A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model

A statistical meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model (TAM) as applied in various fields was conducted using 88 published studies that provided sufficient data to be credible. The results show TAM to be a valid and robust model that has been widely used, but which potentially has wider applicability. A moderator analysis involving user types and usage types was performed to investigate conditions under which TAM may have different effects. The study confirmed the value of using students as surrogates for professionals in some TAM studies, and perhaps more generally. It also revealed the power of meta-analysis as a rigorous alternative to qualitative and narrative literature review methods.

[1]  A. Field.  Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: a Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. , 2001, Psychological methods.

[2]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study , 1997, Inf. Manag..

[3]  William R. King,et al.  Manager-analyst teamwork in MISCooperation vital in systems design , 1971 .

[4]  H. G. Osburn,et al.  A note on the sampling variance of the mean uncorrected correlation in meta-analysis and validity generalization. , 1992 .

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

[6]  Afzaal H. Seyal,et al.  Senior government executives' use of the internet: A Bruneian scenario , 2004, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[7]  Vincent S. Lai,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of the Determinants of User Acceptance of Internet Banking , 2003, J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer..

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

[9]  Alan Howard.  Rapid Application Development: rough and dirty or value-for-money engineering? , 2002, CACM.

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

[11]  Jen-Her Wu,et al.  An Empirical Study of End-User Computing Acceptance Factors in Small and Medium Enterprises in Taiwan: Analyzed by Structural Equation Modeling , 2004, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Dahui Li,et al.  The Effect of Affiliation Motivation on the Intention to Use Groupware in an MBA Program , 2004, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Yi-Shun Wang,et al.  The adoption of electronic tax filing systems: an empirical study , 2003, Gov. Inf. Q..

[14]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Comparison of three meta-analysis methods revisited : An analysis of Johnson, Mullen, and Salas (1995) , 1999 .

[15]  Mun Y. Yi,et al.  Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[16]  BARKER DJ,et al.  Evaluating a Spoken Dialogue System for recording clinical observations during an endoscopic examination , 2003 .

[17]  M.H.P. Kleijnen,et al.  Consumer acceptance of wireless finance , 2004 .

[18]  Roger J. Calantone,et al.  International Technology Adoption , 1994 .

[19]  Peter Roberts,et al.  The beta test of an electronic supermarket , 1998, Interact. Comput..

[20]  Ron Henderson,et al.  Perceived usefulness, ease of use and electronic supermarket use , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[21]  William R. King,et al.  Understanding the Role and Methods of Meta-Analysis in IS Research , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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

[23]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies , 1999 .

[24]  Paul van Schaik,et al.  Clinical acceptance of a low-cost portable system for postural assessment , 2000, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[25]  D. S. Simpson,et al.  Evaluating a Spoken Dialogue System for recording clinical observations during an endoscopic examination , 2003, Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine.

[26]  Marios Koufaris,et al.  Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow Theory to Online Consumer Behavior , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[27]  G. Glass.  Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research , 2008 .

[28]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[29]  S.-S. Liaw,et al.  Understanding user perceptions of World-wide web environments , 2002, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[30]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  Predicting E-Services Adoption: A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[31]  Hassan M. Selim,et al.  An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[32]  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..

[33]  Lei-da Chen,et al.  Enticing online consumers: an extended technology acceptance perspective , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[34]  Venkateshviswanath,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000 .

[35]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Inexperience and experience with online stores: the importance of TAM and trust , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[36]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Explaining Software Developer Acceptance of Methodologies: A Comparison of Five Theoretical Models , 2002, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[37]  Beomsoo Kim,et al.  Adoption of broadband Internet in Korea: the role of experience in building attitudes , 2003, J. Inf. Technol..

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

[39]  Kar Yan Tam,et al.  Understanding User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: What are the Roles of Interface Characteristics, Organizational Context, and Individual Differences? , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[41]  John Ingham,et al.  Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[42]  D. Eden.  Replication, Meta-Analysis, Scientific Progress, and AMJ's Publication Policy , 2002 .

[43]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Comparison of Three Meta-Analysis Methods Revisited: An Analysis of Johnson, Mullen, and Salas (1995) , 1999 .

[44]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  It's all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance model , 2004, Decis. Support Syst..

[45]  Paul Jen-Hwa Hu,et al.  Investigating healthcare professionals' decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[46]  David Gefen,et al.  What Makes an ERP Implementation Relationship Worthwhile: Linking Trust Mechanisms and ERP Usefulness , 2004, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[47]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[48]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Meta-analysis: recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. , 2001, Annual review of psychology.

[49]  Tibor Gyires,et al.  The use of Web‐based information systems for non‐work activities: An empirical study , 2003 .

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

[51]  Judy Chuan-Chuan Lin,et al.  Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web site , 2000, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[52]  Hock-Hai Teo,et al.  Evaluating information accessibility and community adaptivity features for sustaining virtual learning communities , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[54]  Hsi-Peng Lu,et al.  The effects of cognitive style and model type on DSS acceptance: An empirical study , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[55]  Anthony R. Hendrickson,et al.  Desktop video conferencing in virtual workgroups: anticipation, system evaluation and performance , 2001 .

[56]  Chris W. Clegg,et al.  Explaining intranet use with the technology acceptance model , 2001, J. Inf. Technol..

[57]  A. Field,et al.  The Problems in Using Fixed-Effects Models of Meta-Analysis on Real-World Data , 2003 .

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

[59]  Anthony R. Hendrickson,et al.  Desktop video conferencing in virtual workgroups: anticipation, system evaluation and performance , 2001, Inf. Syst. J..

[60]  Barbara Stern,et al.  Consumer Bidding Behavior on Internet Auction Sites , 2002, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

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

[62]  Roger J. Calantone,et al.  International Technology Transfer: Model and Exploratory Study in the People's Republic of China , 2003 .

[63]  Bo K. Wong,et al.  The Impact of Power Distance on Email Acceptance: Evidence from the PRC , 2003, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[64]  A. F. Salam,et al.  An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[65]  Dennis P. Slevin,et al.  Implementation Exchange: The Implementation Profile , 1983 .

[66]  Arun Rai,et al.  Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical Test and Theoretical Analysis , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

[67]  Catherine M. Beise,et al.  A Study of User Attitudes toward Persistent Cookies , 2001, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[68]  John Lim,et al.  A conceptual framework on the adoption of negotiation support systems , 2003, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[69]  R. Rosenthal.  Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

[70]  Subhasish Dasgupta,et al.  User Acceptance of E-Collaboration Technology: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2002 .

[71]  David Gefen,et al.  Managing User Trust in B2C e-Services , 2003 .

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

[73]  Roger J. Calantone,et al.  A comparison of three models to explain shop‐bot use on the web , 2002 .

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

[75]  Cynthia K. Riemenschneider,et al.  Understanding it adoption decisions in small business: integrating current theories , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[76]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  How User Perceptions Influence Software Use , 1997, IEEE Softw..

[77]  Chorng-Shyong Ong,et al.  Factors affecting engineers' acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[78]  J. Michael Pearson,et al.  Electronic commerce adoption: an empirical study of small and medium US businesses , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[79]  Cynthia K. Riemenschneider,et al.  Explaining Software Development tool Use with the Technology Acceptance Model , 2001, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[80]  Kar Yan Tam,et al.  Determinants of User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: An Empirical Examination of Individual Differences and System Characteristics , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[81]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta‐Analysis , 2008 .

[82]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Investigating Determinants of Software Developers' Intentions to Follow Methodologies , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

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

[84]  Paul A. Pavlou,et al.  Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model , 2003, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[85]  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.

[86]  Hung-Pin Shih,et al.  Extended technology acceptance model of Internet utilization behavior , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[87]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: implications for software project management , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[88]  Rajiv Kohli,et al.  Antecedents of B2C Channel Satisfaction and Preference: Validating e-Commerce Metrics , 2002, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

[90]  Leo R. Vijayasarathy,et al.  Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: the case for an augmented technology acceptance model , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[91]  Chin-Lung Hsu,et al.  Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience , 2004, Inf. Manag..

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

[93]  John Shine,et al.  Extending the New Technology Acceptance Model to Measure the End User Information Systems Satisfaction in a Mandatory Environment: A Bank's Treasury , 2003, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[94]  Magid Igbaria,et al.  Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model , 1997, MIS Q..

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

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

[97]  Donna Weaver McCloskey,et al.  Evaluating Electronic Commerce Acceptance with the Technology Acceptance Model , 2004, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[98]  Leslie Stoel,et al.  Modeling the effect of experience on student acceptance of Web-based courseware , 2003, Internet Res..

[99]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  A power primer. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[100]  Moez Limayem,et al.  E-Mail and V-Mail Usage: Generalizing Across Technologies , 2000, J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer..

[101]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Creation of Favorable User Perceptions: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation , 1999, MIS Q..

[102]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  Technology Use and Performance: A Field Study of Broker Workstations* , 1999 .

[103]  Henry C. Lucas,et al.  Implementation in a world of workstations and networks , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[104]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing , 1995 .

[105]  Siu-cheung Chan,et al.  Understanding Internet Banking Adoption and Use Behavior: A Hong Kong Perspective , 2004, J. Glob. Inf. Manag..

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

[107]  Patrick Y. K. Chau,et al.  An Empirical Assessment of a Modified Technology Acceptance Model , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[108]  Paul Beynon-Davies,et al.  Prototyping Praxis: Constructing Computer Systems and Building Belief , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[109]  Mark Vandenbosch,et al.  Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions - Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[110]  P. Pavlou,et al.  Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model , 2003 .

[111]  Qingxiong Ma,et al.  The Technology Acceptance Model: A Meta-Analysis of Empirical Findings , 2004, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[112]  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..

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