9) contribution

- An article can contribute to research in many different ways. Some of the key areas of impact
are academic impact, cultural or societal impact, policy impact, economic impact, environmental
impact and health impact. Different organizations and funders are interested in different areas of
impact, bringing together one or many of these, and possibly others.
- Does it provide a new way to look at a problem?
No, the researcher does not provide a new way to look at a problem in the article. The focus of
the study is on examining the factors influencing citizens' intention to continue using
eGovernment services, specifically in the context of the DVLA online service and a DVLA user
group [1]. The article does not introduce a novel perspective or approach to understanding this
problem.
-Does it bring together or “synthesize”several concepts in an insightful way that has not been
done before?
Yes, the research in the article brings together and synthesizes several concepts in an insightful
way that has not been done before. This synthesis of multiple theories and models allows for a
more holistic understanding of the factors influencing citizens' intention to continue using
eGovernment services.

By combining these different perspectives, the authors provide a unique framework that
considers the role of pre-adoption and post-adoption processes, self-efficacy, outcome
expectations, and satisfaction in encouraging the reuse of eGovernment systems [2]. This
synthesis of concepts offers a novel perspective on the factors influencing continuance intention
and contributes to the existing literature on eGovernment services.

In summary, the research in the article brings together and synthesizes several concepts in an
insightful way that has not been done before, providing a unique framework for understanding
continuance intention in eGovernment services.

Are the issues addressed introduced in a way that their relevance/impact to practice is evident?

Yes, the issues addressed in the article are introduced in a way that their relevance and impact to
practice is evident. The authors highlight the importance of understanding the factors influencing
citizens' intention to continue using eGovernment services and emphasize the need for
organizations to customize online services and information features to fit citizens' needs and
expectations [1]. This practical relevance is evident in the recommendations provided, such as
keeping website content familiar to reduce exploration time and improving accessibility and
speed by aligning with other businesses [1].

Overall, the article presents the issues in a manner that clearly demonstrates their relevance and
impact on practice. [1]
10) Does the author (s) suggest areas for further research?
Yes, the authors suggest areas for further research. They mention that the model explained 58%
of the variance in continuance intention to use government services, indicating that there is still
room for improvement and further exploration in understanding the factors influencing
continuance intention [1]. Additionally, they mention that some hypotheses were not supported
by the data, such as the relationship between social influence and personal outcome expectations,
and the relationship between information quality and personal outcome expectations. These
findings suggest the need for further investigation into these relationships [5].
- Does it build upon the appropriate foundation (i.e., upon appropriate prior
research)?
Yes, the authors build upon the appropriate foundation by incorporating relevant prior research
into their study. They mention that their research model is based on synthesizing Social
Cognitive Theory (SCT), Expectancy Confirmation Theory (ECT), the IS success model, and E-
S-QUAL [2]. They also cite Bandura's work on self-efficacy and prior experience [1, 5].
Additionally, they reference studies by Compeau and Higgins, Chan et al., Bhattacherjee, Hsu et
al., and Kotler et al. to support their hypotheses related to prior experience and its impact on self-
efficacy, personal outcome expectations, and satisfaction
- Is the approach and execution is correct?
The approach and execution of the study appear to be correct based on the information provided.
The authors followed a quantitative data-collection method using a survey approach and
employed Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) for data analysis [5]. This approach is commonly
used in research to test models and examine relationships between constructs [1]. Additionally,
the authors mention using the Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) tool for statistical
computations, which is a widely used software for SEM analysis [5]. Overall, the approach and
execution of the study seem appropriate for the research objectives.
- Confidence with respect to the article’s results, and why?
Based on the information provided, I have confidence in the article's results. The authors used
appropriate statistical methods such as Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Analysis of
Moment Structures (AMOS) to analyze the data [5]. They also conducted reliability and validity
tests, including Cronbach's alpha and confirmatory factor analysis, to ensure the reliability and
validity of the instrument [5]. Additionally, the authors referenced prior studies to support their
findings and discussed the implications of their results in relation to existing literature [3].
Overall, the rigorous methodology and the alignment of the findings with previous research give
me confidence in the article's results.
- Does article throws upon exclusive new ideas?
Based on the information provided, it does not appear that the article introduces exclusive new
ideas. The study integrates various theories and models, such as Social Cognitive Theory,
Expectation Confirmation Theory, and the DeLone and McLean IS success model, to examine
the factors influencing citizens' intention to continue using eGovernment services [1]. The study
also highlights the importance of factors such as self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and
satisfaction in predicting continuance intention, which have been previously explored in the
literature [1]. However, the study does contribute to the existing knowledge by examining these
factors in the specific context of eGovernment systems and providing insights for government
leaders to improve citizen engagement [1].
- What are the article’s shortcomings and limitations?
The article has several shortcomings and limitations.

First, the study focused on the citizens' perspective and did not consider the technical
implementation of eGovernment systems from an organizational or government agency's point of
view [1]. This narrow focus may limit the generalizability of the findings and overlook important
factors related to system design and implementation.

Second, the data collected for the study were cross-sectional, which limits the ability to establish
causal relationships and understand the factors that influence an individual's decision to continue
using eGovernment systems over time [1]. Future research using longitudinal data would be
needed to validate the research model and provide a more comprehensive understanding of
continuance intention.

Third, the data collected were based on a voluntary system, which may introduce bias and limit
the generalizability of the findings to mandatory systems [1]. The study should be replicated in
settings where the use of eGovernment systems is mandatory to examine if the factors
influencing continuance intention differ in those contexts.

Fourth, the study focused on a single case study of eGovernment systems, specifically the DVLA
online service and a DVLA user group [1]. This narrow focus may limit the generalizability of
the findings to other eGovernment systems and user groups. Future research should include a
broader range of eGovernment systems and user groups to enhance the external validity of the
findings.

Fifth, the sample frame used in the study may be a potential source of error, and more revision
would be appreciated in future studies [1]. The study should consider using a larger and more
diverse sample to improve the representativeness of the findings.
Finally, the study primarily focused on eGovernment systems accessed through websites, and the
findings may not fully capture the experiences and factors influencing continuance intention in
other types of eGovernment systems, such as mobile systems or kiosk systems [1]. Future
research should explore these different types of eGovernment systems to provide a more
comprehensive understanding of continuance intention.

Overall, while the study provides valuable insights into the factors influencing continuance
intention in eGovernment systems, it is important to consider these limitations when interpreting
the findings and applying them to different contexts.
- Are all important aspects and issues of its domain covered?
The article focuses on examining the factors influencing citizens' intention to continue using
eGovernment services, specifically in the context of the DVLA online service and a DVLA user
group [1]. While the study provides insights into the factors influencing continuance intention in
this specific context, it may not cover all important aspects and issues of the broader domain of
eGovernment services. Further research is needed to explore other aspects and issues related to
eGovernment services in different contexts to provide a more comprehensive understanding of
the domain [1].
-Examine and comment the logic given in the article
The logic given in the article appears to be sound and well-supported. The authors provide a
clear research model that integrates various theories and models, such as Social Cognitive
Theory, Expectation Confirmation Theory, and the IS success model, to examine the factors
influencing citizens' intention to continue using eGovernment services [1]. They also provide a
theoretical framework based on prior research and literature to support their hypotheses and
research model [1].

Furthermore, the authors use appropriate statistical methods, such as Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) and Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS), to analyze the data and test the
research model [5]. They also conduct reliability and validity tests, such as Cronbach's alpha and
confirmatory factor analysis, to ensure the reliability and validity of the instrument [5]. These
methodological choices enhance the credibility and rigor of the study.

The authors also discuss the implications of their findings in relation to existing literature and
provide suggestions for future research [1, 5]. They acknowledge the limitations of their study,
such as the narrow focus on a specific eGovernment system and the use of cross-sectional data,
and propose areas for further investigation [1, 5]. This demonstrates a logical and thoughtful
approach to the research.
Overall, the logic given in the article is well-supported by theory, empirical analysis, and critical
reflection on the limitations and implications of the findings. [1, 5].
11 a) One should examine the logic of the arguments made by the authors.
Article shall be tested upon logical consistency, coherence in arguments,
substance of article and focus.
The logic of the arguments made by the authors in the article appears to be consistent, coherent,
and supported by relevant literature. They provide a clear research model that integrates various
theories and models, such as Social Cognitive Theory, Expectation Confirmation Theory, and the
IS success model, to examine the factors influencing citizens' intention to continue using
eGovernment services [2]. The authors present hypotheses based on these theories and models,
and they provide explanations and justifications for each hypothesis [3].

The arguments in the article are supported by empirical evidence and statistical analysis. The
authors conducted a quantitative survey-based study and used Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) to analyze the data [5]. They also conducted reliability and validity tests to ensure the
robustness of their findings [5]. The use of these rigorous methods enhances the logical
consistency and coherence of the arguments.

The authors also discuss the implications of their findings in relation to existing literature and
provide suggestions for future research [1, 3]. They acknowledge the limitations of their study
and propose areas for further investigation [1, 3]. This demonstrates a logical and thoughtful
approach to the research.

Overall, the arguments in the article are logically consistent, coherent, and supported by
empirical evidence and relevant literature. [1, 2, 3, 5].
11 b) Further Critiques of an Empirical Article
In this section the strength of the empirical evidence supporting the author’s
The strength of the empirical evidence supporting the author's argument in the article can be
examined by considering the findings and the statistical analysis conducted.

The authors present the results of their hypotheses testing in Table 5 [1]. The table shows the
hypothesized dependence relationships of the study and indicates whether these relationships
were supported or not. For example, the authors found a positive relationship between citizens'
level of prior experience and their personal outcome expectations, self-efficacy, and satisfaction,
which supports H1a, H1b, and H1c [1]. These findings provide empirical evidence for the
influence of prior experience on these factors.

However, there are also instances where the hypothesized relationships were not supported by
the empirical evidence. For example, the authors found that social influence (SI) was not
positively associated with personal outcome expectations (POE) and satisfaction (SAT), which
does not support H2a and H4c [1]. Similarly, information quality (IQ) was not found to have a
positive relationship with personal outcome expectations (POE), contradicting H3a [1].

The strength of the empirical evidence can also be assessed by considering the statistical analysis
conducted. The authors used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Analysis of Moment
Structures (AMOS) to analyze the data [1]. These statistical methods are commonly used in
research to test models and examine relationships between constructs. By employing these
rigorous statistical techniques, the authors enhance the strength of the empirical evidence
supporting their argument.

In summary, the strength of the empirical evidence supporting the author's argument in the
article is mixed. While some relationships were supported by the findings, others were not. The
use of rigorous statistical analysis methods, such as SEM and AMOS, adds to the strength of the
empirical evidence. However, it is important to consider the limitations and inconsistencies in
the findings when evaluating the overall strength of the evidence [1].
12.Reference
What is the size of the references section?
Totally the article use 76 reference totally .
Are the references recent?
Yes it used both recent and old reference.

The mix of citation sources in the article includes academic journals, books, and conference
proceedings. Here is the breakdown of the citation sources for each item:

[1] The citation source for this item is not provided in the information given.
[2] Alruwaie, M. (2014) is a journal article cited from the International Journal of Electronic
Government Research.
[3] Anderson E.W., Sullivan M.W. (1993) is a journal article cited from Market Science.
[4] Bhattacherjee (2001) is a journal article cited from MIS Quarterly.
[5] Davis et al. (1989) is a journal article cited from MIS Quarterly.
These citations demonstrate a mix of academic journal articles from reputable sources in the field
of information systems and electronic government research.