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
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
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
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
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159
Venkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664
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