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 601–700 of 8,090
Bervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2017) · Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education · doi:10.12973/ejmste/78076 · Cited by 106
“According to Venkatesh and Bala (2008), even after initial experience with new system usage, users will still value perceived ease of use in forming perceptions about its usefulness in later usage.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialService mobile apps: a millennial generation perspective
Leon, S. (2018) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-10-2017-0479 · Cited by 119
Determinants of customers' intentions to use hedonic networks: The case of Instagram
Bahri-Ammari, N., Hadhri, W., & Mezrani, M. (2018) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.09.001 · Cited by 101
“Behavioral intention has long been seen as an important mediator of the relationship between behavior and other factors such as attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (Bailey et al., 2018; Oni et al., 2017; Demoulin and Djelassi, 2016; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen and Fishbein, 19…”
BackgroundThe attitude of managers toward telework, why is it so difficult to adopt it in organizations?
Cortés, A. S., R, I. A. M., & Valencia-Arías, A. (2019) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.04.009 · Cited by 93
Factors Affecting the Use of Facial-Recognition Payment: An Example of Chinese Consumers
Zhang, W. K., & Kang, M. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2927705 · Cited by 92
Use of Telehealth in Substance Use Disorder Services During and After COVID-19: Online Survey Study
Molfenter, T. D., Roget, N. A., Chaple, M., Behlman, S., Cody, O. J., Hartzler, B. J., Johnson, E., Nichols, M., Stilen, P., & Becker, S. J. (2021) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/25835 · Cited by 99
“The perceived ease of use and value of these technologies influence both staff and patient acceptance of them, which, in turn, influence decisions regarding their continued use [27-29].”
BackgroundChatterjee, S., Bhattacharjee, K. K., Tsai, C., & Agrawal, A. K. (2021) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-021-01100-2 · Cited by 102
Balcı, G. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121016 · Cited by 100
Technology adoption: an analysis of the major models and theories
Yadegari, M., Mohammadi, S., & Masoumi, A. (2022) · Technology Analysis & Strategic Management · doi:10.1080/09537325.2022.2071255 · Cited by 90
“A person ’ s level of belief in his or her ability to do a particular job, task or behaviour (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialMacharia, J. K. N., & Pelser, T. (2012) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.729033 · Cited by 89
“Although information systems (IS) research on technology diffusion has fl ourished in recent years (Bagchi and Udo 2010; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Al-Senaidia, Lin, and Poirota 2009), the problem of ICT diffusion and infusion in higher education learning and teaching institutions is persistent…”
BackgroundA path analysis of Internet health information seeking behaviors among older adults
Chang, S. J., & Im, E. (2013) · Geriatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2013.11.005 · Cited by 89
Davies, R., & Harty, C. F. (2013) · Construction Management and Economics · doi:10.1080/01446193.2013.848994 · Cited by 89
Rauschnabel, P. A., Hein, D. W. E., He, J., Ro, Y. K., Rawashdeh, S. A., & Krulikowski, B. (2016) · i-com · doi:10.1515/icom-2016-0021 · Cited by 94
“As discussed above, scholars in IS research [23, 85, 88, 89] and media usage [21, 62] have investigated antecedents to technology and media use.”
BackgroundTAM Reloaded: A Technology Acceptance Model for Human-Robot Cooperation in Production Systems
Bröhl, C., Nelles, J., Brandl, C., et al. (2016) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40548-3_16 · Cited by 88
Extending the Technology Acceptance Model for Use of e-Learning Systems by Digital Learners
Hanif, A., Jamal, F. Q., & Imran, M. A. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2881384 · Cited by 94
“Moreover, during the development of TAM-3, PEC has been identified as a determinant of the PEOU of an e-learning system [21].”
BackgroundResultBoon‐itt, S. (2019) · Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1186/s13731-018-0100-9 · Cited by 89
Standaert, W., Muylle, S., & Basu, A. (2020) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2020.103393 · Cited by 105
Blended Learning Acceptance: A Systematic Review of Information Systems Models
Al-Maroof, R. S., Al-Qaysi, N., Salloum, S. A., & Al‐Emran, M. (2021) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-021-09519-0 · Cited by 102
“The predominant use of TAM among the other models/theories could refer to the reliability and validity of the model in a number of application areas (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundUnderstanding English teachers’ non-volitional use of online teaching: A Chinese study
Huang, F., Teo, T. P., & Guo, J. (2021) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2021.102574 · Cited by 97
Zhang, S., Meng, Z., Chen, B., Yang, X., & Zhao, X. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.728495 · Cited by 96
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) , on the other hand, found that perceived usefulness and perceived of ease of use were significant predictors of behavioral intention.”
BackgroundThe Acceptance of Telepresence Robots in Higher Education
Lei, M., Clemente, I. M., Liu, H., & Bell, J. E. (2022) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-021-00837-y · Cited by 94
Mardiana, S., Tjakraatmadja, J. H., & Aprianingsih, A. (2015) · International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues · Cited by 88
Comparison of online and traditional performance appraisal systems
Payne, S. C., Horner, M. T., Boswell, W. R., Schroeder, A. N., & Kelleen, S.-C. (2009) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/02683940910974116 · Cited by 86
The role of trust and risk perceptions in cloud archiving — Results from an empirical study
Burda, D., & Teuteberg, F. (2014) · The Journal of High Technology Management Research · doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2014.07.008 · Cited by 93
Akaslan, D., & Law, E. L. (2011) · IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) · doi:10.1109/educon.2011.5773180 · Cited by 90
“[26] Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialSung, H., Jeong, D., Jeong, Y.-S., & Shin, J. (2015) · International Journal of u- and e- Service Science and Technology · doi:10.14257/ijunesst.2015.8.9.21 · Cited by 87
“Self-efficacy is the degree to which an individual believes that he or she has the ability to perform a specific task/job using the mobile learning [23].”
BackgroundMartín‐García, A. V., Abad, F. M., & Reyes‐González, D. (2019) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12831 · Cited by 88
Rietz, T., Benke, I., & Maedche, A. (2019) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 91
Valverde, S. C., Solas, P. J. C., & Fernández, F. R. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240362 · Cited by 104
Fu-hai, A., Yu, J., & Xi, L. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.992464 · Cited by 89
“According to Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the comprehensive model TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) suggests that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use can be influenced by external circumstances (e.”
BackgroundDingel, J., Kleine, A., Cecil, J., Sigl, A., Lermer, E., & Gaube, S. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/57224 · Cited by 116
Haislip, J. Z., & Richardson, V. J. (2018) · The Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.2308/isys-51796 · Cited by 78
Al-Azawei, A., Parslow, P., & Lundqvist, K. Ø. (2017) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.2880 · Cited by 108
“In addition, Venkatesh & Bala (2008) found that PEOU affects ITU in some time periods, but it does not in others.”
BackgroundRejón‐Guardia, F., Peña, A. I. P., & Tarifa, G. M. (2019) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s12528-019-09206-1 · Cited by 92
“1) were adapted from earlier studies and based on the TAM and its subsequent models, as reflected in TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMusic streaming services: understanding the drivers of customer purchase and intention to recommend
Barata, M. L., & Coelho, P. S. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07783 · Cited by 87
“Some derivations of this model, like TAM2, have also been proposed (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Wang, 2008).”
MethodBIM and Digital Tools for State-of-the-Art Construction Cost Management
Sepasgozar, S. M. E., Costin, A. M., Karimi, R., Shirowzhan, S., Abbasian, E., & Li, J. (2022) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings12040396 · Cited by 87
Theories and Models of Technology Adoption in Agricultural Sector
Dissanayake, C. A. K., Jayathilake, W. M. N. K., Wickramasuriya, H. V. A., Dissanayake, U., Kopiyawattage, K. P. P., & Wasala, W. M. C. B. (2022) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/2022/9258317 · Cited by 111
“Venkatesh and Bala [37] had taken individual factors, which differentiate adoption between individuals, the characteristics of the IT system, societal influences, and the supportive conditions to describe the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.”
BackgroundInfluentialIntention to use advanced mobile phone services (AMPS)
Islam, Z., Low, K. C. P., & Hasan, I. (2013) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/00251741311326590 · Cited by 86
Podcasting acceptance on campus: The differing perspectives of teachers and students
Lin, S., Zimmer, J. C., & Lee, V. (2013) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.003 · Cited by 86
“Practically, our findings yield significant managerial implications and help design interventions needed to enhance IT implementation success, echoing the much needed direction for TAM-related research for generating actionable guidelines for practitioner (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundResultAn empirical investigation of factors influencing the adoption of data mining tools
Huang, T. C.-K., Liu, C., & Chang, D.-C. (2011) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.11.006 · Cited by 90
Cloud Computing (SaaS) Adoption as a Strategic Technology: Results of an Empirical Study
Palos‐Sánchez, P. R., Arenas‐Márquez, F. J., & Aguayo-Camacho, M. (2017) · Mobile Information Systems · doi:10.1155/2017/2536040 · Cited by 97
“[69] Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), for example, applied to mobile applications [70], theWixom and Todd [71] integratedmodel of technology acceptance and user satisfaction, and the TAM 3 model proposed by Venkatesh and Bala [68] in the field of e-commerce.”
MethodSun, J., & Chi, T. (2017) · Journal of the Textile Institute · doi:10.1080/00405000.2017.1371828 · Cited by 86
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) argued that the process concerning the diffusion of a new technology can be seen as the process of market penetration of a new product based on the application of a new technology.”
BackgroundResultA Nomological Network of Knowledge Management System Use: Antecedents and Consequences1
Zhang, X., & Venkatesh, V. (2017) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2017/41.4.12 · Cited by 90
Self-citationHossain, S. F. A., Nurunnabi, M., Hussain, K., Saha, S. K., & Wang, S. (2019) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2019.1574692 · Cited by 91
“PEOU is a key component of TAM model (Kaushik & Rahman, 2015) and perceived enjoyment (PE) is one of the extensions of TAM which refer to technology usage as fun or entertainment (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundChat now… Examining the variables influencing the use of online live chat
McLean, G., & Osei-Frimpong, K. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.017 · Cited by 107
Antecedents of consumer loyalty in ride-hailing
Lee, C. K. H., & Wong, A. (2021) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2021.03.016 · Cited by 102
ARvolution: Decoding consumer motivation and value dimensions in augmented reality
Schultz, C. D., & Kumar, H. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103701 · Cited by 101
Hong, J.-C., Hwang, M.-Y., Hsu, H.-F., Wong, W.-T., & Chen, M.-Y. (2011) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.011 · Cited by 85
Yu, F. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.002 · Cited by 86
Understanding Online Community Participation
Wang, H., Chung, J. E., Park, N., McLaughlin, M. L., & Fulk, J. L. (2011) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650211408593 · Cited by 85
“…& Larsen, 2003; Ma & Liu, 2004; Yousafzai et al., 2007a), undergone multiple waves of modification (e.g., Brown & Venkatesh, 2005; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003), and been extensively tested in areas about the adoption…”
BackgroundAre We on Our Way to Becoming a “Helicopter University”? Academics’ Views on Learning Analytics
Howell, J. A., Roberts, L. D., Seaman, K., & Gibson, D. C. (2018) · Technology, Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-017-9329-9 · Cited by 84
“The Technology Acceptance Model (Adams et al. 1992; Davis et al. 1989; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh and Bala 2008) provides a useful theoretical model for understanding the impact of academics’ perceptions on future use of learning analytics.”
BackgroundAcceptance of text-mining systems: The signaling role of information quality
Demoulin, N. T. M., & Coussement, K. (2018) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2018.10.006 · Cited by 94
Assessing Antecedents of Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Technologies in E-Commerce
Vărzaru, A. A., Bocean, C. G., Rotea, C. C., et al. (2021) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics10182231 · Cited by 84
“A further extension of the model, by Venkatesh and Bala [61], offered the following categories of antecedents of the two variables (PEU and PU): “individual differences, system characteristics, social influence, and facilitating conditions” [61] (p. 276).”
MethodInfluentialAn expansion of the technology acceptance model applied to the halal tourism sector
Berakon, I., Wibowo, M. G., Nurdany, A., & Aji, H. M. (2021) · Journal of Islamic marketing · doi:10.1108/jima-03-2021-0064 · Cited by 113
Magni, D., Gaudio, G. D., Papa, A., & Corte, V. D. (2023) · Journal of Management History · doi:10.1108/jmh-12-2022-0084 · Cited by 86
Chae, H., & Ko, E. (2016) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.072 · Cited by 99
Peek, S. T. M., Luijkx, K. G., Vrijhoef, H. J. M., Nieboer, M. E., Aarts, S., van der Voort, C. S., Rijnaard, M. D., & Wouters, E. J. M. (2019) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1241-9 · Cited by 84
Cross cultural analysis of the use and perceptions of web based learning systems
Arenas-Gaitán, J., Ramírez-Correa, P. E., & Javier Rondán-Cataluña, F. (2011) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.016 · Cited by 83
“Considering the importance of a replica in a culturally different sample explored in Venkatesh and Bala (2008), particularly in an elearning environment, the following hypotheses are proposed: H5a.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWamba, S. F., Bhattacharya, M., Trinchera, L., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2016) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.11.004 · Cited by 85
Wolff, S., & Madlener, R. (2018) · Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2019.05.017 · Cited by 86
Alghizzawi, M., Habes, M., & Salloum, S. A. (2019) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31129-2_40 · Cited by 83
Mahlamäki, T., Storbacka, K., Pylkkönen, S., & Ojala, M. (2020) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.08.024 · Cited by 102
Adoption of digital payment FinTech service by Gen Y and Gen Z users: evidence from India
Srivastava, S., Mohta, A., & Shunmugasundaram, V. (2023) · Digital Policy Regulation and Governance · doi:10.1108/dprg-07-2023-0110 · Cited by 131
Predicting older adults’ perceptions about a computer system designed for seniors
Mitzner, T. L., Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., Boot, W. R., Charness, N. H., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2014) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-014-0383-y · Cited by 86
“The TAM has evolved (for TAM3, see [20]) to account for individual differences, such as age, education, income, race/ethnicity [21], gender [22], experience [22, 23], self-efficacy [24, 25], as well as system or technology characteristics [26], such as compatibility [27] and objective usability [28], as moderating var…”
The influence of external factors on routine ERP usage
Sternad, S., Gradišar, M., & Bobek, S. (2011) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/02635571111182818 · Cited by 82
A social networked learning adoption model for higher education institutions in developing countries
Munguatosha, G. M., Muyinda, P., & Lubega, J. (2011) · On the Horizon The International Journal of Learning Futures · doi:10.1108/10748121111179439 · Cited by 113
“Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB);”
BackgroundInfluentialHow Viable Is the UTAUT Model in a Non-Western Context?
AlQeisi, K., Dennis, C., Hegazy, A. A., & Abbad, M. M. M. (2015) · International Business Research · doi:10.5539/ibr.v8n2p204 · Cited by 85
“The social impacts and facilitating conditions are also rooted in another famous model, theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) and its decomposed version (Taylor & Todd, 1995), which also contributed to TAM extensions: TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundBeglaryan, M., Petrosyan, V., & Bunker, E. (2017) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.02.013 · Cited by 92
“" Further extensions of the model, such as TAM2 [64] and TAM3 [65], have added various external constructs to predict PU and PEOU or have added constructs which directly determine behavioral intention or actual use.”
BackgroundUnderstanding the adoption of smartphone apps in dairy herd management
Michels, M., Bonke, V., & Mußhoff, O. (2019) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2019-16489 · Cited by 81
“All indicators in the TAM are reflective indicators (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008); we”
BackgroundDeterminants of Technology Acceptance: Two Model-Based Meta-Analytic Reviews
Feng, G. C., Su, X., Lin, Z. C., He, Y., Luo, N., & Zhang, Y. (2020) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1077699020952400 · Cited by 111
“Seemingly noting the weaknesses of previously proposed models, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) further developed an integrated model named TAM3 by combining TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and the model of the determinants of PEOU (the early-stage anchors included computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety,…”
BackgroundMethodAlarabiat, A., Soares, D. D. S., & Estévez, E. (2020) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2020.101537 · Cited by 93
Acceptance of protection technology in a time of fear: the case of Covid-19 exposure detection apps
Alsaad, A. K., & Al‐Okaily, M. (2021) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-10-2020-0719 · Cited by 82
Doing digital exclusion – technology practices of older internet non-users
Gallistl, V., Rohner, R., Hengl, L., & Kolland, F. (2021) · Journal of Aging Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2021.100973 · Cited by 90
Users' Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence-Based Chatbots
Goli, M., Sahu, A. K., Bag, S., & Dhamija, P. (2023) · International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction · doi:10.4018/ijthi.318481 · Cited by 103
“Over the years TAM (Davis, 1989), extension of TAM:TAM2 (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) and TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) have been extensively used and validated in various contexts to study user behaviour in information systems towards tablet applications (Kim, 2016), self-service technologies (Kim…”
BackgroundKelly, A. E., & Palaniappan, S. (2023) · Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1186/s13731-023-00301-3 · Cited by 105
Cheng, E. C. K., & Wang, T. (2023) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100171 · Cited by 151
How to Apply Necessary Condition Analysis in PLS-SEM
Richter, N., Hauff, S., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Kolev, A. E., & Schubring, S. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-37772-3_10 · Cited by 113
Song, Y., Yang, Y., & Cheng, P. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22041614 · Cited by 95
“Some subsequent models have also been proposed by incorporating social norms (TAM2) [26] and enjoyments (TAM3) [27].”
Wang, Y., Li-fu, J., & Mao, H. (2019) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-019-09909-x · Cited by 87
Impact of AI regulation on intention to use robots: From citizens and government perspective
Chatterjee, S. (2020) · International Journal of Intelligent Unmanned Systems · doi:10.1108/ijius-09-2019-0051 · Cited by 81
Acceptance of Google Meet during the Spread of Coronavirus by Arab University Students
Al-Maroof, R. S., Alshurideh, M. T., Salloum, S. A., AlHamad, A., & Gaber, T. (2021) · Informatics · doi:10.3390/informatics8020024 · Cited by 83
“Within the TAM model, the research results are in agreement with the literature concerning the effectiveness of TAM variables [38,74,75].”
ResultDoes gamification engage users in online shopping?
García-Jurado, A., Torres-Jiménez, M., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., & Castro-González, P. (2021) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2021.101076 · Cited by 81
Standing up for or against: A text-mining study on the recommendation of mobile payment apps
Verkijika, S. F., & Neneh, B. N. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102743 · Cited by 82
“Output quality reflects the perception an individual has regarding the extent to which a system performs the intended task well (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
Proposal for modeling social robot acceptance by retail customers: CAN model + technophobia
Navarro, A. S., Borondo, J. P., Lara, E. M. R., & Pascual, C. O. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102813 · Cited by 90
Tan, H., Zhao, X., & Yang, J. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107187 · Cited by 86
Zhang, C., Hu, M., Wu, W., Kamran, F., & Wang, X. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12905-7 · Cited by 102
“…field are manifested by the introduction of the Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al., 2003), and the subsequent refinement into the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Abou‐Shouk, M., Lim, W. M., & Megicks, P. (2015) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.007 · Cited by 83
“TAM con fi rms that, when users perceive a system as easy to use, it is more likely to be adopted (Davis et al., 1989; Grandon & Pearson, 2004; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundImplementing innovations within organizations: a systematic review and research agenda
Kim, J. S., & Chung, G. H. (2017) · Innovation · doi:10.1080/14479338.2017.1335943 · Cited by 91
Balaskas, S., Tsiantos, V., Chatzifotiou, S., & Rigou, M. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16020082 · Cited by 81
“Both of the above are hypothesized to influence adoption intentions positively, based on prior literature on educational technologies [53,54,56].”
Hwang, B., Ngo, J., & Her, P. W. Y. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121396 · Cited by 80
Equifinal causes of sustainable clothing purchase behavior: An fsQCA analysis among generation Y
Kopplin, C. S., & Rösch, S. F. (2021) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102692 · Cited by 83
Public acceptance of connected vehicles: An extension of the technology acceptance model
Acharya, S., & Mekker, M. M. (2022) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2022.05.002 · Cited by 80
Multi-user centered design: acceptance, user experience, user research and user testing
Fleury, S., & Chaniaud, N. (2023) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922x.2023.2166623 · Cited by 119
“The development of the TAM has led to the emergence of models based on the same principle, i.e. to explain the intentions of use of technologies through different variables, mostly related to the perceptions of users (e.g. Venkatesh and Davis 2000 ; Venkatesh and Bala 2008 ).”
MethodTrust in a ‘trust-free’ system: Blockchain acceptance in the banking and finance sector
Gan, Q., & Lau, R. Y. K. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123050 · Cited by 96
Impacts of TAM-based External Factors on ERP Acceptance
Sternad, S., & Bobek, S. (2013) · Procedia Technology · doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.004 · Cited by 79
Modeling Citizen Satisfaction with Mandatory Adoption of an E-Government Technology
Chan, F. K. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., Hu, P. J., & Tam, K. Y. (2010) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00239 · Cited by 403
“One suggested way to extend the general theoretical models of technology adoption, such as TAM, to different contexts is to examine the antecedents of the more general predictors presented in these models (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2007).”
BackgroundSelf-citationTarhini, A., Hassouna, M., Abbasi, D. M. S., & Orozco, J. (2015) · The Electronic Journal of e-Learning · Cited by 79
Seethamraju, R., Diatha, K. S., & Garg, S. (2017) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-017-9801-z · Cited by 88
“SI is found to be important, especially outside the workplace context (Brown and Venkatesh 2005; Venkatesh and Bala (2008).”
BackgroundHerrenkind, B., Nastjuk, I., Brendel, B., Trang, S. T.-N., & Kolbe, L. M. (2019) · Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.trd.2019.07.023 · Cited by 86
Effectual and causal reasoning in the adoption of marketing automation
Mero, J., Tarkiainen, A., & Tobon, J. (2019) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.12.008 · Cited by 87
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
