Cited by 6,553Technology Adoption and User BehaviourGender and Technology in EducationInformation and Cyber Security

Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test

Compeau, Deborah R., Higgins, Christopher A.·1995·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

This paper discusses the role of individuals’ beliefs about their abilities to competently use computers (computer self-efficacy) in the determination of computer use. A survey of Canadian managers and professionals was conducted to develop and validate a measure of computer self-efficacy and to assess both its impacts and antecedents. Computer self-efficacy was found to exert a significant influence on individuals’ expectations of the outcomes of using computers, their emotional reactions to computers (affect and anxiety), as well as their actual computer use. An individual’s self-efficacy and outcome expectations were found to be positively influenced by the encouragement of others in their work group, as well as others’ use of computers. Thus, self-efficacy represents an important individual trait, which moderates organizational influences (such as encouragement and support) on an individual’s decision to use computers. Understanding self-efficacy, then, is important to the successful implementation of systems in organizations. The existence of a reliable and valid measure of self-efficacy makes assessment possible and should have implications for organizational support, training, and implementation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/249688

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • A number of scales have been developed to measure perceived self-efficacy in contexts such as computer literacy and teaching efficacy.

    “There are a number of scales, which have been developed to measure perceived self-efficacy in different context such as computer literacy (see, Cassidy and Eachus, 1998; Compeau and Higgins, 1995; Lloyd and Gressard, 1984; Delcourt and Kinzie, 1993) and teaching efficacy (see, Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Henson et al. , 2001; Koul and Rubba, 1999).”

    From Developing the information literacy self‐efficacy scale (2006) · cites this paper as Compeau and Higgins, 1995

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Carleton University (CA)
  • Western University (CA)
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
1995-06-01
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
189-211
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W2126512988
Cited by
6,553
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 468 · 2025: 316 · 2024: 276 · 2023: 303 · 2022: 315 · 2021: 289 · 2020: 310 · 2019: 287 · 2018: 299 · 2017: 270 · 2016: 280 · 2015: 313 · 2014: 336 · 2013: 341 · 2012: 286
FWCI
62.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
Keywords
computer self-efficacy, self-efficacy measurement, outcome expectations, computer anxiety, peer influence, organizational support, information system implementation, managers and professionals

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