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 801–900 of 8,090
The Acceptance of Social Networking as a Learning Tools at University of Bahrain
Al-Ammary, J., Al-Sherooqi, A. K., & Al-Sherooqi, H. K. (2013) · International Journal of Information and Education Technology · doi:10.7763/ijiet.2014.v4.400 · Cited by 71
Lee, Y., Chen, A. N. K., & Ilie, V. (2012) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2481639.2481643 · Cited by 71
NFC technology acceptance for mobile payments: A Brazilian Perspective
de Luna, I. R., Montoro-Ríos, F. J., Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., & de Luna, J. G. (2016) · Review of Business Management · doi:10.7819/rbgn.v0i0.2315 · Cited by 71
“Subjective norms, also called social influences, are used in various models of acceptance of technology, as well as in their more recent adaptations (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodAnalisis pengaruh trust dan risk dalam penerimaan teknologi dompet elektronik Go-Pay
Priyono, A. (2017) · Jurnal Siasat Bisnis · doi:10.20885/jsb.vol21.iss1.art6 · Cited by 103
The role of agent autonomy in using decision support systems at work
Ulfert, A., Antoni, C. H., & Ellwart, T. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106987 · Cited by 84
“Derived from theoretical assumptions of the TAM (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) we further argued (Hypothesis 3), that participants would be more inclined to set the intention of using the DSS when the system is designed with low autonomy.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialChen, Y.-H., & Chengalur-Smith, I. N. (2015) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.005 · Cited by 73
Teo, T. P., & Huang, F. (2018) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1489856 · Cited by 78
“Consistent with previous studies (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008 , 2000), the signi fi cance of SN indicated that in educational contexts, if students or school leaders thought technology was useful and should be used in teaching, teachers tended to agree with these referents (Bellone & Czerniak, 2001).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialShahzad, F., Xiu, G., Khan, I., Shahbaz, M., Riaz, M. U., & Abbas, A. J. (2019) · Asia Pacific Education Review · doi:10.1007/s12564-019-09611-2 · Cited by 76
“According to the studies of Venkatesh and Bala (2008), a sample size of at least 200 is considered sufficient for structural equation modeling (SEM).”
MethodJournal of Technology Research
Baker, P. D. R. (2025) · Journal of Technology Research · doi:10.26629/jtr · Cited by 70
Zhang, H., He, J. Q., Shi, X., Hong, Q., Bao, J., & Xue, S. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12072891 · Cited by 72
Exploring the Determinants of Intention to Use P2P Mobile Payment in Spain
Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., Molinillo, S., & Japutra, A. (2020) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2020.1818897 · Cited by 80
“…allow for quick use of mobile applications (PU3) In general, peer-to-peer mobile payment systems could be useful for me (PU4) Perceived ease of use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) * Interaction with the tool is clear and easy to understand (PEOU1) It seems easy to get the tool to do what I want it to do…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAbdelrady, A. H., & Akram, H. (2022) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems10050154 · Cited by 100
Liao, S., Lin, L., & Chen, Q. (2023) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2023.103455 · Cited by 84
Older adults’ intention to use voice assistants: Usability and emotional needs
Liu, M., Wang, C., & Hu, J. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21932 · Cited by 99
“By incorporating social norms (TAM2) [64] and he-donism (TAM3) [65], several follow-up models have been proposed.”
BackgroundBehavioural intention in cloud-based VLE: An extension to Channel Expansion Theory
Hew, T.-S., & Kadir, S. L. S. A. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.075 · Cited by 69
Understanding K‐12 teachers’ intention to adopt open educational resources: A mixed methods inquiry
Tang, H., Lin, Y., & Qian, Y. (2020) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12937 · Cited by 70
“Later, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) proposed TAM 3 by including self-efficacy as a determinant of PE.”
BackgroundEffects and acceptance of precision education in an AI-supported smart learning environment
Hu, Y.-H. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10664-3 · Cited by 68
The determinants of teachers’ continuance commitment to e-learning in higher education
Gutiérrez, S. S. M., Jiménez, N., Rodríguez–Torrico, P., & Piñeiro-Ibarra, I. (2020) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10117-3 · Cited by 76
Consumer Acceptance and Adoption of AI Robo-Advisors in Fintech Industry
Sabir, A. A., Ahmad, I. A., Ahmad, H., Rafiq, M., Khan, M. A., & Noreen, N. (2023) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math11061311 · Cited by 92
Acceptance of online banking information systems: an empirical case in a developing economy
Chandio, F. H., Zahir Irani, A., Abbasi, M. S., & Nizamani, H. A. (2013) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2013.806593 · Cited by 72
“Consistent with previous studies in technology and IS acceptance (e.g. Venkatesh and Bala 2008, Al-Somali et al. 2009, Alsajjan and Dennis 2010, Abbasi et al. 2011), a quantitative, cross-sectional approach was adopted to test the proposed hypothetical model as shown in Figure 1.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialUnintended Consequences of Tele Health and their Possible Solutions
Maeder, A. J., Mars, M., Hartvigsen, G., et al. (2016) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.15265/iy-2016-012 · Cited by 68
“Elements contributing to user acceptability have been described by generalized models such as TAM, and include universal major factors such as perceived usefulness , perceived ease-of-use and behavioral-in-tention-to-use [30].”
Kurt, Ö. E., & Tıngöy, Ö. (2017) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0064-z · Cited by 68
“As a result of this evolution, TAM was followed by TAM2, and later by Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) in the literature (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Akhtar, S., Irfan, M., Sarwar, A., Asma, & Rashid, Q. U. A. (2019) · Journal of Public Affairs · doi:10.1002/pa.1884 · Cited by 73
The role of service providers in 3D printing adoption
Chaudhuri, A., Rogers, H., Søberg, P. V., et al. (2019) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-08-2018-0339 · Cited by 68
Hype or Help? A Longitudinal Field Study of Virtual World Use for Team Collaboration
Venkatesh, V., & Windeler, J. (2012) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00312 · Cited by 66
“The design of systems and leveraging the design as an intervention to produce positive outcomes related to IS implementations is important (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
Self-citationLin, P.-H., & Yeh, S. (2019) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2019.1571784 · Cited by 67
“Similarly, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) suggested that users ’ experiences have moderating effects on the key determinants in the TAM.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialPredicting determinants of the intention to use digital currency in the UAE: An empirical study
Almuraqab, N. A. S. (2019) · The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries · doi:10.1002/isd2.12125 · Cited by 67
“Accordingly, a person has confidence in embracing the latest technologies that will enhance their work performance, which is beneficial to professional growth (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Emad and Haider, 2015).”
BackgroundK-12 Students’ Online Learning Experiences during COVID-19: Lessons from China
Zuo, M., Ma, Y., Hu, Y., & Luo, H. (2021) · Frontiers of Education in China · doi:10.1007/s11516-021-0001-8 · Cited by 69
“…and Rueda (2012) and were sub-divided into behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement, and the items measuring student acceptance were informed by the TAM literature (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) and sub-divided into perceived usefulness, ease of use, and intent of continuous usage.”
MethodKoskinen, K. (2020) · Benjamins translation library · doi:10.1075/btl.152 · Cited by 74
Richardson, J. P., Curtis, S., Smith, C., Pacyna, J. E., Zhu, X., Barry, B. A., & Sharp, R. R. (2022) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076221089084 · Cited by 84
“7,8 These two models have been previously used separately and in combination to predict patient acceptance of healthcare technologies.”
BackgroundVirtual Reality Experience of Mega Sports Events: A Technology Acceptance Study
Capasa, L., Zulauf, K., & Wagner, R. (2022) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer17020036 · Cited by 71
“Moreover, [50] underlines the relevance of experience in relation to perceived ease of use; people who use a technology more strongly perceive it to be more straightforward to use than those who are trying the technology for the first time.”
BackgroundResultAligarh, F., Sutopo, B., & Widarjo, W. (2023) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2023.2220190 · Cited by 108
From profitability to trust: factors shaping digital agriculture adoption
Yeo, M. L., & Keske, C. M. H. (2024) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2024.1456991 · Cited by 85
Social Media Adoption in Business-to-Business: IT and Industrial Companies Compared
Veldeman, C., Praet, E. V., & Mechant, P. (2015) · International Journal of Business Communication · doi:10.1177/2329488415572785 · Cited by 67
“A TAM 3 has also been proposed (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundAn integrative model of e-learning use: Leveraging theory to understand and increase usage
Brown, K. G., & Charlier, S. D. (2012) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.004 · Cited by 70
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) also discuss implications of the TAM3 model on pre-implementation interventions, which include four broad categories (design characteristics, user participation, management support, and incentive alignment).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAloysius, J. A., Hoehle, H., Goodarzi, S., & Venkatesh, V. (2016) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-016-2276-3 · Cited by 67
“This linkage has been applied and contextualized in different studies and substantially corroborated over the last decade or so (e.g., Venkatesh et al. 2003, 2008; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
Self-citationDeb, M., & Agrawal, A. (2017) · Journal of Asia Business Studies · doi:10.1108/jabs-11-2015-0191 · Cited by 67
Investigation of physicians' awareness and use of mHealth apps: A mixed method study
Sezgın, E., Özkan, S., & Yıldırım, S. (2017) · Health Policy and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.hlpt.2017.07.007 · Cited by 74
The usefulness of algorithmic models in policy making
Kolkman, D. (2020) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2020.101488 · Cited by 75
Moradbakhti, L., Schreibelmayr, S., & Mara, M. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.855091 · Cited by 67
“Here, we used two of the ITU items from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM3; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008) and slightly adapted them to the context of our experiment: “I can imagine using the finance-coach in the future.”
MethodAchieving continued usage in online banking: a post-adoption study
Oertzen, A.-S., & Odekerken‐Schröder, G. (2019) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-09-2018-0239 · Cited by 69
“Extensive literature in information systems has validated the effect of intentions on behaviours (Ajzen, 1991; Taylor and Todd, 1995; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008); specifically, the strong causal relationship between intentions to use a technology and actual usage of that technology (Sheppard et al. ,…”
BackgroundInfluentialDigitalization process of complex B2B sales processes – Enablers and obstacles
Rodríguez, R., Svensson, G., & Mehl, E. (2020) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101324 · Cited by 103
Kamboj, S., & Joshi, R. (2020) · International Journal of Tourism Cities · doi:10.1108/ijtc-05-2020-0094 · Cited by 67
Continuance Intention of E-Learning: The Condition and Its Connection with Open Innovation
Suzianti, A., & Paramadini, S. A. (2021) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.3390/joitmc7010097 · Cited by 95
“edge from collaborative partners, thereby encouraging creativity and novel solutions and resulting in the rise of new technologies or new market possibilities [39,40].”
BackgroundA Study on the Factors Influencing Users’ Online Knowledge Paying-Behavior Based on the UTAUT Model
Yu, L., Chen, Z., Yao, P., & Liu, H. (2021) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.3390/jtaer16050099 · Cited by 65
Reputation and its consequences in Fintech services: the case of mobile banking
Nguyen, Y. T. H., Tapanainen, T., & Nguyen, H. T. T. (2022) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-08-2021-0371 · Cited by 79
Xie, T., Zheng, L., Liu, G., & Liu, L. (2022) · Virtual Reality · doi:10.1007/s10055-022-00656-0 · Cited by 71
“Compared with TAM, TAM2, and UTAUT, the framework presented by TAM3, i.e., external and individual factors, cognitive beliefs, behavioral intention, and actual use behavior (Venkatesh and Bala 2008), provides a more comprehensive and practical model analysis for the present study.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialNguyen, L. L. H., Khuu, D. T., Halibas, A. S., & Nguyen, T. Q. (2023) · Evaluation Review · doi:10.1177/0193841x231200775 · Cited by 81
“We therefore adopt the Uni fi ed Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), as the most comprehensive model to account for the complexity of behavioural intention and the effects of different contextual factors on that intention (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
MethodKumar, D., Singh, R., Mishra, R., & Daim, T. U. (2023) · Technological forecasting & social change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122837 · Cited by 63
Biometric m-payment systems: A multi-analytical approach to determining use intention
Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J., Kalinić, Z., Muñoz‐Leiva, F., & Higueras‐Castillo, E. (2023) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2023.103907 · Cited by 80
Gronau, N., Ullrich, A., & Teichmann, M. R. (2017) · Procedia Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2017.04.029 · Cited by 66
Schmidthuber, L., Hilgers, D., Gegenhuber, T. K., & Etzelstorfer, S. (2017) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.07.001 · Cited by 67
Chen, C.-P. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.015 · Cited by 66
Examining the Antecedents and Consequences of Customers’ Trust Toward Mobile Retail Apps in India
Kaushik, A. K., Mohan, G., & Kumar, V. (2019) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2019.1686333 · Cited by 66
“Therefore, PU has been included as a central construct in TAM, and it has been widely used as an effective measure of analyzing technology acceptance behavior (Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Xu, Benbasat, and Cenfetelli 2013).”
MethodAli, M. (2019) · International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing · doi:10.4018/ijcac.2019070106 · Cited by 65
Al-Azawei, A. (2019) · Journal of Information Technology Education Research · doi:10.28945/4360 · Cited by 78
“T he PLS - SEM technique is indicated as an appropriate approach for investigating technology acceptance when constructing a predictive model (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) .”
MethodWhy do older people love and hate assistive technology? ‒ an emotional experience perspective
Chen, K. (2020) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2020.1808714 · Cited by 71
Determinants of mobile money technology adoption in rural areas of Africa
Akinyemi, B. E., & Mushunje, A. (2020) · Cogent Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/23311886.2020.1815963 · Cited by 74
“Lastly, in 2008, apparently after noticing the inherent weaknesses in the previously proposed models, Venkatesh and Hillol (2008) later developed a new integrated model named TAM3, which combined TAM2 proposed by Venkatesh and Davis (2000) and the model of the determinants of PEOU (which was…”
MethodAdoption of alternative fuel vehicle fleets – A theoretical framework of barriers and enablers
Mohammed, L., Niesten, E., & Gagliardi, D. (2020) · Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.trd.2020.102558 · Cited by 66
Silva, G. M., Dias, Á., & Rodrigues, M. S. (2022) · Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity · doi:10.3390/joitmc8030114 · Cited by 71
Business Intelligence Acceptance: The Prominence of Organizational Factors
Grublješič, T., & Jaklič, J. (2015) · Information Systems Management · doi:10.1080/10580530.2015.1080000 · Cited by 77
“Other theories of the psychological impact on acceptance include extensions of the TAM model, namely TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) which Compeau and Higgins (1995) have used and adapted to the field of acceptance and use…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialA literature review of theoretical models of Internet banking adoption at the individual level
Yousafzai, S. (2012) · Journal of Financial Services Marketing · doi:10.1057/fsm.2012.19 · Cited by 66
“Recently, Venkatesh and Bala (2008) introduced an integrated model of TAM (TAM3) by combining TAM2 and the determinants of PEOU proposed by Venkatesh (2000) .”
BackgroundLazard, A. J., & Mackert, M. (2014) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.06.010 · Cited by 65
“73) [21,23,24,29].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Intention to Use E-Commerce Using Augmented Reality - The Case of IKEA Place
Alves, C. T., & Reis, J. L. (2020) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-40690-5_12 · Cited by 76
Alexandrakis, D., Chorianopoulos, K., & Tselios, N. K. (2020) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1768673 · Cited by 70
“…and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985) to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), TAM 2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), TAM 3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003), there is a variety of constructs and…”
BackgroundPeppeRecycle: Improving Children’s Attitude Toward Recycling by Playing with a Social Robot
Castellano, G., Carolis, B. N. D., D’Errico, F., Macchiarulo, N., & Rossano, V. (2021) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-021-00754-0 · Cited by 72
Atwal, G., & Bryson, D. (2021) · Strategic Change · doi:10.1002/jsc.2412 · Cited by 82
Exploring customers’ attitudes to the adoption of robots in tourism and hospitality
Abou‐Shouk, M., Gad, H. E. S., & Abdelhakim, A. (2021) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-09-2020-0215 · Cited by 64
A meta-regression of task-technology fit in information systems research
Jeyaraj, A. (2022) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102493 · Cited by 76
van Dun, D. H., & Kumar, M. (2023) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/ijopm-06-2022-0370 · Cited by 91
Kumari, N., & Biswas, A. (2023) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijbm-11-2022-0500 · Cited by 64
Loo, M. K., Ramachandran, S., & Yusof, R. N. R. (2023) · Cogent Economics & Finance · doi:10.1080/23322039.2023.2267748 · Cited by 140
“Venkatesh and Bala (2008) created an integrated model of technology acceptance, referred to TAM 3, combining TAM 2 with the model of the drivers of PEU (Venkatesh, 2000), as shown in Figure 12.”
MethodZou, B., Wang, C., Yan, Y., Du, X., & Ji, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.12658 · Cited by 66
Mobile phone communication in social support networks of older adults in Slovenia
Petrovčič, A., Fortunati, L., Vehovar, V., Kavčič, M., & Dolničar, V. (2015) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2015.02.005 · Cited by 64
Capece, G., & Campisi, D. (2011) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2011.630417 · Cited by 64
“…there is wide variation in the predicted effects in various studies with different types of users and systems (Czaja et al. 1986, Davis et al. 1989, Adams et al. 1992; Bagozzi et al. 1992, Keil et al. 1995, Venkatesh and Davis 2000, Landry et al. 2006, Capece et al. 2008, Venkatesh and Bala 2008).”
BackgroundSmith, S. P., Johnston, R. B., & Howard, S. (2010) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1090.0279 · Cited by 62
“…is not a property of either the consumer or the item alone, and so constitutes a moderating influence quite distinct from the expertise, self-efficacy, and other individual-difference effects proposed by mainstream IS theories, such TAM (Davis 1989, Venkatesh and Bala 2008) or TTF (Goodhue 1998).”
BackgroundJaradat, M.-I. R. M., & Faqih, K. M. S. (2014) · International Journal of Business and Management · doi:10.5539/ijbm.v9n11p147 · Cited by 64
“Result demonstrability which is recognized as the tangibility of the results of using the innovation and it is found to be significant and consistent predictors of perceived usefulness (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialAl-Maroof, R. S., Salloum, S. A., AlHamad, A., & Shaalan, K. F. (2020) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v14i03.11110 · Cited by 70
“Furthermore, the results show two important similarities between the three RXP groups: (1) the strongest path of influence is BI which includes both PEOU and PU (See also [71]), and (2) PEOU are affected significantly”
Human acceptance evaluation of AR-assisted assembly scenarios
Schuster, F., Engelmann, B., Sponholz, U., & Schmitt, J. (2021) · Journal of Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2020.12.012 · Cited by 56
Extending the Learning Technology Acceptance Model of WeChat by Adding New Psychological Constructs
Yu, Z. (2020) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633120923772 · Cited by 63
“These findings extend the basic TAM by proposing that psychological influence is a construct, which is promoted by cognitive benefits in institutional contexts (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
BackgroundAn Integrated Model of Continuous Intention to Use of Google Classroom
Al-Maroof, R. S., & Salloum, S. A. (2020) · Studies in systems, decision and control · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47411-9_18 · Cited by 68
Adov, L., Pedaste, M., Leijen, Ä., & Rannikmäe, M. (2020) · Technology Pedagogy and Education · doi:10.1080/1475939x.2020.1785928 · Cited by 72
“However, in previous studies, social support has been shown to predict behavioural intention (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and to be an important addition to the TAM model (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialHuang, F., & Teo, T. P. (2020) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13027 · Cited by 78
Siedl, S. M., & Mara, M. (2021) · Wearable Technologies · doi:10.1017/wtc.2021.10 · Cited by 64
“…of Acceptance andUse of Technology (UTAUT by Venkatesh et al., 2003; UTAUT2 by Venkatesh et al., 2012), TAM2 (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), TAM3 (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008), ALMERE for the context of socially assistive robots (Heerink et al., 2010), or AVAM for the area of autonomous vehicles…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialWeck, M., & Afanassieva, M. (2022) · Telecommunications Policy · doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102483 · Cited by 86
Adoption of Islamic Fintech in lending services through prediction of behavioural intention
Alsmadi, A. A., Alrawashdeh, N., Al-Gasaymeh, A., hazimeh, A. M. A., & Alhawamdeh, L. N. (2023) · Kybernetes · doi:10.1108/k-10-2022-1362 · Cited by 66
AI and emerging technology adoption: a research agenda for operations management
Venkatesh, V., Raman, R., & Cruz‐Jesus, F. (2023) · International Journal of Production Research · doi:10.1080/00207543.2023.2192309 · Cited by 64
“…of technology characteristics (features) as predictors of various general drivers of technology adoption has been strongly advocated in multiple previous papers on UTAUT and other technology adoption models – e.g. Venkatesh and Bala (2008), Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu (2016), and Venkatesh (2022).”
MethodSelf-citationAlawadhi, M., Alhumaid, K. F., Almarzooqi, S. H., Aljasmi, S., Aburayya, A., Salloum, S. A., & Almesmari, W. (2023) · South Eastern European Journal of Public Health · doi:10.56801/seejph.vi.310 · Cited by 64
Kemp, A., Palmer, E., Strelan, P., & Thompson, H. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13440 · Cited by 80
Predicting Public Bicycle Adoption Using the Technology Acceptance Model
Hazen, B. T., Overstreet, R. E., & Wang, Y. (2015) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su71114558 · Cited by 63
“Significant extensions include the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) [32] UTAUT 2 [33], TAM 2 [28] and TAM 3 [29].”
Usability of a Novel Mobile Health iPad App by Vulnerable Populations
MILLER, D. P., Weaver, K. E., Case, L. D., Babcock, D., Lawler, D., Denizard-Thompson, N. M., Pignone, M. P., & Spangler, J. G. (2017) · JMIR mhealth and uhealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.7268 · Cited by 65
“In particular, computer anxiety may be a barrier for older adults [36,40,41].”
Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality: New Drivers for Fashion Retail?
Boardman, R., Henninger, C. E., & Zhu, A. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15483-7_9 · Cited by 63
Technology Acceptance as a Determinant of Online Grocery Shopping Adoption
Bauerová, R., & Klepek, M. (2018) · Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis · doi:10.11118/actaun201866030737 · Cited by 62
“In addition, TAM3 combined TAM2 and the model of the determinants of PEOU, resulting in an integrated model of technology acceptance (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
BackgroundResultOfori, D. F., & Appiah-Nimo, C. (2019) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2019.1644715 · Cited by 69
“Further, (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) later combined TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and the model of the determinants of perceived ease of use (Venkatesh, 2000) and developed an integrated model of technology acceptance called TAM3.”
BackgroundSepasgozar, S. M. E., Ghobadi, M., Shirowzhan, S., Edwards, D. J., & Delzendeh, E. (2021) · Engineering Construction & Architectural Management · doi:10.1108/ecam-10-2020-0880 · Cited by 62
Saari, U. A., Tossavainen, A., Kaipainen, K., & Mäkinen, S. (2022) · Robotics and Autonomous Systems · doi:10.1016/j.robot.2022.104033 · Cited by 74
Al-Rahmi, A. M., Shamsuddin, A., Wahab, E., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Alturki, U., Aldraiweesh, A., & Almutairy, S. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.905968 · Cited by 76
“Furthermore, our research identifies the use of SM for increased cooperative learning as a key component in developing technology-based theories (49, 50).”
BackgroundMethodAdopting Digital Tools in Higher Education: Opportunities, Challenges and Theoretical Insights
Mexhuani, B. (2024) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12819 · Cited by 114
Acceptance and Use of E-Learning Based on Cloud Computing: The Role of Consumer Innovativeness
Nguyen, T. D., Nguyen, T. M., Pham, Q.-T., & Misra, S. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09156-3_12 · Cited by 61
“The theoretical underpinnings of the TRA [5, 24]; TBP [1, 2, 3] are widely used alongside TAM [18, 19] (or TAM2 [58], TAM3 [59]) in the researches on information systems.”
BackgroundMethodDo cultural dimensions differentiate ERP acceptance? A study in the context of Saudi Arabia
Alhirz, H., & Sajeev, A. S. M. (2015) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/itp-07-2013-0127 · Cited by 62
“In addition to this, ERP users and operational users in particular are more likely to perceive training as a means to explore their systems, as they would associate training sessions with the responsibilities and activities required for their use of ERP systems (Venkatesh and Bala, 2008).”
Background
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
