Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model

By Paul Legris, John Ingham, P. Collerette. Information Manager (The), 2003

4,340 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6d1b2672761bb697c55f775a07ca1cf30f56a1c7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study (2020, background): “Also, researchers criticised the poor fit of this model, limited explanatory and predictive power, and lack of practical value (Legris et al., 2003).”
Dead Or Alive? The Development, Trajectory And Future Of Technology Adoption Research (2007, background): “More narrative reviews and pointers to key future research directions are presented in Gefen and Straub (2000), Lee et al. (2003), and Legris, Ingham, and Collerette (2003).”
Beyond Adoption: A New Framework for Theorizing and Evaluating Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to the Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability of Health and Care Technologies (2017, background): “Critics of the technology acceptance model have argued that it fails to account for human and social change processes [89].”
The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers' adoption of digital technology in education (2019, methodology): “Reference lists of existing reviews and meta-analyses that focused on the TAM were also screened (Imtiaz & Maarop, 2014; King & He, 2006; Legris, Ingham, & Collerette, 2003; Maranguni ć & Grani ć , 2015; Schepers & Wetzels, 2007; Turner, Kitchenham, Brereton, Charters, & Budgen, 2010).”
Using Social Network Sites: The Effects of Playfulness, Critical Mass and Trust in a Hedonic Context (2009, methodology): “Actual use was measured using 3 self-reported check-box interval-scale items to measure longevity, intensity, and frequency of use, similar to the scale used by Davis et al. [12] and most other measures of system use relative to TAM [29].”
A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model in Health Informatics (2018, methodology): “Accounts of the ﬁ rst decade of TAM-related research and suggestions of future directions were offered in 2003 by Lee et al 27 and Legris et al. 25 The directions included a need for incorporating more variables related to human and social change processes and exploring boundary conditions.”
Personal innovativeness, social influences and adoption of wireless Internet services via mobile technology (2005, background): “A meta-analysis of major technology acceptance studies published up to year 2001 (Legris et al., 2003) declared that early efforts concentrated on the identification of factors that facilitated IS use.”
How augmented reality apps are accepted by consumers : a comparative analysis using scales and opinions (2017, background): “Meta analyses have shown that TAM explains about 40% of the variance in the behavioral intention to use (BI) an innovative IT system (Legris et al., 2003).”
The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future (2003, neutral): “Despite its great success, however, few previous systematic efforts trace its history or investigate and evaluate its findings, limitations, and future [e.g., Doll et al., 1998; Gefen and Straub, 2000; Legris et al., 2003].”