User acceptance of wireless technology in organizations: A comparison of alternative models

This paper compared two versions of technology acceptance model (TAM) in understanding the determinants of user intention to use wireless technology in the workplace. The first model is derived from original TAM that includes perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude and behavioral intention, while the alternative model is a parsimonious version in which the attitude was taken out. The results indicated that TAM, either original or parsimonious, is successful in explaining user intention to use wireless technology in organizations. In addition, the parsimonious model showed a better model fit than that of the original model.

[1]  Simon S. Y. Shim,et al.  A Service Management Framework for M-Commerce Applications , 2002, Mob. Networks Appl..

[2]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test† , 1996 .

[3]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[4]  Dale L. Goodhue,et al.  Development and Measurement Validity of a Task-Technology Fit Instrument for User Evaluations of Inf , 1998 .

[5]  Fred D. Davis.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[6]  S. Crowley,et al.  Structural equation modeling: basic concepts and applications in personality assessment research. , 1997, Journal of personality assessment.

[7]  Patrick Y. K. Chau,et al.  An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of CASE by systems developers , 1996, Inf. Manag..

[8]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  EQS : structural equations program manual , 1989 .

[9]  E. Carmines,et al.  Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures , 1981 .

[10]  Imsook Ha,et al.  Determinants of adoption of mobile games under mobile broadband wireless access environment , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[11]  Blair H. Sheppard,et al.  The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research , 1988 .

[12]  G. Bohrnstedt,et al.  Social Measurement: Current Issues , 1981 .

[13]  Manuel J. Sánchez-Franco,et al.  Web acceptance and usage model: A comparison between goal-directed and experiential web users , 2005, Internet Res..

[14]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[15]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs , 1999, Inf. Manag..

[16]  David Gefen,et al.  The impact of developer responsiveness on perceptions of usefulness and ease of use: an extension of the technology acceptance model , 1998, DATB.

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

[18]  B. Mennecke,et al.  Mobile Commerce: Technology, Theory and Applications , 2002 .

[19]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[20]  Christine T. Kydd,et al.  Individual characteristics associated with World Wide Web use: an empirical study of playfulness and motivation , 1997, DATB.

[21]  Thompson S. H. Teo,et al.  Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage , 1999 .

[22]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing , 2010, MIS Q..

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

[24]  Bernadette Szajna,et al.  Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model , 1996 .

[25]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior , 2000, MIS Q..

[26]  Cynthia M. Jackson,et al.  Toward an Understanding of the Behavioral Intention to Use an Information System , 1997 .

[27]  Kieran Mathieson,et al.  Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[28]  V. Venkatesh,et al.  AGE DIFFERENCES IN TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION DECISIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR A CHANGING WORK FORCE , 2000 .

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

[30]  Hans van der Heijden,et al.  Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in The Netherlands , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[31]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

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

[33]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling With the Simplis Command Language , 1993 .

[34]  S. Mulaik,et al.  EVALUATION OF GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES FOR STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELS , 1989 .

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

[36]  Waiman Cheung,et al.  Determinants of the intention to use Internet/WWW at work: a confirmatory study , 2001, Inf. Manag..

[37]  Nick Bontis,et al.  User acceptance of wireless short messaging services: Deconstructing perceived value , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[38]  Jane M. Howell,et al.  Influence of Experience on Personal Computer Utilization: Testing a Conceptual Model , 1994, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Ronald M. Lee,et al.  A logic programming framework for planning and simulation , 1986 .

[40]  Martin Wetzels,et al.  A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[41]  Chang Liu,et al.  Determinants of accepting wireless mobile data services in China , 2008, Inf. Manag..

[42]  Albert L. Lederer,et al.  The technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web , 2000, Decis. Support Syst..

[43]  P. Bentler,et al.  Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures , 1980 .

[44]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[45]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[46]  Olivia R. Liu Sheng,et al.  Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology , 1999, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[47]  Young-Gul Kim,et al.  Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[48]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[49]  Michael J. Shaw,et al.  Success Factors and Impacts of Mobile Business Applications: Results from a Mobile e-Procurement Study , 2004, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

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

[51]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model , 2003, MIS Q..

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

[53]  D. Gustafson,et al.  An empirical study of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on computerized support system use over time , 1994 .

[54]  Venkatesh,et al.  Computer Technology Training in the Workplace: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Effect of Mood. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[55]  Fred D. Davis.  A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems : theory and results , 1985 .

[56]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..