The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the novelty technology
Open accessAbstract
This paper contributes to the existing literature by comprehensively reviewing the concepts, applications and development of technology adoption models and theories based on the literature review with the focus on potential application for the novelty technology of single platform E-payment. These included, but were not restricted to, the Theory of Diffusion of Innovations (DIT) (Rogers, 1995), the Theory of Reasonable Action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1985, 1991), Decomposed Theory of Planned Behaviour, (Taylor and Todd, 1995), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, Bogozzi and Warshaw, 1989, Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) Venkatesh and Davis (2000) and Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) Venkatesh and Bala (2008). These reviews will shed some light and potential applications for technology applications for future researchers to conceptualize, distinguish and comprehend the underlying technology models and theories that may affect the previous, current and future application of technology adoption.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
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
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
Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 · Cited by 8,815
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159
Venkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664
Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249689 · Cited by 6,006
Mathieson, K. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.173 · Cited by 4,216
A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x · Cited by 3,802
Yi, M. Y., Jackson, J. D., Park, J. S., & Probst, J. C. (2006) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.08.006 · Cited by 1,139
Cited by
Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery
Gursoy, D., Chi, O. H., Lu, L., & Nunkoo, R. (2019) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.008 · Cited by 1,437
Exploring artificial intelligence adoption in public organizations: a comparative case study
Neumann, O., Guirguis, K., & Steiner, R. (2024) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2022.2048685 · Cited by 451
Theories Predicting End-User Acceptance of Telemedicine Use: Systematic Review
Harst, L., Lantzsch, H., & Scheibe, M. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/13117 · Cited by 320
Explore success factors that impact artificial intelligence adoption on telecom industry in China
Chen, H., Li, L., & Chen, Y. (2021) · Journal of Management Analytics · doi:10.1080/23270012.2020.1852895 · Cited by 300
Assessing Health Students' Attitudes and Usage of ChatGPT in Jordan: Validation Study
Sallam, M., Salim, N. A., Barakat, M., Al-Mahzoum, K., Al-Tammemi, A. B., Malaeb, D., Hallit, R., & Hallit, S. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/48254 · Cited by 234
Abu-Taieh, E. M., AlHadid, I., Abu-Tayeh, S., Masa’deh, R., Alkhawaldeh, R. S., Khwaldeh, S., & Alrowwad, A. (2022) · Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity · doi:10.3390/joitmc8030120 · Cited by 156
Ye, T., Xue, J., He, M., Gu, J., Lin, H., Xu, B., & Cheng, Y. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/14316 · Cited by 141
Theories Informing eHealth Implementation: Systematic Review and Typology Classification
Heinsch, M., Wyllie, J., Carlson, J., Wells, H., Tickner, C., & Kay-Lambkin, F. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/18500 · Cited by 114
Jariyapan, P., Mattayaphutron, S., Gillani, S. N., & Shafique, O. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.814087 · Cited by 102
Biloš, A., & Budimir, B. (2024) · Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.3390/jtaer19020045 · Cited by 84
A study of K-12 teachers’ TPACK on the technology acceptance of E-schoolbag
Yang, J., Wang, Q., Wang, J., Huang, M., & Ma, Y. (2021) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1627560 · Cited by 83
Zou, B., Wang, C., Yan, Y., Du, X., & Ji, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.12658 · Cited by 66
Determinant Factors of Public Acceptance of Stress Management Apps: Survey Study
Apolinário-Hagen, J., Hennemann, S., Fritsche, L., Drüge, M., & Breil, B. (2019) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/15373 · Cited by 63
Factors Driving the Adoption of E-banking Services Based on the UTAUT Model
Chikondi Daka, G., & Phiri, J. (2019) · International Journal of Business and Management · doi:10.5539/ijbm.v14n6p43 · Cited by 61
Persuading Patients Using Rhetoric to Improve Artificial Intelligence Adoption: Experimental Study
Sebastian, G., George, A., & Jackson Jr, G. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/41430 · Cited by 48
“The novelty of the content or novelty value of a new technology will positively influence (1) its perceived ease of use and (2) its perceived usefulness [49,50].”
Goswami, M., Jain, S., Alam, T., Deifalla, A. F., Ragab, A. E., & Khargotra, R. (2023) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2023.1215706 · Cited by 33
Mat Dangi, M. R., & Mohamed Saat, M. (2021) · International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v11-i1/8288 · Cited by 11
Badeja, D., Schier, F., McGinity, M., & Hoyer, J. (2026) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/10503307.2025.2534978 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Lai, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management
- Publisher
- TECSI
- Published
- 2017-06-08
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-38
- ISSN
- 1807-1775 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2624509573
- Cited by
- 1,062
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 117.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
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.