Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Training End Users: An Exploratory Study

Nelson, R. Ryan, Cheney, Paul H.·1987·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

This article presents and empirically evaluates a conceptual model of how training can impact the acceptance of information systems within the organization. Specifically, the training of end users is explored via an extensive field study of 100 middle- and upper-level managers from 20 companies. The results indicate that (1) a positive relationship exists between the computer-related training an individual receives and his/her computer-related ability, and (2) a positive relationship exists between the computer-related ability of an end user and his/her acceptance of information systems products and technologies.

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 · 10.2307/248985

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 373

Metadata

Authors
Nelson, R. R., & Cheney, P. H.
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
1987-12-01
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
547-559
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W2154163681
Cited by
373
References
0
FWCI
51.85
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: Training End Users: An Exploratory Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/248985
The paper
Nelson, R. R., & Cheney, P. H. (1987). Training End Users: An Exploratory Study. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/248985

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.