The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation
Abstract
This paper reports on the development of an instrument designed to measure the various perceptions that an individual may have of adopting an information technology (IT) innovation. This instrument is intended to be a tool for the study of the initial adoption and eventual diffusion of IT innovations within organizations. While the adoption of information technologies by individuals and organizations has been an area of substantial research interest since the early days of computerization, research efforts to date have led to mixed and inconclusive outcomes. The lack of a theoretical foundation for such research and inadequate definition and measurement of constructs have been identified as major causes for such outcomes. In a recent study examining the diffusion of new end-user IT, we decided to focus on measuring the potential adopters' perceptions of the technology. Measuring such perceptions has been termed a “classic issue” in the innovation diffusion literature, and a key to integrating the various findings of diffusion research. The perceptions of adopting were initially based on the five characteristics of innovations derived by Rogers (1983) from the diffusion of innovations literature, plus two developed specifically within this study. Of the existing scales for measuring these characteristics, very few had the requisite levels of validity and reliability. For this study, both newly created and existing items were placed in a common pool and subjected to four rounds of sorting by judges to establish which items should be in the various scales. The objective was to verify the convergent and discriminant validity of the scales by examining how the items were sorted into various construct categories. Analysis of inter-judge agreement about item placement identified both bad items as well as weaknesses in some of the constructs' original definitions. These were subsequently redefined. Scales for the resulting constructs were subjected to three separate field tests. Following the final test, the scales all demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability. Their validity was further checked using factor analysis, as well as conducting discriminant analysis comparing responses between adopters and nonadopters of the innovation. The result is a parsimonious, 38-item instrument comprising eight scales which provides a useful tool for the study of the initial adoption and diffusion of innovations. A short, 25 item, version of the instrument is also suggested.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“As most constructs in this study (i.e. repurchase intention, trust, satisfaction) have been well established in the existing literature we used/adapted previously validated measures as appropriate.”
From Trust, Satisfaction, and Online Repurchase Intention: The Moderating Role of Perceived Effectiveness of E-Commerce Institutional Mechanisms1 (2014) · cites this paper as Moore and Benbasat 1991
In the citing paper
“We subjected all the adapted items to the validation procedures described in the literature (Moore and Benbasat 1991).”
From Trust, Satisfaction, and Online Repurchase Intention: The Moderating Role of Perceived Effectiveness of E-Commerce Institutional Mechanisms1 (2014) · cites this paper as Moore and Benbasat 1991
In the citing paper
“The tradition of adding variables is common in research on TAM [51, 136, 137] and on more general theories of human behavior [138, 139].”
From The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care (2010) · cites this paper as [136]
Citations
Cites
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,882
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
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,670
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
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
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Stockton, R. A., & Kerlinger, F. N. (1974) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1162206 · Cited by 7,359
(1985) · Cited by 6,185
A First Course in Factor Analysis
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9781315827506 · Cited by 4,546
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,048 of 1,048
Applying TAM to e-services adoption: the moderating role of perceived risk
Featherman, M., & Fuller, M. (2003) · 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the · doi:10.1109/hicss.2003.1174433 · Cited by 122
Rethinking determinants of ICT acceptance: towards an integrated and comprehensive overview
Verdegem, P., & De Marez, L. (2011) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.02.004 · Cited by 119
Terblanche, N., & Kidd, M. (2022) · Sage Open · doi:10.1177/21582440221096136 · Cited by 120
Supply chain innovation diffusion: Going beyond adoption
Hazen, B. T., Overstreet, R. E., & Cegielski, C. G. (2012) · The International Journal of Logistics Management · doi:10.1108/09574091211226957 · Cited by 117
Clinton-McHarg, T., Yoong, S. L., Tzelepis, F., Regan, T., Fielding, A., Skelton, E., Kingsland, M., Ooi, J. Y., & Wolfenden, L. (2016) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0512-5 · Cited by 116
E-government diffusion: a comparison of adoption constructs
Carter, L. (2008) · Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy · doi:10.1108/17506160810902167 · Cited by 112
Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Voet, T., Adang, L., Vercruysse, J., & Duyck, P. (2008) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.3414/me0477 · Cited by 111
Nursing students’ behavioral intention to use online courses: A questionnaire survey
Tung, F.-C., & Chang, S.-C. (2008) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.09.011 · Cited by 109
Understanding the determinants of novel technology adoption among teachers: the case of 3D printing
Holzmann, P., Schwarz, E. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (2020) · The Journal of Technology Transfer · doi:10.1007/s10961-018-9693-1 · Cited by 107
“1991), and the innovation diffusion theory (IDT) (Moore and Benbasat 1991).”
BackgroundOlder Adults' Acceptance of Information Technology
Wang, L., Rau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2011) · Educational Gerontology · doi:10.1080/03601277.2010.500588 · Cited by 102
Yang, C., & Su, Y. (2009) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/17410390910999602 · Cited by 104
PDA usage in healthcare professionals: testing an extended technology acceptance model
Liang, H., Xue, Y., & Byrd, T. A. (2003) · International Journal of Mobile Communications · doi:10.1504/ijmc.2003.003992 · Cited by 98
Toward a theoretical approach to medical error reporting system research and design
Karsh, B.-T., Escoto, K. H., Beasley, J. W., & Holden, R. J. (2006) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2005.07.003 · Cited by 98
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Aldraiweesh, A. A., Alturki, U., Alamri, M., Bin Saud, M. S., Kamin, Y. B., Aljeraiwi, A. A., & Alhamed, O. A. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2906668 · Cited by 96
Carper, M. M., McHugh, R. K., & Barlow, D. H. (2013) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-011-0377-5 · Cited by 92
Lin, T. T. C., & Bautista, J. R. (2017) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2017.1296508 · Cited by 89
Lee, K., Lee, K. Y., & Sheehan, L. (2020) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-019-09975-1 · Cited by 95
AI Literacy - Towards Measuring Human Competency in Artificial Intelligence
Pinski, M., & Benlian, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2023.021 · Cited by 94
Nanyang Technological University, Chandra, S., Srivastava, S., HEC School of Management, P., Theng, Y.-L., & Nanyang Technological University (2012) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00310 · Cited by 90
Online disinhibition: conceptualization, measurement, and implications for online deviant behavior
Cheung, C. M. K., Wong, R. Y. M., & Chan, T. K. H. (2020) · Industrial Management & Data Systems · doi:10.1108/imds-08-2020-0509 · Cited by 89
PARE, G., & ELAM, J. J. (1995) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449299508914635 · Cited by 84
Liang, T.-P., Lin, Y.-L., & Hou, H.-C. (2021) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2021.103471 · Cited by 83
Song, Y., Yang, Y., & Cheng, P. (2022) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s22041614 · Cited by 95
“[95,96] PU2: I think that a voice interface is useful.”
Powell, B. J., Mettert, K. D., Dorsey, C. N., Weiner, B. J., Stanick, C. F., Lengnick-Hall, R., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., Barwick, M. A., Damschroder, L. J., et al. (2021) · Implementation Research and Practice · doi:10.1177/26334895211018862 · Cited by 79
Duyck, P., Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Voet, T., Adang, L., Ovaere, D., & Vercruysse, J. (2010) · Journal of Digital Imaging · doi:10.1007/s10278-008-9163-7 · Cited by 77
Construct Validity in Software Engineering Research and Software Metrics
Ralph, P., & Tempero, E. (2018) · Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2018 · doi:10.1145/3210459.3210461 · Cited by 78
Ahmed, S., & Aziz, N. A. (2025) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2400395 · Cited by 67
Impact of an acceptance facilitating intervention on psychotherapists' acceptance of blended therapy
Baumeister, H., Terhorst, Y., Grässle, C., Freudenstein, M., Nübling, R., & Ebert, D. D. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236995 · Cited by 53
“Acceptance was operationalized based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [42], which emerged from eight different acceptance models: Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; [43]), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, [44]), Motivational Model (MM; [45]), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; [46]), Combi…”
MethodWang, Y.-Y., Luse, A., Townsend, A. M., & Mennecke, B. E. (2015) · Information Systems and e-Business Management · doi:10.1007/s10257-014-0269-9 · Cited by 54
Yeow, P. H. P., & Loo, W. H. (2009) · International Journal of Electronic Government Research · doi:10.4018/jegr.2009040103 · Cited by 53
Adoption of Internet and Web Technology for Hotel Marketing: A Study of Hotels in Thailand
Khemthong, S., & Roberts, L. M. (2006) · Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics · doi:10.15209/jbsge.v1i2.74 · Cited by 53
Artificial Intelligence and Groups: Effects of Attitudes and Discretion on Collaboration
Bezrukova, K., Griffith, T. L., Spell, C., Rice, V., & Yang, H. E. (2023) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/10596011231160574 · Cited by 51
Kifle, M., Payton, F. C., Mbarika, V., & Meso, P. (2010) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2009.0008 · Cited by 51
Sams, L. D., Rozier, R. G., Wilder, R. S., & Quinonez, R. B. (2013) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.301138 · Cited by 44
Mettler, T., & Winter, R. (2016) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2015.28 · Cited by 47
Lewis, C. C., Mettert, K., & Lyon, A. R. (2021) · Implementation Research and Practice · doi:10.1177/2633489521994197 · Cited by 38
Chen, C. C., Wu, J., & Crandall, R. E. (2007) · International Journal of Electronic Healthcare · doi:10.1504/ijeh.2007.013100 · Cited by 43
Kowatsch, T., Lohse, K.-M., Erb, V., Schittenhelm, L., Galliker, H., Lehner, R., & Huang, E. M. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/23612 · Cited by 39
A Success Model for the Malaysian Government e-Procurement System: The Buyer Perspective
Kassim, E. S., & Hussin, H. (2013) · International Journal of Electronic Government Research · doi:10.4018/jegr.2013010101 · Cited by 34
Acceptance and effectiveness of Rain Classroom in linguistics classes
Yu, Z., & Yi, H. (2020) · International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning · doi:10.4018/ijmbl.2020040105 · Cited by 33
Acceptance of different design exergames in elders
Chen, C.-K., Tsai, T.-H., Lin, Y.-C., Lin, C.-C., Hsu, S.-C., Chung, C.-Y., Pei, Y.-C., & Wong, A. M. K. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0200185 · Cited by 31
Hong, I. B. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10082856 · Cited by 25
Determinants and impact of cloud computing implementation in the public sector
Faculty of Entrepreneurship and Business, U. M. K., Sallehudin, H., Razak, R. C., & Ismail, M. (2016) · Journal of Advances in Information Technology · doi:10.12720/jait.7.4.245-251 · Cited by 23
Study on Intention and Attitude of Using Artificial Intelligence Technology in Healthcare
단국대학교 보건과학대학 보건행정학과, 연. 의., & Kim, J.-M. (2017) · Convergence Society for SMB · doi:10.22156/cs4smb.2017.7.4.053 · Cited by 21
Ukoha, O., Okorie Awa, H., A. Nwuche, C., & Asiegbu, I. (2011) · Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management · doi:10.28945/1431 · Cited by 20
Ismail, M., Celebi, E., & Nadiri, H. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2934782 · Cited by 19
Exploring Factors Impacting Users' Attitude and Intention towards Social Tagging Systems
Allam, H., Blustein, J., Bliemel, M., & Spiteri, L. (2012) · 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2012.267 · Cited by 19
AI Literacy in Higher Education: A Systematic Approach to Questionnaire Development and Validation
Ranieri, M., Biagini, G., & Cuomo, S. (2025) · International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence · doi:10.4018/ijdldc.388469 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- ORCID
- Benbasat, Izak
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 1991-09
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 192-222
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2100408980
- Cited by
- 9,150
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 245 · 2025: 313 · 2024: 362 · 2023: 410 · 2022: 483 · 2021: 506 · 2020: 443 · 2019: 446 · 2018: 390 · 2017: 398 · 2016: 403 · 2015: 477 · 2014: 503 · 2013: 472 · 2012: 455
- FWCI
- 43.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Innovation Diffusion and Forecasting
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
- Keywords
- information technology adoption, diffusion of innovations, instrument development, scale development, construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity, inter-judge agreement, factor analysis
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