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 701–800 of 8,090
Toraman, Y. (2022) · EMAJ Emerging Markets Journal · doi:10.5195/emaj.2022.258 · Cited by 79
“After TAM was introduced to the literature in 1986, the analysis of the factors affecting the acceptance of company employees to use new technologies has become important (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
MethodSaid, N., Mansour, K. B., Bahri-Ammari, N., Yousaf, A., & Mishra, A. (2023) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-12-2022-1523 · Cited by 82
Fathi, T. E., Saad, A., Larhzil, H., Lamri, D., & Ibrahmi, E. M. A. (2025) · Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research · doi:10.1186/s43031-025-00125-z · Cited by 143
“…the TALES by drawing on theoretical constructs from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) family (Fred & Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003), to align with the study’s…”
Individual entrepreneurial orientation role in shaping reactions to new technologies
Gupta, V. K., Niranjan, S., Goktan, A. B., & Eriskon, J. (2015) · International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal · doi:10.1007/s11365-015-0373-4 · Cited by 86
“…identified as a key factor causing the “productivity paradox” encompassing uninspiring returns in new technologies based on investments by organizations (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008); therefore, our examination of technology acceptance in mandatory contexts is relevant for both research and practice.”
BackgroundOsei‐Assibey, E. (2015) · International Journal of Social Economics · doi:10.1108/ijse-09-2013-0198 · Cited by 79
“A TAM 3 has also been proposed (Venkatesh & Bala 2008).”
BackgroundNeural network approach to predict mobile learning acceptance
Al-Shihi, H., Sharma, S. K., & Sarrab, M. (2018) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-018-9691-9 · Cited by 85
“TAM has been modified to TAM2 (Venkatesh and Davis 2000) and TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala 2008) to add some more constructs such as facilitating characteristics, social influence etc.”
BackgroundAl‐Emran, M., Granić, A., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Ameen, N., & Sarrab, M. (2020) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-02-2020-0052 · Cited by 81
Arlati, S., Santo, S. G. D., Franchini, F., Mondellini, M., Filiputti, B., Luchi, M., Ratto, F., Ferrigno, G., Sacco, M., & Greci, L. (2021) · Journal of Alzheimer s Disease · doi:10.3233/jad-201431 · Cited by 85
“Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the consistency of TAM3 subscales, as some of the TAM3 items were not included (according to Venkatesh et al. [53]).”
InfluentialJavadinasr, M., Asgharpour, S., Rahimi, E., Choobchian, P., Mohammadian, A., & Auld, J. (2022) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2022.03.019 · Cited by 80
Affordance, usefulness, enjoyment, and aesthetics in sustaining virtual reality engagement
Jo, H., & Park, D.-H. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-42113-1 · Cited by 96
Biloš, A., & Budimir, B. (2024) · Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.3390/jtaer19020045 · Cited by 84
Hwang, M., Hong, J., Cheng, H.-Y., Peng, Y.-C., & Wu, N.-C. (2012) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.014 · Cited by 80
Designing mobile business applications for different age groups
Gurtner, S., Reinhardt, R., & Soyez, K. (2014) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.06.020 · Cited by 89
Sharing and storage behavior via cloud computing: Security and privacy in research and practice
Alsmadi, D., & Prybutok, V. R. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.003 · Cited by 86
Determinants adoption of computer-assisted auditing tools (CAATs)
Pedrosa, I., Costa, C. J. D. C., & Aparício, M. (2019) · Cognition Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-019-00581-4 · Cited by 100
“The degree of ease that auditors perceive when using CAATs in their auditing tasks on the adoption theory (Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh and Agarwal 2006; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Venkatesh and Speier 1999; Venkatesh et al. 2008).”
BackgroundSport content and virtual reality technology acceptance
Kunz, R., & Santomier, J. (2019) · Sport Business and Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/sbm-11-2018-0095 · Cited by 86
User acceptance of virtual reality technology for practicing digital twin-based crisis management
Kwok, A. P. K., Yan, M., Qu, T., & Lau, H. Y. K. (2020) · International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing · doi:10.1080/0951192x.2020.1803502 · Cited by 78
“…task in the crisis management training process, was integrated in the research model because previous informatics studies suggest that self-efficacy is a significant antecedent of perceived behavioral con-trol and perceived ease of use (Yan and Or 2019; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Bandura 1997).”
MethodA multi-method approach to examining consumer intentions to use smart retail technology
Fazal-e-Hasan, S. M., Amrollahi, A., Mortimer, G., Adapa, S., & Balaji, M. S. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106622 · Cited by 76
How do Older Adults feel about engaging with Cyber‐Security?
Morrison, B. A., Coventry, L., & Briggs, P. (2021) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1002/hbe2.291 · Cited by 103
Elshan, E., Zierau, N., Engel, C., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2022) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-021-10230-9 · Cited by 86
“In the vein of dependent variables, most studies share similar theoretical foundations, which are primarily based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) and its subsequent modifications, such as the TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), Unified Theory of Technology Use and Acce…”
MethodGarrido, L. E., Frías-Hiciano, M., Moreno-Jiménez, M., Cruz, G. N., García-Batista, Z. E., Guerra-Peña, K., & Medrano, L. A. (2022) · Virtual Reality · doi:10.1007/s10055-022-00636-4 · Cited by 96
“The Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3; Venkatesh and Bala 2008) was used to measure perceived enjoyment and behavioral intention related to VR.”
BackgroundMethodLallmahomed, M. Z. I., Rahim, N. Z. A., Ibrahim, R. B., & Rahman, A. A. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.018 · Cited by 77
“Anandarajan, Igbaria, and Anakwe (2002), Chakraborty, Hu, and Cui (2008), Sapio et al. (2010), Venkatesh and Bala (2008), Zhou et al. (2010) found significant relationship between social influence and system use while Anderson et al. (2006), Kim, Park, and Lee (2007); Lee and Kim (2009), Van Raaij…”
BackgroundChen, C.-L., & Wu, C.-C. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103740 · Cited by 77
Getting a Job via Career-Oriented Social Networking Sites: The Weakness of Ties
Buettner, R. (2016) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2016.272 · Cited by 76
“to [71] BI-2 I will always try to search for jobs via CSNS.”
The path to the Hotel of Things: Internet of Things and Big Data converging in hospitality
Nadkarni, S., Kriechbaumer, F., Rothenberger, M. A., & Christodoulidou, N. (2019) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-12-2018-0120 · Cited by 75
ESL Teachers’ Intention in Adopting Online Educational Technologies during COVID-19 Pandemic
Wen, K. Y. K., & Kim Hua, T. (2020) · Journal of Education and e-Learning Research · doi:10.20448/journal.509.2020.74.387.394 · Cited by 94
“This set of items were adopted from the questionnaire designed by Venkatesh and Bala (2008). The second to fifth sections employed the 7-point Likert scale response mode of (1) Strongly disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) More or Less Disagree, (4) Undecided, (5) More or Less Agree, (6) Agree and (7) Strongly Agree.”
MethodApostolou, D., & Welcher, S. N. (2020) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.11.167 · Cited by 77
Industry 4.0 and intellectual capital in the age of FinTech
Wang, X., Sadiq, R., Khan, T. M., & Wang, R. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120598 · Cited by 80
Xu, J., & Lu, W. (2022) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102010 · Cited by 97
Wong, E. Y.-C., Hui, R. T., & Kong, H. (2023) · Virtual Reality · doi:10.1007/s10055-023-00793-0 · Cited by 77
“Based on the TAM3 (Davis 1989; Venkatesh and Bala 2008), the findings advance our understanding of the adaptation process of VR training by first exploring the effects of an individual intrinsic factor.”
BackgroundInfluentialObal, M. W. (2013) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.05.017 · Cited by 79
Factors hindering acceptance of using cloud services in university: a case study
Wu, W., Lan, L. W., & Lee, Y. (2013) · The Electronic Library · doi:10.1108/02640471311299155 · Cited by 76
“In step 1, the task force referred to Venkatesh and Bala (2008) and modified the criteria in each theme as follows: for theme PEOU it includes four criteria – PEOU1 (interaction with the internal cloud solution is clear and understandable), PEOU2 (does not require a lot of effort), PEOU3 (easy to…”
BackgroundMethod(2012) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 76
A perceived reliability-based customer satisfaction model in self-service technology
Barua, Z., Aimin, W., & Hongyi, X. (2017) · Service Industries Journal · doi:10.1080/02642069.2017.1400533 · Cited by 77
“To support this, we can refer to Venkatesh and Bala (2008) who specify that reliability is the perceived output quality in their TAM3.”
MethodTan, P. J. B. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11061748 · Cited by 75
“Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) [24], Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [32], and Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) [29].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSabah, N. M. (2019) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2019.1623323 · Cited by 90
“Other studies have integrated extrinsic and intrinsic motivations into a single acceptance/adoption model to fi ll up the gap, but without capturing the relationships between motivations (Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Abdullah and Ward 2016).”
BackgroundAcceptance and use of big data techniques in services companies
Cabrera-Sánchez, J.-P., & Ramos, Á. F. V. (2019) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101888 · Cited by 91
“…services 1 2 12 15 Health services 8 3 2 8 21 Other services 34 22 15 23 3 97 Total 59 35 27 74 4 199 Verma et al., 2018), but their studies have used the original TAM (Davis, 1985), TAM2 (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) or TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), or the UTAUT model without any added variables.”
BackgroundInvestigating consumer acceptance of autonomous technologies: the case of self-driving automobiles
Baccarella, C. V., Wagner, T. F., Scheiner, C. W., Maier, L., & Voigt, K. (2020) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-09-2019-0245 · Cited by 84
Patient experience in the digital age: An investigation into the effect of generational cohorts
Alkire, L., O’Connor, G. E., Myrden, S. E., & Köcher, S. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102221 · Cited by 79
“Building upon the Generational Cohort Theory and technology acceptance research (Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Venkatesh et al., 2003), we develop a conceptual model that explains potential differences in a patient ’ s digital experience across different…”
MethodUser Familiarity and Satisfaction With Food Delivery Mobile Apps
Choi, J.-C. (2020) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244020970563 · Cited by 81
“While both ETAM and TAM3 demonstrate strength of collectiveness, TAM has the advantage in terms of model parsimony (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundArtificial Intelligence Service Agents: Role of Parasocial Relationship
Noor, N., Hill, S. R., & Troshani, I. (2021) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2021.1962213 · Cited by 90
“The association between technology and well-being may be negative if the user is unsure of how to use a complex system, 81 or positive if the technology facilitates continued interactions.”
BackgroundDeterminants of Behavioral Intentions to Use Islamic Financial Technology: An Empirical Assessment
Khan, M. S., Rabbani, M. R., Hawaldar, I. T., & Bashar, A. (2022) · Risks · doi:10.3390/risks10060114 · Cited by 87
Understanding the Determinants of Blockchain Technology Adoption in the Construction Industry
Wang, X., Liu, L., Liu, J., & Xiaojun, H. (2022) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings12101709 · Cited by 89
“Venkatesh et al. [10] integrates multiple models such as task technology matching model, rational behavior theory, and planned behavior theory, and proposes the integration theory of technology acceptance above model [11].”
Samadzad, M., Nosratzadeh, H., Karami, H., & Karami, A. R. (2023) · Transport Policy · doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.03.006 · Cited by 77
Osrof, H. Y., Tan, C. L., Gunasekaran, A., Yeo, S. F., & Tan, K. H. (2023) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102400 · Cited by 96
Panagoulias, D. P., Sarmas, E., Marinakis, V., Virvou, M. K., Tsihrintzis, G. A., & Doukas, H. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12214430 · Cited by 75
“Nielsen argued that designing systems with good usability leads to a higher perceived ease of use, which in turn results in more positive user experiences and increased technology adoption [54].”
Melzner, J., Heinze, J., & Fritsch, T. (2014) · Procedia Technology · doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2014.10.155 · Cited by 76
“However, its extensions TAM2 [17], UTAUT [18], TAM 3 [19] do make an effort to overcome these shortcomings and are the predominant models used in predicting the adoption of technological products and services.”
BackgroundUnderstanding the adoption and usage of mobile payment services by using TAM3
Jaradat, M.-I. R. M., & Mashaqba, A. M. A. (2014) · International Journal of Business Information Systems · doi:10.1504/ijbis.2014.063768 · Cited by 75
“Measurement items used in this study were adapted from previously validated measures (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), and were derived from thorough consultation with information systems/information technology experts to ensure their reliability and validity for each item.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPerceived Benefits and E-Commerce Adoption by SME Travel Agents in Developing Countries
Abou‐Shouk, M., Megicks, P., & Lim, W. M. (2012) · Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research · doi:10.1177/1096348012442544 · Cited by 86
“Examples of these models include technology acceptance models (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), the diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers, 1995), IT adoption models (Moore & Benbasat, 2001; Premkumar & Roberts, 1999; Riemenschneider, Harrison, &…”
From Data to Decisions: Helping Crop Producers Build Their Actionable Knowledge
Evans, K. J., Terhorst, A., & Kang, B. H. (2017) · Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1080/07352689.2017.1336047 · Cited by 76
“Specific failures can often be attributed to one or more key factors or moderators described by the various iterations of the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2000, 2016; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Rose et al., 2016).”
BackgroundRazmak, J., & Bélanger, C. H. (2018) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-07-2016-0160 · Cited by 76
Effects of Technology Readiness Towards Acceptance of Mandatory Web-Based Attendance System
Nugroho, M. A., & Fajar, M. A. (2017) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.161 · Cited by 75
Barclay, C., Donalds, C., & Osei-Bryson, K.-M. (2018) · Information Technology for Development · doi:10.1080/02681102.2018.1476831 · Cited by 86
“Other models include TAM 3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).”
MethodBenefits and Challenges of Cloud Computing Adoption and Usage in Higher Education
Ali, M. B., Wood‐Harper, T., & Mohamad, M. (2018) · International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.4018/ijeis.2018100105 · Cited by 74
“The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by Davis (1989) was used to assess community colleges’ influence to adopt and use CC and interviews were conducted to extract these adoptive behaviours from students within their respected institution (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
MethodIsernia, S., Pagliari, C., Jonsdottir, J., Castiglioni, C., Gindri, P., Gramigna, C., Palumbo, G., Salza, M., Molteni, F., Baglio, F., et al. (2019) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.01206 · Cited by 78
“Technology Acceptance Model-3 (38) was utilized in order to deepen patients’ beliefs related to their inclination to experience the HEAD system.”
MethodInfluentialRouidi, M., Elouadi, A., & Hamdoune, A. (2022) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076221081693 · Cited by 82
FINTECH ACCOUNTING AND INDUSTRY 4.0: FUTURE-PROOFING OR THREATS TO THE ACCOUNTING PROFESSION?
Fülöp, M. T., Topor, D. I., Ionescu, C. A., Căpuşneanu, S., Breaz, T. O., & Stănescu, S. G. (2022) · Journal of Business Economics and Management · doi:10.3846/jbem.2022.17695 · Cited by 85
Salloum, S. A., Bettayeb, A. M., Salloum, A., Aburayya, A., Khadragy, S., Hamoudi, R., & Alfaisal, R. (2023) · Informatics in Medicine Unlocked · doi:10.1016/j.imu.2023.101354 · Cited by 95
Modeling voluntary CAAT utilization decisions in auditing
Curtis, M. B., & Payne, E. A. (2014) · Managerial Auditing Journal · doi:10.1108/maj-07-2013-0903 · Cited by 77
Adapted technology acceptance model for mobile policing
Lindsay, R., Jackson, T., & Cooke, L. (2011) · Journal of Systems and Information Technology · doi:10.1108/13287261111183988 · Cited by 74
“The TAM3 model developed by Venkatesh and Bala (2008)”
MethodKwee-Meier, S. T., Bützler, J., & Schlick, C. M. (2016) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2016.1141986 · Cited by 74
“…introduced by Davis in the context of the TAM (Davis 1985) and has ever since stayed a key construct in technology acceptance models for information technology (Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh et al. 20031; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu 20122; Halilovic and Cicic 2013).”
BackgroundMethodJung, N., Moula, M. M. E., Fang, T., Hamdy, M., & Lahdelma, R. (2016) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.07.006 · Cited by 74
Holden, R. J., Asan, O., Wozniak, E. M., Flynn, K. E., & Scanlon, M. C. (2016) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0388-y · Cited by 85
“…the classic TAM is not suitable for explaining contemporary health IT acceptance and note various revisions of TAM in the IT acceptance literature, [32 – 35] as well as inconsistencies between how TAM constructs are operationalized and the unique nature of healthcare [12, 22, 25, 26, 36 – 39].”
BackgroundMa, Q., Chan, A. H. S., & Teh, P.-L. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12114555 · Cited by 73
“have focused on developing positive outcome expectations toward information technologies, systems, and software [39,88].”
BackgroundEvaluation of affective embodied agents in an information literacy game
Guo, Y. R., & Goh, D. H. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.013 · Cited by 73
Vogelsang, C., Finger, A., Laumann, D., & Thyssen, C. (2019) · Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften · doi:10.1007/s40573-019-00095-6 · Cited by 73
Determinants of consumer’s readiness to adopt Islamic banking in Kashmir
Charag, A. H., Fazili, A. I., & Bashir, I. (2019) · Journal of Islamic marketing · doi:10.1108/jima-10-2018-0182 · Cited by 102
Technology in Physical Education Teacher Education: A Call to Action
Krause, J. M., O’Neil, K., & Jones, E. M. (2019) · Quest · doi:10.1080/00336297.2019.1685553 · Cited by 73
“Factors such as perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of -use embedded within the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM 3, Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) have been identified as most significant.”
BackgroundMotivation, Stress and Impact of Online Teaching on Italian Teachers during COVID-19
Toto, G. A., & Limone, P. (2021) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers10060075 · Cited by 87
“Although in the first place the theory was devised to test acceptance of the use of the PC, subsequent studies [18] have shown that it is also easily usable in the field of communication technologies in general (Figure 1).”
BackgroundA Comparative Study of Users versus Non-Users’ Behavioral Intention towards M-Banking Apps’ Adoption
Saprikis, V., Avlogiaris, G., & Katarachia, A. (2022) · Information · doi:10.3390/info13010030 · Cited by 75
“Concerning the ICT inhibitors (i.e., risk and anxiety), the measurement items of this study were based on Compeau et al. [70], Jarvenpaa et al. [96], Thatcher & Perrewe [97], Venkatesh & Bala [98] and Wakefield & Whitten’s [99] research works.”
BackgroundMethodAl-Sharafi, M. A., Al‐Emran, M., Arpacı, İ., Marques, G., Namoun, A., & Iahad, N. A. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2084036 · Cited by 80
“Furthermore, the items used to measure the social factors were adapted from (Arpaci et al., 2020; 2022; Davis, 1985; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), while the items used for continuous intention were adapted from (Bhattacherjee, 2001).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWenxiang, Z., Siyal, S., Riaz, S., Ahmad, R., Hilmi, M. F., & Li, Z. (2023) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440231181388 · Cited by 106
“These elements are thought to significantly affect decision of individual person to adopt new technology tools (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundFacilitating retail customers’ use of AI-based virtual assistants: A meta-analysis
Blut, M., Wünderlich, N. V., & Brock, C. (2024) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2024.04.001 · Cited by 75
Holden, R. J., Brown, R., Scanlon, M. C., & Karsh, B. (2012) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000754 · Cited by 76
A qualitative enquiry into the appropriation of mobile telephony at the bottom of the pyramid
Dey, B. L., Binsardi, B., Prendergast, R., & Saren, M. (2013) · International Marketing Review · doi:10.1108/imr-03-2012-0058 · Cited by 80
Hu, X., Griffin, M. A., & Bertuleit, M. (2016) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.018 · Cited by 73
Martens, M., Roll, O., & Elliott, R. (2017) · International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management · doi:10.1142/s021987701750033x · Cited by 72
Gamification of ERP Systems – Exploring Gamification Effects on User Acceptance Constructs
Herzig, P., Strahringer, S., & Amerling, M. (2012) · Digitale Bibliothek Braunschweig (Verbundzentrale Göttingen (VZG)) · doi:10.24355/dbbs.084-201301111159-0 · Cited by 74
Ammirato, S., Sofo, F., Felicetti, A. M., & Raso, C. (2018) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-03-2018-0058 · Cited by 84
Farooq, M., & Raju, V. (2019) · Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management · doi:10.1007/s40171-019-00209-6 · Cited by 72
Understanding the antecedents and consequences of the perceived usefulness of travel review websites
Wang, P., & Li, H. (2019) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-06-2017-0380 · Cited by 73
Richad, R., VIVENSIUS, V., Sfenrianto, S., & Kaburuan, E. R. (2019) · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT · doi:10.34218/ijm.10.3.2019.011 · Cited by 73
Digitalization in banking sector: the role of intrinsic motivation
Bastari, A., Eliyana, A., Syabarrudin, A., Arief, Z., & Emur, A. P. (2020) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05801 · Cited by 84
“In addition, perceived usefulness discusses technology acceptance related to extrinsic functions and bene fi ts in using technology (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialAugmented Reality in Manufacturing: Exploring Workers’ Perceptions of Barriers
Schein, K. E., & Rauschnabel, P. A. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2021.3093833 · Cited by 74
“TAM2 [49] and TAM3 [50] are examples of TAM extensions that partly address this criticism.”
BackgroundHuman-machine symbiosis: A multivariate perspective for physically coupled human-machine systems
Inga, J., Rueß, M., Robens, J. H., Nelius, T., Rothfuß, S., Kille, S., Dahlinger, P., Lindenmann, A., Thomaschke, R., Neumann, G. M., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102926 · Cited by 85
Iancu, I., & Iancu, B. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1111003 · Cited by 68
“The perceive usefulness (PU) of interacting with chatbots uses nine items and it is measured on a 7-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Luo and Remus, 2014; O’Brien et al., 2018).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialUnderstanding perceptions of academics toward technology acceptance in accounting education
Al‐Hattami, H. M. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13141 · Cited by 89
“However, the initial TAM model explained about 40% of behavioral intention [68].”
BackgroundMachado-da-Silva, F. N., Meirelles, F. D. S., Filenga, D., & FILHO, M. B. (2014) · Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.17718/tojde.52605 · Cited by 71
“In order to find plausible solutions for the e-learning assessment process, concepts related to information systems assessment were widely used (Delone and Mclean, 1992; Davis, 1993; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Van Aken, 2005).”
MethodAssessing e-learning system in higher education institutes
Ali, M., Raza, S. A., Qazi, W., & Puah, C. (2018) · Interactive Technology and Smart Education · doi:10.1108/itse-02-2017-0012 · Cited by 72
Acceptance of electric passenger cars in commercial fleets
Globisch, J., Dütschke, E., & Schleich, J. E. (2018) · Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.tra.2018.06.004 · Cited by 72
Continuously Assessing and Improving Software Quality With Software Analytics Tools: A Case Study
Martínez‐Fernández, S., Vollmer, A. M., Jedlitschka, A., Franch, X., López, L., Ram, P., Rodríguez, P., Aaramaa, S., Bagnato, A., Choraś, M., et al. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2917403 · Cited by 75
“Examples of constructs are ‘Perceived usefulness’ and ‘Behavioral intention’ [48].”
Kao, Y.-S., Nawata, K., & Huang, C.-Y. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16183227 · Cited by 62
“The concept of usage behavior has been validated and used in many studies for explaining new technology adoptive behavior by users [77].”
BackgroundAlshammarı, S. H., Ali, M. B., & Rosli, M. S. (2016) · The turkish online journal of educational technology · Cited by 71
The Shift to Socio-Organizational Drivers of Business Intelligence and Analytics Acceptance
Grublješič, T., Coelho, P. S., & Jaklič, J. (2019) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2019040103 · Cited by 76
Exploring students’ digital informal learning: the roles of digital competence and DTPB factors
He, T., Huang, Q., Yu, X., & Li, S. (2020) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2020.1752800 · Cited by 70
“Digital competence is thus connected to students ’ computer or ICT self-e ffi cacy, placing the emphasis on students ’ perception of their capabilities to use ICT to achieve the prede fi ned objectives (Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialTsourela, M., & Nerantzaki, D.-M. (2020) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi12110191 · Cited by 79
“Venkatesh and Bala [37] synthesized prior research on TAM and developed a theoretical framework, in which social influence is a determinant factor of PEOU and PU.”
MethodWesche, J. S., & Sonderegger, A. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106931 · Cited by 99
Almarzouqi, A., Aburayya, A., & Salloum, S. A. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272735 · Cited by 91
Enhancing argumentative writing with automated feedback and social comparison nudging
Wambsganß, T., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2022) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104644 · Cited by 93
Zechner, O., Kleygrewe, L., Jaspaert, E., Schrom-Feiertag, H., Hutter, V., & Tscheligi, M. (2023) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti7020014 · Cited by 88
“User experiences were assessed based on Technology Acceptance (TAS) [40], Quality of Experience (QoE) [41], Quality of Learning (QoLE) [42], Sense of Presence Inventory (SOPI) [43], Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) for stress [44,45] and mental effort [46], and open qualitative feedback.”
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
