CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Technology Adoption and User BehaviourUsability and User Interface DesignInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Perceived system performance: a test of an extended technology acceptance model

Liu, Liping, Ma, Qingxiong·2006·ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems
DOI 10.1145/1161345.1161354
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this study, we introduce the notion of perceived system performance (PSP) to extend the technology acceptance model (TAM). We found that PSP explained 46% of the variation in ease of use, a 50% improvement over our current understanding of ease of use while using only one predictor. We also found that, when PSP is absent, TAM was validated as usual. However, when PSP is present, the relationship between ease of use and technology acceptance became insignificant, a phenomenon called conditional independence . We provide a causal reasoning-based explanation for our findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1161345.1161354

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Only one set of reviewed studies focused on electronic medical records, and it evaluated only a trial system temporarily.

    “Surprisingly, only one set of studies focused on EMR [107], although it was only a trial system that was temporarily evaluated by study participants.”

    From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [107]

  • Five reviewed studies collected data from a mix of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and medical technicians.

    “Five studies collected data from a mix of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and medical technicians [106-110].”

    From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [107]

  • The added variables in reviewed studies included perceived IT system characteristics, personal characteristics of users, organizational characteristics, and psychological variables such as ownership and trust.

    “The list of added variables includes various perceived IT system characteristics such as how well the system performs [96, 107, 112] and how relevant it is to one’s job [106], personal characteristics of users [98, 105, 106], characteristics of the organization such as readiness for IT or technical support [98, 105, 106, 109], and psychological variables such as ownership [101] and trust [103].”

    From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [107]

  • Some reviewed studies aggregated data across professions, making comparisons possible but not carried out.

    “Although individual or profession-specific differences may not have been possible to study in homogeneous samples, such as those comprised of only young physicians [99, 109], all-females [103], or all-males [96], there were studies in which comparisons were possible but not carried out, such as the study aggregating data from physicians, nurses, and information systems department staff [110], one”

    From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [107]

  • Reviewed studies varied in the stage of health IT studied, including prototypes, trial systems, to-be-implemented systems, and implemented systems of different ages.

    “Another is the stage of the health IT; some studies reviewed here studied prototypes [96], trial systems [107], or to-be-implemented systems [108], whereas others studied implemented systems that had been around for different lengths of times.”

    From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [107]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Liu, L., & Ma, Q.
Affiliations
  • University of Akron (US)
  • University of Central Missouri (US)
ORCID
Liu, Liping
Venue
ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2006-09-19
Volume
37
Issue
2-3
Pages
51-59
ISSN
  • 0095-0033 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-0936
DOI
10.1145/1161345.1161354
OpenAlex
W2059997740
Cited by
80
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM SIGMIS Database the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
technology acceptance model, perceived ease of use, technology acceptance, conditional independence, causal reasoning, model extension

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.

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