Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 958

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing

Straub, Detmar, Limayem, Moez, Karahanna-Evaristo, Elena·1995·Management Science

Abstract

There is widespread agreement among researchers that system usage, defined as the utilization of information technology (IT) by individuals, groups, or organizations, is the primary variable through which IT affects white collar performance. Despite the number of studies targeted at explaining system usage, there are crucial differences in the way the variable has been conceptualized and operationalized. This wide variation of system usage measures hinders the efforts of MIS researchers to compare findings across studies, thus impeding the accumulation of knowledge and theory in this area. The purpose of this paper is to address conceptual as well as methodological issues related to measuring system usage. First, via LISREL measurement modeling techniques, we compare subjective and objective measures of system usage, namely, self-reported versus computer-recorded measures. Next, using a modified form of Davis' Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as a nomological net, we test the nomological validity of these system usage constructs and measures. Results of the LISREL measurement and nomological net analysis suggest that system usage should be factored into self-reported system usage and computer-recorded system usage. Contrary to expectations, these constructs do not appear to be strongly related to each other. Moreover, while self-reported measures of system usage are related to self-reported measures of TAM independent variables, objective, computer-recorded measures show distinctly weaker links. In the face of such counter-evidence, it is tempting to argue that research that has relied on subjective measures of system usage (for example, research confirming TAM) may be artifactual. There are several alternative explanations, though, that maintain the integrity of TAM and studies that measure system usage subjectively. These alternative explanations suggest directions for further research as well as new approaches to measurement.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.41.8.1328

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 958

Metadata

Authors
Straub, D., Limayem, M., & Karahanna-Evaristo, E.
Venue
Management Science
Published
1995-08
Volume
41
Issue
8
Pages
1328-1342
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
OpenAlex
W2050075077
Cited by
958
References
10
FWCI
26.24
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.41.8.1328
The paper
Straub, D., Limayem, M., & Karahanna-Evaristo, E. (1995). Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.41.8.1328

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.