The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing User Competence: Conceptualization and Measurement
Abstract
Organizations today face great pressure to maximize the bene its from their investments in information technology (IT). They are challenged not just to use IT, but to use it as effectively as possible. Understanding how to assess the competence of users is critical in maximizing the effectiveness of IT use. Yet the user competence construct is largely absent from prominent technology acceptance and it models, poorly conceptualized, and inconsistently measured. We begin by presenting a conceptual model of the assessment of user competence to organize and clarify the diverse literature regarding what user competence means and the problems of assessment. As an illustrative study, we then report the findings from an experiment involving 66 participants. The experiment was conducted to compare empirically two methods (paper and pencil tests versus self-report questionnaire), across two different types of software, or domains of knowledge (word processing versus spreadsheet packages), and two different conceptualizations of competence (software knowledge versus self-efficacy). The analysis shows statistical significance in all three main effects. How user competence is measured, what is measured, what measurement context is employed:all influence the measurement outcome. Furthermore, significant interaction effects indicate that different combinations of measurement methods, conceptualization, and knowledge domains produce different results. The concept of frame of reference, and its anchoring effect on subjects' responses, explains a number of these findings. The study demonstrates the need for clarity in both defining what type of competence is being assessed and in drawing conclusions regarding competence, based upon the types of measures used. Since the results suggest that definition and measurement of the user competence construct can change the ability score being captured, the existing information system (IS) models of usage must contain the concept of an ability rating. We conclude by discussing how user competence can be incorporated into the Task-Technology Fit model, as well as additional theoretical and practical implications of our research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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
Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60 · Cited by 10,697
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150
Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 · Cited by 8,815
Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249689 · Cited by 6,006
Mathieson, K. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.173 · Cited by 4,216
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311 · Cited by 1,831
Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A self-efficacy analysis.
Schunk, D. H. (1981) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.1.93 · Cited by 781
Cited by
Predictive Analytics in Information Systems Research1
Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. R. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/23042796 · Cited by 1,328
Predictive Analytics in Information Systems Research
Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. (2010) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1606674 · Cited by 676
Pinski, M., & Benlian, A. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100062 · Cited by 243
Research Note—Gamification of Technology-Mediated Training: Not All Competitions Are the Same
Santhanam, R., Liu, D., & Shen, W.-C. M. (2016) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2016.0630 · Cited by 213
Exploring the influence of perceptual factors in the success of web-based spatial DSS
Jarupathirun, S., & Zahedi, F. “. (2007) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.024 · Cited by 145
Metadata
- Authors
- Marcolin, B. L., Compeau, D. R., Munro, M. C., & Huff, S. L.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-60
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2116965437
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 25.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.