Cited by 3,575Technology Adoption and User BehaviourInnovation Diffusion and ForecastingGender and Technology in Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology

Agarwal, Ritu, Prasad, Jayesh·1998·Information Systems Research

Abstract

The acceptance of new information technologies by their intended users persists as an important issue for researchers and practitioners of information systems. Several models have been developed in the literature to facilitate understanding of the process by which new information technologies are adopted. This paper proposes a new construct that further illuminates the relationships explicit in the technology acceptance models and describes an operational measure for this construct that possesses desirable psychometric properties. The construct, personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology, is hypothesized to exhibit moderating effects on the antecedents as well as the consequences of individual perceptions about a new information technology. The construct was developed and validated in the context of the innovation represented by the World-Wide Web. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.9.2.204

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 34 references

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Brancheau J. C., 1990, Inform. Systems Res., 1, 41
  2. Carroll J., 1996, Comput. Canada, 22, 33
  3. Delmonico D., 1996, Comm. Week, 592, 46
  4. Jackson D. N. A., 1976, Jackson Personality Inventory Manual
  5. Joreskog K. G., 1993, Lisrel 8, User's Reference Guide
  6. Nunnally J. C., 1978, Psychometric Theory
  7. Rogers E. M., 1971, Communication of Innovations
  8. Rogers E. M., 1983, Diffusion of Innovations
  9. Wexler J., 1993, Computerworld, 27, 71

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,007

Metadata

Authors
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J.
Affiliations
  • Florida State University (US)
  • University of Dayton (US)
Venue
Information Systems Research
Published
1998-06
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
204-215
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
OpenAlex
W2162061662
Cited by
3,575
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 213 · 2025: 256 · 2024: 262 · 2023: 231 · 2022: 234 · 2021: 233 · 2020: 206 · 2019: 146 · 2018: 173 · 2017: 128 · 2016: 143 · 2015: 178 · 2014: 165 · 2013: 161 · 2012: 149
FWCI
29.69
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
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
Keywords
personal innovativeness, information technology adoption, technology acceptance model, moderating effect, operational measurement, psychometric validation, World Wide Web, user perception, construct definition

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