobile Applications?
Lu, J., Liu, C., & Wei, J. C. (2016) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2016.1181463 · Cited by 94
Mulia, D., Usman, H., & Parwanto, N. B. (2020) · Journal of Islamic marketing · doi:10.1108/jima-09-2019-0190 · Cited by 136
Factors influencing the acceptance of healthcare information technologies: A meta-analysis
Chong, A. Y., Blut, M., & Zheng, S. (2022) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2022.103604 · Cited by 98
Delighting Consumers Click by Click
Bartl, C., Gouthier, M. H. J., & Lenker, M. (2013) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670513479168 · Cited by 96
A Critical Review of Models and Theories in Field of Individual Acceptance of Technology
Al‐Mamary, Y. H., Al‐Nashmi, M. M., Hassan, Y. A. G., & Shamsuddin, A. (2016) · International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology · doi:10.14257/ijhit.2016.9.6.13 · Cited by 94
“TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, [32]) is based on a theoretical framework consisting of four categories the authors say are a synthesis of all previous TAM research.”
BackgroundBervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2018) · Open Learning The Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning · doi:10.1080/02680513.2018.1548964 · Cited by 103
“According to Venkatesh and Bala (2008), when individuals perceive that organisational resources and technical support exist towards technology usage, perception towards easiness is positive.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRafiee, M., & Abbasian‐Naghneh, S. (2019) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1640255 · Cited by 99
“The significant modifications would irrevocably lead to expanded versions of TAM, that are TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundSánchez‐Prieto, J. C., Cruz-Benito, J., Therón, R., & Peñalvo, F. J. G. (2020) · International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.9781/ijimai.2020.11.009 · Cited by 106
“Therefore, the model includes the following two hypotheses for SN based on the proposals by Venkatesh and Davis [43] and Venkatesh and Bala [44] : H7 SN is positively related to the intention to participate in AI-driven assessment activities of the students.”
MethodInfluentialUllah, F., Sepasgozar, S. M. E., Thaheem, M. J., Wang, C., & Imran, M. A. (2021) · Ain Shams Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.asej.2021.04.023 · Cited by 92
“In these extensions, additional constructs such as subjective norm, voluntariness, image, job relevance, output quality, and result demonstrability are incorporated [38,39].”
BackgroundThe Research Trend of Security and Privacy in Digital Payment
Sahi, A. M., Khalid, H. B., Abbas, A. F., Zedan, K., Khatib, S. F. A., & Amosh, H. A. A. (2022) · Informatics · doi:10.3390/informatics9020032 · Cited by 112
“TAM3 [70].”
BackgroundMethodAdoption of blended learning: Chinese university students’ perspectives
Yu, T., Dai, J., & Wang, C. (2023) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-023-01904-7 · Cited by 126
Social media use by young Latin American consumers: An exploration
Bailey, A. A., Bonifield, C. M., & Arias, A. (2018) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.02.003 · Cited by 96
Montes, F. J. R., Bueno, S., & Gallego, M. D. (2020) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app10082711 · Cited by 106
“TAM3, which includes TAM2, was proposed initially as a means of understanding employee use of ICT in a business environment [51].”
BackgroundPredictive maintenance for industry 5.0: behavioural inquiries from a work system perspective
van Oudenhoven, B., de Calseyde, P. P. F. M. V., Basten, R., & Demerouti, E. (2022) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2022.2154403 · Cited by 107
“Acceptance of PdM systems, in turn, is the degree to which these decision-makers actually use the system-generated advice in their decisions, ranging from complete rejection to perfect compliance (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundAn Empirical Investigation on Mobile Banking Service Adoption in Rural Karnataka
Kishore, S. V. K., & Sequeira, A. H. (2016) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244016633731 · Cited by 101
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008), Chung and Kwon (2009), Daud and Yusoff (2011), T. Zhou (2011), and Padashetty and Krishna (2013) studied and validated PU performance.”
The Roles of Perceived Risk and Trust on E–Payment Adoption
Nguyen, T. D., & Huynh, P. (2017) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73150-6_68 · Cited by 102
Al‐Emran, M. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1921481 · Cited by 98
Raj, A., & Jeyaraj, A. (2022) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-022-04942-7 · Cited by 97
“0 adoption (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Wan, A., & Jiang, M. (2023) · Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising · doi:10.1080/10641734.2023.2224416 · Cited by 96
Gustilo, L., Ong, E., & Lapinid, M. R. (2024) · International Journal for Educational Integrity · doi:10.1007/s40979-024-00153-8 · Cited by 89
“In the technology acceptance model, computer self-efficacy captures the individuals’ self-beliefs about technology and technology use (Venkatesh & Bala 2008).”
MethodGücin, N. Ö., & Berk, Ö. S. (2015) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.263 · Cited by 88
Venkatesh, V., Aloysius, J. A., Hoehle, H., & Burton, S. (2017) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41.1.05 · Cited by 89
“It is believed that such design characteristics will influence various perceptions (see Venkatesh and Bala 2008), for example, usability (Hoehle and Venkatesh 2015) or technology-related beliefs (e.g., Venkatesh et al. 2012).”
Self-citation
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
