Factors influencing the intention of persons with visual impairment to adopt mobile applications based on the UTAUT model

Despite the significance of studies related to mobile applications, little empirical research has been conducted into the factors that may affect visually impaired people’s acceptance and usage of mobile applications. This study investigated how individuals with visual impairment (VI) adopt and use mobile applications (apps) in their daily lives based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and explored what needs to be considered when developing a mobile app for people with VI. An online survey consisting of close-ended and open-ended questions was administered to a total of 259 participants with VI. Structural equation modeling was used to examine direct and moderated relationships among study variables. Thematic analysis was also conducted to analyze participants’ responses to the open-ended questions. The results of the quantitative analysis revealed that the performance expectancy significantly predicted the behavioral intention to use mobile apps, and this relationship was significantly moderated by the attitude toward mobile apps. The qualitative analysis showed that the functionality and accessibility of mobile apps were essential for improving the acceptance and usage of mobile apps for persons with visual impairment. Moreover, future mobile apps need to focus on enhancing specific features in navigation, communication, visual identification, and screen reading. The theoretical and practical implications are further discussed.

[1]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[2]  E. Aronson,et al.  Performance expectancy as a determinant of actual performance. , 1962, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[3]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[4]  B. Muthén,et al.  Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models , 1977 .

[5]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. , 1977, Psychological review.

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

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

[8]  J. H. Steiger.  Statistically based tests for the number of common factors , 1980 .

[9]  R. Jose.  Understanding low vision , 1983 .

[10]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[11]  D. Tuttle.  Self-Esteem and Adjusting With Blindness: The Process of Responding to Life's Demands , 1984 .

[12]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation , 1985 .

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

[14]  P. Bentler,et al.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  I. Ajzen.  The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[16]  Jane M. Howell,et al.  Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization , 1991, MIS Q..

[17]  M. Browne,et al.  Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit , 1992 .

[18]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace1 , 1992 .

[19]  A. Panter,et al.  Writing about structural equation models. , 1995 .

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

[21]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test , 1995, MIS Q..

[22]  Keith Punch,et al.  Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches , 1998 .

[23]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[24]  R. Sickles,et al.  An International Comparison of Technology Adoption and Efficiency: A Dynamic Panel Model , 1999 .

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

[26]  A. Koenig,et al.  Foundations of Education, Volume II: Instructional Strategies for Teaching Children and Youths with Visual Impairments. Second Edition. , 2000 .

[27]  M. A. Duffy.  Making Life More Livable: Simple Adaptations for Living at Home After Vision Loss , 2002 .

[28]  J. Libarkin,et al.  Research Methodologies in Science Education: The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate , 2002 .

[29]  I. Ajzen.  Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. , 2002 .

[30]  S. Spungin.  When You Have a Visually Impaired Student in Your Classroom: A Guide for Teachers , 2002 .

[31]  Elizabeth A. Lahm,et al.  Implementation of Assistive Technology with Students who are Visually Impaired: Teachers’ Readiness , 2002 .

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

[33]  Mandy J. Gamble,et al.  Informed decision making on assistive technology workplace accommodations for people with visual impairments. , 2004, Work.

[34]  Pekka Abrahamsson,et al.  Mobile-D: an agile approach for mobile application development , 2004, OOPSLA '04.

[35]  Pin Luarn,et al.  AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) , 2017 .

[36]  Kevin B. Wright,et al.  Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[37]  Dongsong Zhang,et al.  Challenges, Methodologies, and Issues in the Usability Testing of Mobile Applications , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[38]  Matthew J. Stowe,et al.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as amended in 2004 , 2006 .

[39]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , 2006 .

[40]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. , 2007 .

[41]  Kathleen M. T. Collins,et al.  A Mixed Methods Investigation of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social and Health Science Research , 2007 .

[42]  Jacob O. Wobbrock,et al.  Slide rule: making mobile touch screens accessible to blind people using multi-touch interaction techniques , 2008, Assets '08.

[43]  John Michael Pearson,et al.  Internet banking in Jordan: an Arabic instrument validation process , 2009, Int. Arab J. Inf. Technol..

[44]  E. Hartman,et al.  Motor Skill Performance of Children and Adolescents with Visual Impairments: A Review , 2009 .

[45]  Prodromos D. Chatzoglou,et al.  Using a modified technology acceptance model in hospitals , 2009, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[46]  Catherine S. Fichten,et al.  Accessibility of e-Learning and Computer and Information Technologies for Students with Visual Impairments in Postsecondary Education , 2009 .

[47]  Ike Presley,et al.  Assistive Technology For Students Who are Blind or Visually Impaired: A Guide to Assessment , 2009 .

[48]  Florian Michahelles,et al.  AppAware: which mobile applications are hot? , 2010, Mobile HCI.

[49]  Ludwig Christian Schaupp,et al.  The impact of trust, risk and optimism bias on E-file adoption , 2010, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[50]  Ender Tekin,et al.  A Mobile Phone Application Enabling Visually Impaired Users to Find and Read Product Barcodes , 2010, ICCHP.

[51]  Anthony I. Wasserman,et al.  Software engineering issues for mobile application development , 2010, FoSER '10.

[52]  Jennifer A. Robinson,et al.  The Effectiveness of Branded Mobile Phone Apps , 2011 .

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

[54]  Guanling Chen,et al.  AppJoy: personalized mobile application discovery , 2011, MobiSys '11.

[55]  Joaquim A. Jorge,et al.  Blind people and mobile touch-based text-entry: acknowledging the need for different flavors , 2011, ASSETS.

[56]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  A Meta-analysis of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) , 2011, Governance and Sustainability in Information Systems.

[57]  Johannes Schöning,et al.  Falling asleep with Angry Birds, Facebook and Kindle: a large scale study on mobile application usage , 2011, Mobile HCI.

[58]  Alain Abran,et al.  The state of the art of mobile application usability evaluation , 2012, 2012 25th IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE).

[59]  Yen-Chun Jim Wu,et al.  Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis , 2012, Comput. Educ..

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

[61]  Javier Sanchez,et al.  Designing Mobile Apps for Visually Impaired and Blind Users , 2012, ACHI 2012.

[62]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  An evaluation of BrailleTouch: mobile touchscreen text entry for the visually impaired , 2012, Mobile HCI.

[63]  H. Marsh,et al.  Structural equation models of latent interaction and quadratic effects. , 2013 .

[64]  Piotr Korbel,et al.  Mobile applications aiding the visually impaired in travelling with public transport , 2013, 2013 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems.

[65]  Swati V. Chande,et al.  A Review and Analysis on Mobile Application Development Processes using Agile Methodologies , 2013 .

[66]  Philippe Kruchten,et al.  Real Challenges in Mobile App Development , 2013, 2013 ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement.

[67]  Lilit Hakobyan,et al.  Mobile assistive technologies for the visually impaired. , 2013, Survey of ophthalmology.

[68]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Why people hate your app: making sense of user feedback in a mobile app store , 2013, KDD.

[69]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[70]  Uran Oh,et al.  Current and future mobile and wearable device use by people with visual impairments , 2014, CHI.

[71]  M. Cole,et al.  Incorporating UTAUT Predictors for Understanding Home Care Patients' and Clinician's Acceptance of Healthcare Telemedicine Equipment , 2014 .

[72]  Taedong Goh,et al.  Toward accessible mobile application design: developing mobile application accessibility guidelines for people with visual impairment , 2014 .

[73]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Mobile Application Usability: Conceptualization and Instrument Development , 2015, MIS Q..

[74]  Improving Public Transit Accessibility for Blind Riders by Crowdsourcing Bus Stop Landmark Locations with Google Street View: An Extended Analysis , 2015, ACM Trans. Access. Comput..

[75]  Ahmed E. Hassan,et al.  What Do Mobile App Users Complain About? , 2015, IEEE Software.

[76]  Tony Stockman,et al.  A survey of assistive technologies and applications for blind users on mobile platforms: a review and foundation for research , 2015, Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces.

[77]  L. L. Lewis.  iOS in the Classroom: A Guide for Teaching Students with Visual Impairments , 2016 .

[78]  Ahmed E. Hassan,et al.  Examining the Rating System Used in Mobile-App Stores , 2016, IEEE Software.

[79]  R. Varma,et al.  Visual Impairment and Blindness in Adults in the United States: Demographic and Geographic Variations From 2015 to 2050. , 2016, JAMA ophthalmology.

[80]  Ashutosh Kumar Singh,et al.  Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 , 2016, Lancet.

[81]  Devender R. Banda,et al.  A Survey on the Use of Mobile Applications for People who Are Visually Impaired , 2017 .

[82]  Mario Linares Vásquez,et al.  Continuous, Evolutionary and Large-Scale: A New Perspective for Automated Mobile App Testing , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME).

[83]  J. Scott Hawker,et al.  Study of Accessibility Guidelines of Mobile Applications , 2018, MUM.

[84]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a Revised Theoretical Model , 2017, Information Systems Frontiers.