Within-study measurement invariance of the UTAUT instrument: An assessment with user technology engagement variables

Establish within-study measurement invariance with variables within a single study.Analyzed invariance of UTAUT scales with six users' technology engagement variables.Conducted the full suite of seven different measurement invariance tests.Identified invariant UTAUT scale items that can be safely used in future studies.Also provide guidelines for conducting within-study measurement invariance analyses. We assess within-study invariance of key UTAUT scales considering a total of six respondent group characteristics: five variables pertaining to users' two technology engagement facets (prior technology knowledge and technology usage pattern) and one variable pertaining to their gender. Data collected from 250 respondents about their perceptions and usage of online blogs were analyzed to test six invariance hypotheses. The results indicate that the UTAUT instrument showed full or partial invariance for respondents' technology usage pattern and gender. With respect to prior IT knowledge, the UTAUT scales were found to be invariant for general IT knowledge but non-invariant for specific IT knowledge.

[1]  Il Im,et al.  An international comparison of technology adoption: Testing the UTAUT model , 2011, Inf. Manag..

[2]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication , 1992, MIS Q..

[3]  Gordon W. Cheung,et al.  Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance , 2002 .

[4]  P. Bentler,et al.  Models of attitude–behavior relations. , 1979 .

[5]  Gordon W. Cheung,et al.  A Direct Comparison Approach for Testing Measurement Invariance , 2012 .

[6]  Hüseyin Tanriverdi,et al.  Cross-Business Information Technology Integration and Acquirer Value Creation in Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions , 2011, Inf. Syst. Res..

[7]  Tor J. Larsen,et al.  A cross-cultural analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument: A multi-group invariance analysis , 2008, Inf. Manag..

[8]  Charles D. Barrett.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[9]  J. Miller,et al.  Toward a new psychology of women , 1976 .

[10]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience , 1995 .

[11]  J. Steenkamp,et al.  Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research , 1998 .

[12]  Suzanne Rivard,et al.  Investigating the Support Role of the Information Center , 1990, MIS Q..

[13]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  Testing the Determinants of Microcomputer Usage via a Structural Equation Model , 1995, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Gordon W. Cheung.  Testing Equivalence in the Structure, Means, and Variances of Higher-Order Constructs With Structural Equation Modeling , 2008 .

[15]  R. Vandenberg,et al.  A Review and Synthesis of the Measurement Invariance Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research , 2000 .

[16]  William J. Doll,et al.  A multi-group analysis of structural invariance: an illustration using the technology acceptance model , 2005, Inf. Manag..

[17]  R. Rosenfeld.  Belief , 2012, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[18]  Anol Bhattacherjee,et al.  Social Support : An Investigation of Network Information Technology Based on UTAUT , 2008 .

[19]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[20]  M. Zanna,et al.  Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship☆ , 1978 .

[21]  R. Bagozzi.  Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses. , 1981 .

[22]  Richard P. Bagozzi,et al.  Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research , 1991 .

[23]  William J. Doll,et al.  The Meaning and Measurement of User Satisfaction: A Multigroup Invariance Analysis of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument , 2004, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[24]  M. Sherif,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1946, Psychological review.

[25]  Chang Liu,et al.  An Application of the UTAUT Model for Understanding Student Perceptions Using Course Management Software , 2007, Communications of the IIMA.

[26]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Confounding Effects of Construct Overlap , 1994 .

[27]  Il Im,et al.  The Meaning and Measurements of the UTAUT Model: An Invariance Analysis , 2011, ICIS.

[28]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[29]  Kakoli Bandyopadhyay,et al.  The Effect of Culture on User Acceptance of Information Technology , 2007, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[30]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Applying TAM across cultures: the need for caution , 2007, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[31]  Jen-Her Wu,et al.  What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model , 2005, Inf. Manag..

[32]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[33]  L. Robinson.  Moving beyond Adoption: Exploring the Determinants of Student Intention to Use Technology , 2006 .

[34]  F. Chen.  Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance , 2007 .

[35]  Y. Braunstein,et al.  Information management , 1996 .

[36]  Michael H. Zack,et al.  Managing Codified Knowledge , 1999 .

[37]  Timothy Teo,et al.  Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[38]  Anthony R. Hendrickson,et al.  Using Davis's Perceived Usefulness and Ease-of-use Instruments for Decision Making: A Confirmatory and Multigroup Invariance Analysis , 1998 .

[39]  Gordon W. Cheung,et al.  Assessing Extreme and Acquiescence Response Sets in Cross-Cultural Research Using Structural Equations Modeling , 2000 .

[40]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2012, MIS Q..

[41]  F. Dambrot,et al.  Correlates of sex differences in attitudes toward and involvement with computers , 1985 .

[42]  D. Hibbs.  On analyzing the effects of policy interventions : Box-Jenkins and Box-Tiao vs. structural equation models , 1977 .

[43]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Predicting Different Conceptualizations of System Use: The Competing Roles of Behavioral Intention, Facilitating Conditions, and Behavioral Expectation , 2008, MIS Q..

[44]  WangShu-Ching,et al.  What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model , 2005 .

[45]  Stephanie E. Moser,et al.  Establishing Measurement Invariance: English and Spanish Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire , 2012, Nursing research.

[46]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies , 1997 .

[47]  Monica J. Garfield.  Acceptance of Ubiquitous Computing , 2005, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[48]  Gordon W. Cheung,et al.  Testing Factorial Invariance across Groups: A Reconceptualization and Proposed New Method , 1999 .

[49]  Paul Jen-Hwa Hu,et al.  Modeling Citizen Satisfaction with Mandatory Adoption of an E-Government Technology , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[50]  Barbara M. Byrne,et al.  Structural equation modeling with AMOS , 2010 .

[51]  R. Kelly Rainer,et al.  The Influence of Individual Differences on Skill in End-User Computing , 1992, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[52]  Gita Z. Wilder,et al.  Gender and computers: Two surveys of computer-related attitudes , 1985 .

[53]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[54]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Toward A Theory of Knowledge Reuse : Types of Knowledge Reuse Situations and Factors in Reuse Success , 2022 .

[55]  Yi-Shun Wang,et al.  Why do people use information kiosks? A validation of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[56]  Rajiv Kishore,et al.  How robust is the UTAUT instrument?: a multigroup invariance analysis in the context of acceptance and use of online community weblog systems , 2006, SIGMIS CPR '06.

[57]  C. Dennis,et al.  Internet banking acceptance model: Cross-market examination , 2010 .

[58]  Honglei Li,et al.  Technology acceptance model for internet banking: an invariance analysis , 2005, Inf. Manag..

[59]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[60]  P. R. Warshaw.  A New Model for Predicting Behavioral Intentions: An Alternative to Fishbein , 1980 .

[61]  Xiao Tong.  A cross‐national investigation of an extended technology acceptance model in the online shopping context , 2010 .

[62]  Barbara M. Byrne,et al.  Structural equation modeling with EQS : basic concepts, applications, and programming , 2000 .

[63]  Harold W. Thimbleby,et al.  Validating the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) tool cross-culturally , 2007, BCS HCI.

[64]  M. Reuchlin,et al.  DIFFERENTIAL PSYCHOLOGY , 1966 .

[65]  Holger Steinmetz,et al.  Testing measurement invariance using multigroup CFA: differences between educational groups in human values measurement , 2009 .

[66]  A. Eagly.  Sex differences in social behavior : a social-role interpretation , 1987 .

[67]  Patricia S. Jones,et al.  Assessing Cross-Cultural Differences Through Use of Multiple-Group Invariance Analyses , 2006, Journal of personality assessment.

[68]  Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp,et al.  The Effect of CRM Outsourcing on Shareholder Value: A Contingency Perspective , 2012, Manag. Sci..

[69]  Elena Delgado-Ballester,et al.  Applicability of a brand trust scale across product categories , 2004 .