The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models
Abstract
The Technology Acceptance Model and two variations of the Theory of Planned Behavior were compared to assess which model best helps to understand usage of information technology. The models were compared using student data collected from 786 potential users of a computer resource center. Behavior data was based on monitoring 3,780 visits to the resource center over a 12-week period. Weighted least squares estimation revealed that all three models performed well in terms of fit and were roughly equivalent in terms of their ability to explain behavior. Decomposing the belief structures in the Theory of Planned Behavior provided a moderate increase in the explanation of behavioral intention. Overall, the results indicate that the decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior provides a fuller understanding of behavioral intention by focusing on the factors that are likely to influence systems use through the application of both design and implementation strategies.
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
“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.”
From Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions (2008) · cites this paper as Taylor & Todd, 1995
In the citing paper
“The fundamental assumption of the theory is that users’ beliefs influence their behavioral intentions, and these intentions, in turn, determine their actual behavior toward using a given technology (Taylor and Todd, 1995).”
From A two-step structural equation modeling and explainable machine learning framework for understanding university students’ adoption of generative AI: balancing intrinsic motivations and perceived risks (2026) · cites this paper as Taylor and Todd, 1995
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
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
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 25,810
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
From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,475
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
The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update
(2003) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748 · Cited by 11,791
Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model1
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250921 · Cited by 8,767
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
Metadata
- Authors
- Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A.
- Affiliations
- Queen's University (CA)
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 1995-06
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 144-176
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W1987198869
- Cited by
- 8,815
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 226 · 2025: 285 · 2024: 376 · 2023: 421 · 2022: 485 · 2021: 558 · 2020: 448 · 2019: 422 · 2018: 428 · 2017: 357 · 2016: 384 · 2015: 481 · 2014: 453 · 2013: 487 · 2012: 410
- FWCI
- 53.52
- 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 › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Keywords
- information technology use, technology acceptance model, theory of planned behavior, behavioral intention, student users, belief structures, model comparison
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
