Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Technology Acceptance Model: January 2005
The Technology Acceptance Model: January 2005
net/publication/314410967
CITATIONS READS
0 5,253
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Qingxiong Ma on 26 October 2017.
ABSTRACT
The technology acceptance model proposes that perceived ease of use and per-
ceived usefulness predict the acceptance of information technology. Since its in-
ception, the model has been tested with various applications in tens of studies and
has become the most widely applied model of user acceptance and usage. Never-
theless, the reported findings on the model are mixed in terms of statistical signif-
icance, direction, and magnitude. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis
based on 26 selected empirical studies in order to synthesize the empirical evi-
dence. The results suggest that both the correlation between usefulness and ac-
ceptance, and that between usefulness and ease of use are somewhat strong. How-
ever, the relationship between ease of use and acceptance is weak, and its signif-
icance does not pass the fail-safe test.
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
60 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004 61
Perceived
Usefulness
Perceived
Ease of Use
usage. PEOU was also significantly cor- 1989), groupware (Taylor & Todd, 1995b),
related with current usage and future us- spreadsheets (Agarwal, Sambamurthy &
age. Overall, he found that PU had a sig- Stair, 2000; Mathieson, 1991), and World
nificantly greater correlation with system Wide Web (Lederer, Maupin, Sena &
usage than did PEOU. Further regression Zhuang, 2000). Some studies also extend-
analysis suggested that PEOU might be an ed TAM by including additional predictors
antecedent of PU rather than a direct de- such as gender, culture, experience, and
terminant of system usage. That is, PEOU self-efficacy. Overall, researchers tend to
affects technology acceptance (TA) indi- suggest that TAM is valid, parsimonious,
rectly through PU. Figure 2 shows the vali- and robust (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
dated TAM. Davis (1989) developed and validat-
In the last decade, TAM has received ed the scales for PEOU and PU and found
considerable attention and empirical sup- six highly reliable items for each construct
port (e.g., Davis, 1989; Mathieson 1991; with a Cronbach’s alpha of .98 for PU and
Taylor & Todd, 1995a). We estimate that .94 for PEOU respectively. In succeeding
there were about 100 studies, published in studies, the measurement items for these
journals, proceedings, or technical reports, constructs varied from researcher to re-
related to TAM between 1989 and 2001. searcher (Adams, Nelson & Todd, 1992).
In these studies, TAM was extensively As a result, the cumulative number of
tested using different sample sizes and user items for measuring PU has increased
groups within or across organizations, an- from the original six to currently about 50,
alyzed with different statistical tools, and and that for PEOU has increased from six
compared with competing models (Gefen, to 38. Appendix shows nine different in-
2000). It was applied to many different struments for PU and PEOU employed in
end-user technologies such as email the existing studies1. Upon closer scrutiny
(Adams, Nelson & Todd, 1992; Davis, of the list, we found that the differences in
1989), word processors (Adams, Nelson measurement items between studies tend
& Todd, 1992; Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, to be the result of adapting TAM to differ-
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
62 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004
ent technologies. The essential definitions form of the Pearson Product Moment Cor-
of the constructs to be measured are still relation. Essentially, an effect size repre-
the same. Therefore, we conclude that the sents the degree to which the phenome-
empirical findings on the relationships be- non is present in the population (Cohen,
tween the constructs in TAM are not af- 1977). In this section, we explain how we
fected much by how the constructs are select individual studies for our meta-anal-
measured. ysis and how we estimate the effect size
Existing empirical findings on TAM for each sample study.
are not consistent and conclusive (Moore
& Benbasat, 1991). For instance, some Selection of Individual Studies
studies indicated that PEOU has no signif-
icant impact on TA, while others found that To be included in our meta-analysis,
such an impact is significant (Hendrickson a study has to meet four requirements: 1)
& Collins, 1996; Subramanian, 1994; it involved empirical testing of TAM direct-
Venkatesh & Davis, 1996). Many studies ly or indirectly; 2) it reported a sample size;
found that the impact of PEOU on PU is 3) it reported correlation coefficients be-
stronger than that of PEOU on TA, whereas tween the constructs of TAM or other val-
others found a much larger effect of PEOU ues that can be converted to correlations;
on TA than PU (Lim, 2001). More per- 4) it was published or dated after 1989,
plexing is the fact that even in the same which is the year TAM was first published.
study, when the subjects were tested with One widely documented concern on
different applications, PEOU was nega- selecting sample studies for meta-analysis
tively related to TA in some cases, but pos- is the publication bias. It is well known that
itively in others (Adams, Nelson & Todd, journals are more likely to publish research
1992). results that are statistically significant.
With regard to the divergent findings, Therefore, effect sizes in published jour-
many possible explanations have been pro- nals are larger than those that have not
vided. However, they tend to be qualita- been published. Because one of the pro-
tive and subjective. What is needed, we cedures in meta-analysis is to average the
believe, is to integrate these findings and effect sizes of individual studies, the result
generate a quantitative and objective syn- may be inflated if only published studies
thesis. are reviewed (Schafer, 1999). To avoid this
so-called file drawer problem, we
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY searched for related studies at all levels of
publications including refereed journals,
Meta-analysis is defined as the “sta- unpublished dissertations, and conference
tistical analysis of a collection of analysis proceedings. In this study, our source pa-
results from individual studies for the pur- per collection was inclusive. We included
pose of integrating the findings” all the related studies in major journals such
(DerSimonian & Laird, 1986). An individ- as MIS Quarterly, Information Systems
ual test typically provides summary statis- Research, Information and Manage-
tics that indicate the significance of the test ment, etc. We searched digital libraries of
results. In meta-analysis, we need to con- the Association for Computing Machinery
vert the statistics into a common metric and the Association for Information Sys-
called effect size, which is usually in the tems as well as major international con-
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004 63
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
64 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004
from the univariate analysis of the corre- As expected, most studies reported
lations. The purpose here is to show the positive significant findings and few non-
central tendencies of the existing findings significant or negative ones. According to
and their statistical significance. Table 1, the percentage of positive signifi-
cant correlations of PEOU-PU is the high-
Descriptive Statistics est among the three relationships, while
PEOU-TA has the highest percentage of
Based on the 26 selected studies, we positive non-significant correlation. The
obtained 102 correlations as summarized sample size varies from study to study. In
in Table 1. Note that not all studies report- some studies, the sample size is as low as
ed all the three correlations or equivalents. 36; while in others, it is as high as 1370. Of
Among the 102 correlations, 37 PU-TA course, the extreme cases are few in num-
correlations were obtained from 21 stud- ber. The average sample size indicates that
ies, 32 PEOU-TA correlations from 20 the number of subjects used in the select-
studies, and 33 PEOU-PU correlations ed studies is very close across all three
from 21 studies. The number of studies for relationships.
each of the three relationships is approxi-
mately the same. According to the range The Analysis of Direct Effect
of correlation coefficients, it is easy to see
that the strength of each relationship var- In Table 2, we reported the findings
ies greatly from insignificant to strongly on the mean effect sizes using three meth-
significant. For instance, the correlation ods: simple mean, sample size adjusted-
between PEOU and PU changes from mean (Mosteller & Bush, 1954), and the
0.003 to 0.92. In addition, the correlation Fisher r to Z transformation (Fisher, 1932).
coefficient between PU and TA were in- A simple mean is simply the average of all
significant in some instances, although most individual effect sizes. A sample size ad-
studies found otherwise. justed-mean is the sample size-weighted
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004 65
average of individual effect sizes, i.e., we see that the Fisher r to Z transforma-
r= ∑ (N r ) ∑ N
i i i , where Ni and ri are
tion consistently results in larger means
than the other two methods. This inflation
the sample size and the effect size of test phenomenon has been reported previously
i, respectively. To use the Fisher r to Z (Hunter, Schmidt & Jackson, 1982;
transformation, three steps are followed Schmidt, Gast-Rosenberg & Hunter, 1980).
(Wolf 1986). First, each correlation is trans- Second, we found that the mean effect siz-
formed into Fisher’s Z score using the for- es obtained using the Fisher r to Z trans-
1+ r formation and simple average are almost
mula Z = 0.5 * ln ( ) , where r is an identical, while the results from the sam-
1− r
ple-size-adjusted method are smaller. We
individual correlation coefficient. Next, we rechecked sample sizes and re-calculated
compute the sample size weighted aver- the means, and found that some extreme
age of the individual Z scores for each pair sample sizes have an apparent effect on
of the constructs in TAM. Finally, we con- the means. For example, the correlations
vert the weighted average Z score back for a study with a sample size of 1,370 are
into a correlation coefficient. all relatively small (between 0.31 and 0.37).
There are some discussions regard- When it is removed from the meta-analy-
ing these methods. Some suggest the ne- sis, the averages become larger and com-
cessity of using the Fisher r to Z transfor- parable with those obtained from the other
mation in meta-analysis, while others feel two methods. It indicates that the sample
there is not much difference between sim- size adjusted method may not be appropri-
ple mean and the Fisher r to Z transforma- ate for the current study. Thus, we will
tion (Wolf, 1986). Schmidt, Gast- interpret the results of this study based on
Rosenberg and Hunter (1980) discussed the Fisher r to Z transformation method.
the issue and reported a study based the According to Cohen (1977), the mag-
Fisher transformation. In the current study, nitude of an effect size is small when it is
we employed both techniques. close to 0.10, medium when it is close to
It is also commonly believed that cor- 0.30, and large when it is close to 0.50.
relations estimated from larger samples and By this rough guideline, our meta-analysis
more reliable data sources can produce a suggests a medium-sized effect for the re-
mean correlation closer to the population lationship between PEOU and TA, and
mean, all else being equal (Hunter & large effect sizes for PU-TA and PEOU-
Schmidt, 1990; Szymanki & Henard, 2001). PU. Also, note that the effect sizes for
Thus, it is desirable to calculate reliability- PU-TA and PEOU-PU are almost identi-
adjusted mean. However, we found that it cal to each other. It is different from the
is difficult to do so due to the fact that many general perception; our study does not sug-
source studies failed to report reliability gest that the PU-TA relationship is stron-
data. Therefore, in the current paper, we ger than the PEOU-PU relationship.
chose sample-size-weighted mean instead To show the statistical significance of
of reliability-adjusted mean. Szymanki and the mean effects, we computed the 99%
Henard (2001) did the same in their recent confidence intervals for each mean esti-
meta-analysis on customer satisfaction. mate, based on the assumption that indi-
Table 2 shows some differences that vidual correlations are normally distribut-
result from using different methods. First, ed. These intervals portray the range of
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
66 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004
effects that might exist in the true popula- and therefore suggest that an individual
tion given the presence of errors and vari- level analysis is appropriate within the con-
ation in the calculation of sample effects. text of this meta-analysis.
According to the results in Table 2, no in-
terval contains zero, which therefore sug- CONCLUSIONS
gests that all three mean effects are sig-
nificantly different from zero. This meta-analysis was designed to
To further test the significance of synthesize and analyze the existing empir-
the findings, given the possibility that we ical findings on the Technology Acceptance
may miss the studies that report null ef- Model (TAM). It examined the relation-
fects (r = 0), we calculated the fail-safe ships in TAM with a larger sample size,
N for p = 0.05 using the formula which is impossible to achieve in a tradi-
tional empirical study. The results of our
N fs .05 = (ΣZ
1.645 − , where ΣZ is
)2 N study in general confirm Davis’ original
the sum of individual Z scores and N is the findings: Among the three constructs in
number of tests. A fail-safe N represents TAM, both the relationships between
the number of additional studies confirm- PEOU and PU, and between PU and TA
ing the null hypothesis (r = 0) that would are strong, while the relationship between
be needed to reverse a conclusion that a PEOU and TA is weak. Here we mea-
significant relationship exists (Cooper, sured the strengths of the relationship from
1979). Table 2 shows that the mean corre- three perspectives. First, with respect to
lations for PEOU-PU and PU-TA are sig- the magnitude of a mean effect, we found
nificantly different from zero, to the extent the mean effects for PEOU-PU and PU-
that 71-131 of null effects would have to TA are large, while that for PEOU-TA is
exist to bring the respective mean estimates medium. Second, with respect to the sta-
down to a level not considered statistically tistical significance of a mean effect, we
significant. However, the mean correlation found that all three mean effects are sig-
for PEOU-TA does not pass the fail-safe nificantly positive at the level α = 0.01.
test as indicated by the negative Nfs.05. Finally, with respect to the fail-safe test
As we pointed out before in this study, significance, we found that between 71-
we selected the individual correlations re- 131 null effects would have to be hidden
ported for the model rather than the aver- away in file drawers for the mean correla-
age of the correlations reported within a tions between PEOU and PU, and between
study. The former is often referred to as PU and TA to be non-significant, which
individual-level analysis, while the latter is seems unlikely. However, the mean ef-
considered study-level analysis. Hunter fect for PEOU and TA does not pass the
and Schmidt (1990) raised the possibility fail-safe test, in the sense that one addi-
that an individual-level analysis might un- tional study reporting a null effect would
derestimate the sampling-error variance lead to the effect being non-significant.
and the generalizability of the estimates. This study contributes to information
To address this concern, we computed the technology (IT) management in several
variance due to sampling error and stan- important ways. First, usefulness is shown
dard deviation for each relationship. The to be critical for IT adoption based on the
results show that the variances of sam- accumulated evidence. It implies that de-
pling-error are very close to each other, velopers should focus on system
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004 67
functionalities and features to improve the future studies are needed to resolve the
acceptance of a system to be developed. uncertainty. One possible direction is to
Second, the relationship between ease of investigate whether the relationship is mod-
use and usefulness cannot be ignored. erated by a third variable such as gender,
Therefore, when IT professionals devel- culture, experience, self-efficacy, complex-
op, test, or adopt a new system, they should ity of a technology, or the state of knowl-
keep in mind that the ease of use of the edge on a technology. Several existing
system has a strong impact on the end- studies do suggest the possible existence
users’ perception of its usefulness. of moderating effects. Gefen and Straub
Of course, when interpreting or ap- (1997) found that although women tend to
plying the results of this research, some perceive the PEOU of email to be higher
caution is advised. As with any other re- than men, their usage of email is actually
search methodology, meta-analysis has its less than that of men. In their more recent
assumptions and limitations. One of the study with Internet technology (Gefen &
major difficulties to applying meta-analy- Straub, 2000), they found that PEOU in-
sis to the studies on TAM is that the find- fluences TA when a web site involves in-
ings of many previous researchers are gen- quiries, but does not influence TA when a
erated by multivariate analyses such as web site is used for a purchasing task. Sim-
multiple regression, factor analysis, and ilarly, in a study of examining PEOU with
structural equation modeling. Meta-ana- objected-oriented analysis technique, Liu
lysts have not yet developed effect size and Grandon (2002) found that, compared
statistics that adequately represent this to the subjects with only partial training in
form of research findings (Lipsey & Wil- structured technique, those without train-
son, 2000). Consequently, many sample ing felt more positive about the PEOU of
studies were dropped from our list. Other- object-oriented techniques, but performed
wise, the results of this study would be worse in object-oriented analysis tasks;
more accurate. those with full training also felt more posi-
A second limitation of this study is tive about their PEOU, but performed bet-
the lack of the analysis of potential moder- ter too. Finally, Chircu, Davis, & Kauffman
ators. Besides documenting the distribu- (2000) studied the role of expertise in the
tion, central tendencies, and magnitudes of adoption of electronic commerce interme-
correlations, a meta-analysis can identify diaries and found that transaction complex-
whether the variation of correlations is due ity is an important moderator for the rela-
to chance or measurement and method tionships between PEOU and PU and be-
factors. Although we planned to do the tween PU and TA. By synthesizing these
analysis on moderating effects and collect- existing findings, we noticed a common phe-
ed data on potential moderators including nomenon that individual and task charac-
the technologies applied, the types of par- teristics moderate the PEOU-TA relation-
ticipants, and whether the researchers use ship. Gefen and Straub (1997) and Liu and
an experimental or survey approach, the Grandon (2002) emphasized individual dif-
small size of the selected studies prevent- ferences such as gender and experience,
ed us from running multiple regressions to whereas Gefen and Straub (2000) and
investigate their possible effects. Chircu, Davis and Kauffman (2000)
Our finding on the relationship be- stressed task characteristics. Therefore, we
tween PEOU and TA is uncertain. More suggest the future research should look into
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
68 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004 69
these characteristics in order to better un- *Chircu, A.M., Davis, G.B. &
derstand the weak PEOU-TA contingency. Kauffman, R.J. (2000). The Role of Trust
and Expertise in the Adoption of Elec-
ENDNOTES tronic Commerce Intermediaries. Tech-
nical Report, WP 00-07, Carlson School
1
Many studies used one of these in- of Management, University of Minnesota,
struments with no modification. For exam- Minneapolis, MN.
ple, Adams, Nelson and Todd (1992), Cohen, J. (1965). Some statistical is-
Gefen & Straub (1997), and Chircu, Davis sues in psychological research, In B.
& Kauffman (2000) used the same instru- Wolman (ed.) Handbook of Clinical Psy-
ment as in Davis (1989). Similarly, Jack- chology. New York, NY: Academic Press.
son, Chow and Leitch (1997), Subramanian Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical Power
(1994), and Szajna (1996) used the same Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
instrument as in Davis, Bagozzi and New York: Academic Press.
Warshaw (1989). Some other studies did Cooper, H.M. (1979) Statistically
not report their instruments but mentioned Combining Independent Studies: A Meta-
that they adopted an existing one in the Analysis of Sex Differences in Conformi-
list. ty Research. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 37, 131-146.
REFERENCES Davis, F.D. (1986). A Technology
(*Studies whose findings are included in the meta- Acceptance Model for Empirically Test-
analyses.) ing New End-user information Systems:
Theory and Results. Doctoral Disserta-
*Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R. & Todd, tion, MIT Sloan School of Management,
P.A. (1992). Perceived Usefulness, Ease Cambridge, MA.
of Use, and Usage of Information. MIS *Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived Use-
Quarterly, 16(2), 227-250. fulness, Perceived Ease Of Use, And User
Agarwal, R. & Prasad, J. (1999). Are Acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-
Individual Differences Germane to the Ac- 340.
ceptance of New Information Technolo- *Davis, F.D. (1993). User Accep-
gies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361-391. tance of Information Technology: System
Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V. & Characteristics, User Perceptions and
Stair, R.M. (2000). The Evolving Relation- Behavioral Impacts. International Jour-
ship Between General and Specific Com- nal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475-
487.
puter Self-Efficacy – An Empirical As-
*Davis, F.D. & Venkatesh, V. (1996).
sessment. Information Systems Research,
A Critical Assessment of Potential Mea-
1(4), 418-430.
surement Biases in the Technology Accep-
Benbasat, I. & Zmud, R. (1999). tance Model: Three Experiments. Inter-
Empirical Research in Information Systems: national Journal of Human-Computer
The Practice of Relevance. MIS Quar- Studies, 45(1), 19-45.
terly, 23(1), 3-16. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. &
*Chau, P.Y.K. (1996). An Empirical Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User Acceptance
Assessment of a Modified Technology of Computer Technology: A Comparison
Acceptance Model. Journal of Manage- of Two. Management Science, 35(8), 982-
ment Information Systems, 13(2), 185-204 1001.
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
70 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004 71
tute Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. to the Arabic World. Journal of Global
Lipsey, M.W. & Wilson,D.B. (2000). Information Management, 6(3), 39-47.
Practical Meta-Analysis, Applied Social Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-Analyti-
Research Methods Series, Volume 49, cal Procedures for Social Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Liu, L. & Grandon, E.E. (2002). An Schafer, W.D. (1999). Methods, Plain-
Empirical Study of How Prior Training ly Speaking—An Overview of Meta-Anal-
in Structured Analysis Affects the Per- ysis, Measurement and Evaluation in
ceptions on Object Orientation. Tech- Counseling and Development, 32(1), 43-
nical Report, Department of Management, 61.
University of Akron, Akron, OH. Schmidt, F.L., Gast-Rosenberg, I. &
*Malhotra, Y. & Galletta, D.F. (1999). Hunter, J.E. (1980). Validity Generaliza-
Extending the Technology Acceptance tion: Results for Computer Programmers.
Model to Account for Social Influence: Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(6),
Theoretical Bases and Empirical Valida- 643-661.
tion, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii *Segars, A. H. & Grover, V. (1993).
International Conference on System Re-Examining Perceived Ease of Use and
Sciences, Honolulu, HI. Usefulness: A Confirmatory Factor Anal-
Martinussen, M. & Bjornstad, J.F. ysis. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 517-525.
(1999). Meta-Analysis Calculations Based Straub, D.W., Limayem, M. &
on Independent and Nonindependent Cas- Karahanna, E. (1995). Measuring System
es. Educational and Psychological Mea- Usage: Implications for IS Theory Test-
surement, 59(6), 928-950. ing. Management Science, 41(8), 1328-
*Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting 1342.
User Intentions: Comparing the Technolo- *Straub, D.W., Keil, M. & Brennan,
gy Acceptance Model with the Theory of W. (1997). Testing the Technology Accep-
Planned Behavior. Information Systems tance Model across Cultures: A Three
Research, 2(3), 173-191. Country Study. Information and Man-
Moore, G.C. & Benbasat, I. (1991). agement, 33(1), 1-11.
Development of an Instrument to Measure *Subramanian, G.H. (1994). A Rep-
the Perceptions of Adopting an Informa- lication of Perceived Usefulness and Per-
tion Technology Innovation. Information ceived Ease of Use Measurement. Deci-
Systems Research, 2, 192-222. sion Sciences, 25(5-6), 863-872.
Mosteller, F. M. & Bush, R. R. (1954). *Szajna, B. (1996) Empirical Evalua-
Selected quantitative techniques. In G. tion of the Revised Technology Accep-
Lindzey (ed.) Handbook of Social Psy- tance Model. Management Science,
chology, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Addison- 42:(1), 85-92.
Wesley. Szymanki, D.M. & Henard, D.H.
Robey, D. & Markus, L. M. (1998). (2001). Customer Satisfaction: A Meta-
Beyond Rigor and Relevance: Producing Analysis of the Empirical Evidence. Jour-
Consumable Research about Information nal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
Systems. Information Resources Man- ence, 29(1), 16-35.
agement Journal, 11(1), 7-15. *Taylor, S. & Todd, P. (1995a). Un-
*Rose, G. & Straub, D.W. (1998). derstanding Information Technology Us-
Predicting General IT Use: Applying TAM age: A Test of Competing Models. Infor-
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.
72 Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59-72, Jan-Mar 2004
Copyright © 2004, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group
Inc. is prohibited.