Statistics Question

We did a survey based on the attached model, and I attached the survey results, The hypothesis of the study were: H0 : There is no statistical significance evidence that positive reaction to the use of virtual learning results in actual use of the platforms. H1 : There is a statistical significance evidence that positive reaction to the use of virtual learning results in actual use of the platforms Attached: – The model – The survey results – Factor Analysis Template – Regression results template – Reliability Template Kindy do the following using SPSS and do a report: 1. Check for missing data and replace with mean if needed 2. Recode reversed items if there are any 3. Conduct a factor Analysis for variables in the same model stage (IV, Mediator, DVs) – Use factor scores if there are cross-loadings > ±.4 and you don’t want to eliminate for conceptual reasons – Use mean scores or factor scores if there are no cross-loadings > ±.4 (your call) 4. Reliability analysis (compute Cronbach’s Alpha for each multi-item construct) 5. Run regressions according to the conceptual model 6. Put standardized coefficients into model as a results figure 7. Interpret the significant effects 8. Discuss explanations for insignificant or opposing effects 9. Discuss managerial implications you need to submit: – A report with the above result – All SPSS files

The presentation should be done as a powerpoint. SPSS must be used.

Rotated component matrix resulting from factor analysis
Factor 1:
Content
Focus
Factor 2:
Community
Focus
The Streamer …
… commentates his/her gameplay well.
… explains his/her decisions well while playing the game.
… commentates his/her gameplay frequently.
… frequently explains his/her decisions while playing the game.
… interacts well with his/her chat.
… interacts frequently with his/her chat.
0.80
0.84
0.81
0.84
0.22
0.25
0.31
0.29
0.19
0.29
0.94
0.93
Eigenvalue
Explained Variance
#.##
47.03%
#.##
34.17%
Item
Cron.
Alpha
0.89
0.93
Number of records in this query:
Total records in survey:
Percentage of total:
171
171
100.00%
Summary for PE(SQ001)[I would find virtual learning platforms useful to fufill my educational requirements]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
7
5.60%
Disagree (AO02)
2
1.60%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
6
4.80%
Neutral (AO04)
12
9.60%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
30
24.00%
Agree (AO06)
39
31.20%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
26
20.80%
No answer
3
2.40%
Summary for PE(SQ002)[Using virtual learning platforms enables me to accomplish my assignments quickly]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
3
2.40%
Disagree (AO02)
6
4.80%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
5
4.00%
Neutral (AO04)
13
10.40%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
25
20.00%
Agree (AO06)
36
28.80%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
34
27.20%
No answer
3
2.40%
Summary for PE(SQ003)[Using virtual learning platforms increases my productivity]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
5
4.00%
Disagree (AO02)
8
6.40%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
12
9.60%
Neutral (AO04)
20
16.00%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
19
15.20%
Agree (AO06)
34
27.20%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
24
19.20%
No answer
3
2.40%
Summary for PE(SQ004)[If I use virtual learning platforms, I will increase my chance of getting higher grades]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
4
3.20%
Disagree (AO02)
11
8.80%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
10
8.00%
Neutral (AO04)
18
14.40%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
18
14.40%
Agree (AO06)
Strongly Agree (AO07)
No answer
31
30
3
24.80%
24.00%
2.40%
Summary for EE(SQ001)[My interaction with virtual learning platforms would be clear and understandable]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
5
4.31%
Disagree (AO02)
6
5.17%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
7
6.03%
Neutral (AO04)
10
8.62%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
22
18.97%
Agree (AO06)
41
35.34%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
25
21.55%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for EE(SQ002)[It would be easy for me to become skillful at using virtual learning platforms]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
3
2.59%
Disagree (AO02)
5
4.31%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
3
2.59%
Neutral (AO04)
8
6.90%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
22
18.97%
Agree (AO06)
39
33.62%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
36
31.03%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for EE(SQ003)[I would find virtual learning platforms easy to use]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
2
1.72%
Disagree (AO02)
0
0.00%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
3
2.59%
Neutral (AO04)
5
4.31%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
27
23.28%
Agree (AO06)
41
35.34%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
38
32.76%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for EE(SQ004)[Learning to navigate through the platforms is easy for me]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
2
1.72%
Disagree (AO02)
2
1.72%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
2
1.72%
Neutral (AO04)
7
6.03%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
20
17.24%
Agree (AO06)
Strongly Agree (AO07)
No answer
44
39
0
37.93%
33.62%
0.00%
Summary for ATUT(SQ001)[Using virtual learning platforms is a good idea]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
2
1.72%
Disagree (AO02)
5
4.31%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
5
4.31%
Neutral (AO04)
6
5.17%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
18
15.52%
Agree (AO06)
35
30.17%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
45
38.79%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for ATUT(SQ002)[The virtual learning platform makes studying more interesting]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
6
5.17%
Disagree (AO02)
12
10.34%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
11
9.48%
Neutral (AO04)
16
13.79%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
27
23.28%
Agree (AO06)
17
14.66%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
27
23.28%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for ATUT(SQ003)[Studying on virtual learning platform is fun]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
7
6.03%
Disagree (AO02)
6
5.17%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
13
11.21%
Neutral (AO04)
21
18.10%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
24
20.69%
Agree (AO06)
24
20.69%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
21
18.10%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for ATUT(SQ004)[I like studying on virtual learning platforms]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
8
6.90%
Disagree (AO02)
4
3.45%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
7
6.03%
Neutral (AO04)
17
14.66%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
22
18.97%
Agree (AO06)
Strongly Agree (AO07)
No answer
30
28
0
25.86%
24.14%
0.00%
Summary for SI(SQ001)[People who influence my behavior think that I should use virtual learning platforms]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
8
6.96%
Disagree (AO02)
12
10.43%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
9
7.83%
Neutral (AO04)
41
35.65%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
17
14.78%
Agree (AO06)
16
13.91%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
12
10.43%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for SI(SQ002)[People who are important to me think that I should use virtual learning platforms]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
9
7.83%
Disagree (AO02)
12
10.43%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
12
10.43%
Neutral (AO04)
35
30.43%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
19
16.52%
Agree (AO06)
17
14.78%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
11
9.57%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for SI(SQ003)[The dean of my educational institution has been supportive in the use of virtual learning platforms]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
7
6.09%
Disagree (AO02)
5
4.35%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
8
6.96%
Neutral (AO04)
32
27.83%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
19
16.52%
Agree (AO06)
27
23.48%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
17
14.78%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for SI(SQ004)[In general, the educational institution has supported the use of virtual learning platforms]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
5
4.35%
Disagree (AO02)
4
3.48%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
5
4.35%
Neutral (AO04)
23
20.00%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
31
26.96%
Agree (AO06)
Strongly Agree (AO07)
No answer
25
22
0
21.74%
19.13%
0.00%
Summary for FC(SQ001)[I have the resources necessary to use the virtual learning platform]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
2
1.75%
Disagree (AO02)
1
0.88%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
6
5.26%
Neutral (AO04)
3
2.63%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
15
13.16%
Agree (AO06)
36
31.58%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
51
44.74%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for FC(SQ002)[I have the knowledge necessary to use the virtual learning platform]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
1
0.88%
Disagree (AO02)
0
0.00%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
3
2.63%
Neutral (AO04)
3
2.63%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
14
12.28%
Agree (AO06)
43
37.72%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
50
43.86%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for FC(SQ003)[The virtual learning platform is compatible with operating systems I use]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
1
0.88%
Disagree (AO02)
3
2.63%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
4
3.51%
Neutral (AO04)
6
5.26%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
17
14.91%
Agree (AO06)
30
26.32%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
53
46.49%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for FC(SQ004)[The educational institution’s IT support is available for assistance with platform difficulties]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
2
1.75%
Disagree (AO02)
3
2.63%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
10
8.77%
Neutral (AO04)
14
12.28%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
26
22.81%
Agree (AO06)
Strongly Agree (AO07)
No answer
29
30
0
25.44%
26.32%
0.00%
Summary for SE(SQ001)[I could complete an assignment or homework using the virtual learning platform if there was no one a
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
2
1.75%
Disagree (AO02)
2
1.75%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
3
2.63%
Neutral (AO04)
9
7.89%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
22
19.30%
Agree (AO06)
33
28.95%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
43
37.72%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for SE(SQ002)[I could complete an assignment or homework using the virtual learning platform if I could call someon
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
2
1.75%
Disagree (AO02)
3
2.63%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
6
5.26%
Neutral (AO04)
15
13.16%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
18
15.79%
Agree (AO06)
28
24.56%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
42
36.84%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for SE(SQ003)[I could complete an assignment or homework using the virtual learning platform if I had the option to
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
1
0.88%
Disagree (AO02)
4
3.51%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
2
1.75%
Neutral (AO04)
14
12.28%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
25
21.93%
Agree (AO06)
31
27.19%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
37
32.46%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for SE(SQ004)[I could complete an assignment or homework using the virtual learning platform if I had the chance to
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
1
0.88%
Disagree (AO02)
3
2.63%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
2
1.75%
Neutral (AO04)
18
15.79%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
24
21.05%
Agree (AO06)
Strongly Agree (AO07)
No answer
24
42
0
21.05%
36.84%
0.00%
Summary for ANX(SQ001)[I feel apprehensive about using virtual learning platforms]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
19
16.96%
Disagree (AO02)
11
9.82%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
15
13.39%
Neutral (AO04)
27
24.11%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
12
10.71%
Agree (AO06)
16
14.29%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
12
10.71%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for ANX(SQ002)[It scares me to think that I could lose a lot of information using the virtual learning platform by hitting
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
18
16.07%
Disagree (AO02)
18
16.07%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
13
11.61%
Neutral (AO04)
14
12.50%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
25
22.32%
Agree (AO06)
13
11.61%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
11
9.82%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for ANX(SQ003)[I hesitate to use the virtual learning platfrom for fear of making mistakes I cannot correct]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
21
18.75%
Disagree (AO02)
27
24.11%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
19
16.96%
Neutral (AO04)
13
11.61%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
14
12.50%
Agree (AO06)
9
8.04%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
9
8.04%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for ANX(SQ004)[The virtual learning platform is somewhat intimidating to me]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
32
28.57%
Disagree (AO02)
22
19.64%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
13
11.61%
Neutral (AO04)
16
14.29%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
8
7.14%
Agree (AO06)
Strongly Agree (AO07)
No answer
12
9
0
10.71%
8.04%
0.00%
Summary for BIUS(SQ001)[I intend to use virtual learning platforms throughout my educational journey]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
3
2.68%
Disagree (AO02)
4
3.57%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
4
3.57%
Neutral (AO04)
14
12.50%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
29
25.89%
Agree (AO06)
28
25.00%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
30
26.79%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for BIUS(SQ002)[I predict I will use virtual learning platforms throughout my educational journey]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
3
2.68%
Disagree (AO02)
2
1.79%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
3
2.68%
Neutral (AO04)
12
10.71%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
26
23.21%
Agree (AO06)
35
31.25%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
31
27.68%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for BIUS(SQ003)[I plan to use virtual learning platforms throughout my educational journey]
In the following, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Strongly Disagree (AO01)
3
2.68%
Disagree (AO02)
4
3.57%
Somewhat Disagree (AO03)
4
3.57%
Neutral (AO04)
16
14.29%
Somewhat Agree (AO05)
20
17.86%
Agree (AO06)
33
29.46%
Strongly Agree (AO07)
32
28.57%
No answer
0
0.00%
Summary for GEN
Please state your gender
Answer
Count
Female (F)
Male (M)
No answer
Percentage
43
52
16
38.74%
46.85%
14.41%
Summary for AGE
Please state your age.
Answer
No answer
ID
111
0
Response
3
5
7
8
12
13
14
15
16
18
22
23
28
34
38
39 36
40
43
48
49
51
52
53
54
55
57
58
59
61
65
66
67
68
70
71
73
76
77
78
82
84
88
90
94
95
29
24.5
37
30
31
25
32
34
34
27
27
36
32
39
29
27
39
32
30
21
20
19
32
21
22
24
21
28
32
30
37
30
29
30
36
36
39
30
38
26
31
30
32
30
100.00%
0.00%
96
97
98
99
101
104
107 3r
108
110
112
114
115
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
30
39
27
39
23
29
35
30
30
35
24
24
21
21
31
20
30
58
27
30
20
28
21
25
38
20
26
24
22
36
29
20
49
25
22
20
25
20
34
34
26
40
27
33
23
35
20
33
32
20
22
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
167
168
169
170
171
20
21
39
34
21
22
41
22
29
48
24
24
23
27
Summary for INC
Please select your monthely income range in SAR.
Answer
Count
Percentage
Below 4,000SAR (AO01)
34
From 4,000SAR to less than 8,000SAR (AO02) 10
From 8,000SAR to less than 12,000SAR (AO03)14
From 12,000SAR to 15,000SAR (AO04)
13
Above 15,000SAR (AO05)
40
No answer
0
30.63%
9.01%
12.61%
11.71%
36.04%
0.00%
arning platform if I had the option to extend the deadline to complete the assignment for which the platform was provided]
arning platform if I had the chance to chat with the instructor or teaching assistant (TA) for assistance]
m was provided]
Item formulations, factor loadings, and reliability
Items
Construct name (Source)
1. Item 1
2. Item 2
3. …
Customer-oriented behavior (Peccei and Rosenthal 1997)
1. I am always working to improve the quality of service I give to
customers.
2. I put a lot of effort into my job to try to satisfy customers.
3. No matter how I feel, I always put myself out for every customer I
serve.
4. I often go out of my way to help customers.
Self-efficacy (adapted from Schwarzer et al. 1997)
1. I can always manage to solve difficult work problems if I try hard
enough.
2. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events at
work.
3. I can solve most problems at work, if I invest the necessary effort.
4. I can remain calm when facing difficulties at work, because I can rely
on my coping abilities.
5. When I am confronted with a problem at work, I can usually find
several solutions.
Factor
loadings

EV
.##
.##
.##
.##
#.##
.88
1.44
.91
2.44
.73***
.79***
.84***
.82***
.79***
.82***
.77***
.84***
.84***
Note: All items are measured on five-point scales ranging from 1 = “totally disagree” to 7 = “totally agree”;  = Cronbach’s
alpha; EV = Eigenvalue
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
Qarterly
RESEARCH ARTICLE
USER ACCEPTANCE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY: TOWARD A UNIFIED VIEW^
Abstract
By: Viswanath Venkatesh
Robert H. Smith School of Business
University of Maryland
Van Munching Hall
College Park, MD 20742
U.S.A.
wenkate@rhsmith.umd.edu
Michael G. Morris
Mcintire School of Commerce
University of Virginia
Monroe Hall
Charlottesville, VA 22903-2493
U.S.A.
mmorrls@virginia.edu
Gordon B. Davis
Carlson School of Management
University of Minnesota
321 19’^ Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
U.S.A.
gdavis@csom.umn.edu
Fred D. Davis
Sam M. Walton College of Business
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701-1201
U.S.A.
fdavis@walton.uark.edu
Cynthia Beath was the accepting senior editor for this
paper.
Information technology (IT) acceptance research
has yielded many competing models, each with
different sets of acceptance determinants. In this
paper, we (1) review user acceptance literature
and discuss eight prominent models, (2) empirically compare the eight models and their extensions, (3) formulate a unified model that integrates
elements across the eight models, and (4) empirically validate the unified model. The eight models
reviewed are the theory of reasoned action, the
technology acceptance model, the motivational
model, the theory of planned behavior, a model
combining the technology acceptance model and
the theory of planned behavior, the model of PC
utilization, the innovation diffusion theory, and the
social cognitive theory. Using data from four
organizations over a six-month period with three
points of measurement, the eight models explained between 17 percent and 53 percent of the
variance in user intentions to use information
technology. Next, a unified model, called the
United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). was formulated, with four core
determinants of intention and usage, and up to
four moderators of key relationships. UTAUT was
then tested using the original data and found to
outperform the eight individual models (adjusted
R^ of 69 percent). UTAUT was then confirmed
with data from two new organizations with similar
results (adjusted f^ of 70 percent). UTAUT thus
provides a useful tool for managers needing to
MIS Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 3. pp. 425-478/September 2003
425
Venkatesh et at./User Acceptance of IT
assess the likelihood of success for new technology introductions and helps them understand the
drivers of acceptance in order to proactively design interventions (including training, marketing,
etc.) targeted at populations of users that may be
less inclined to adopt and use new systems. The
paper also makes several recommendations for
future research including developing a deeper
understanding of the dynamic influences studied
here, refining measurement ofthe core constructs
used in UTAUT, and understanding the organizational outcomes associated with new technology
use.
Keywords: Theory of pianned behavior, innovation characteristics, technology acceptance
model, sociai cognitive theory, unified model,
integrated modei
Introduction
The presence of computer and information technologies in today’s organizations has expanded
dramaticaiiy. Some estimates indicate that, since
the 1980s, about 50 percent of all new capital
investment in organizations has been in information technology (Westland and Clark 2000). Yet,
for technologies to improve productivity, they must
be accepted and used by employees in organizations. Explaining user acceptance of new technology is often described as one of the most
mature research areas in the contemporary information systems (IS) literature (e.g , Hu et al.
1999). Research in this area has resulted in
several theoretical models, with roots in information systems, psychology, and sociology, that
routinely explain over 40 percent ofthe variance in
individual intention to use technology (e.g., Davis
et al. 1989; Taylor and Todd 1995b; Venkatesh
and Davis 2000). Researchers are confronted
with a choice among a multitude of models and
find that they must “pick and choose” constructs
across the models, or choose a “favored model”
and largely ignore the contributions from
alternative models. Thus, there is a need for a
review and synthesis in order to progress toward
a unified view of user acceptance.
426
MIS Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 3/September 2003
The current work has the following objectives:
(1) To review the extant user acceptance
models: The primary purpose of this review
is to assess the current state of knowledge
with respect to understanding individual
acceptance of new information technologies.
This review identifies eight prominent models
and discusses their similarities and differences. Some authors have previously observed some of the similarities across
models.^ However, our review is the first to
assess similarities and differences across all
eight models, a necessary first step toward
the ultimate goal of the paper: the development of a unified theory of individual acceptance of technology. The review is presented
in the following section.
(2) To empirically compare the eight models:
We conduct a within-subjects, longitudinal
validation and comparison of the eight
models using data from four organizations.
This provides a baseline assessment of the
relative explanatory power of the individual
models against which the unified model can
be compared. The empirical model comparison is presented in the third section.
(3) To formulate the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT):
Based upon conceptual and empirical similarities across models, we formulate a unified
model. The formulation of UTAUT is presented in the fourth section.
(4) To empirically validate UTAUT: An empirical
test of UTAUT on the original data provides
preliminary support for our contention that
UTAUT outperforms each of the eight original
models. UTAUT is then cross-validated using
data from two new organizations. The empirical validation of UTAUT is presented in the
fifth section.
Forexample, Moore and Benbasal (1991) adapted the
perceived usefulness and ease of use items from Davis
et al.’s (1989) TAM to measure relative advantage and
complexity, respectively, in their innovation diffusion
model.
Venkatesh et aL/User Acceptance of IT
t—
•
Individual reactions to
using information
technology
1
1
Intentions to use
information
technology
1
Actual use of
information
technology
Figure 1. Basic Concept Underiying User Acceptance Modeis
Review of Extant User
Acceptance Models
Description of Models
and Constructs
IS research has long studied how and why individuals adopt new information technologies. Within
this broad area of inquiry, there have been several
streams of research. One stream of research
focuses on individual acceptance of technology by
using intention or usage as a dependent variable
(e.g., Compeau and Higgins 1995b; Davis et al.
1989).
Other streams have focused on
implementation success at the organizational level
(Leonard-Barton and Deschamps 1988) and tasktechnology fit (Goodhue 1995; Goodhue and
Thompson 1995), among others. While each of
these streams makes important and unique
contributions to the literature on user acceptance
of information technology, the theoretical models
to be included in the present review, comparison,
and synthesis employ intention and/or usage as
the key dependent variable. The goal here is to
understand usage as the dependent variable. The
role of intention as a predictor of behavior (e.g.,
usage) is critical and has been well-established in
IS and the reference disciplines (see Ajzen 1991;
Sheppard et al. 1988; Taylor and Todd 1995b).
Figure 1 presents the basic conceptual framework
underlying the class of models explaining individual acceptance of information technology that
forms the basis of this research. Our review resulted in the identification of eight key competing
theoretical models. Table 1 describes the eight
1
models and defines their theorized determinants
of intention and/or usage. The models hypothesize between two and seven determinants of
acceptance, for a total of 32 constructs across
the eight models. Table 2 identifies four key
moderating variables (experience, voluntariness,
gender, and age) that have been found to be
significant in conjunction with these models.
Prior Model Tests and
Model Comparisons
There have been many tests of the eight models
but there have only been four studies reporting
empirically-based comparisons of two or more of
the eight models published in the major information systems journals. Table 3 provides a brief
overview of each of the model comparison
studies. Despite the apparent maturity of the research stream, a comprehensive comparison of
the key competing models has not been conducted in a single study. Below, we identify five
limitations of these prior model tests and comparisons, and how we address these limitations in our
work.
Technology studied: The technologies that
have been studied in many of the model
development and comparison studies have
been relatively simple, individual-oriented
information technologies as opposed to more
complex and sophisticated organizational
technologies that are the focus of managerial
concern and of this study.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 3/September 2003
All
1
1
0
o
o
to
E
1
.0
_c
“a
r-
S
ro
CO
3
C
o x>
0
CD
tj
ro
0
E
ro
03
0
•o
c
ro
>,
O3
o
(A
E
5
0
CO
0
03
>,
1—
“S m
< 0 c t/3 Q. ai XI O o tj •n •2 ° o 'r-'. d 0 2 "55 O3 _ro O) fD -D •§ 3 0 tr CD CM Q. ro 3 o 0 "B E CO o Z 0 0 to Q. I ^ Ji •g >>
“o p ro •
5
J
13
1-
E
g
.c
OJ
1-^
5
?
0
D
13
if
n
2
“(5
“c i ;
0”
“Q.
g
X)
< tn d r— 0) o s— X) 0 0 o 3 35 "H. ro 0 ro m 3 >
4—
.>
“C
CO
c
UJ
0
CO
;^
O
“S
LJ
c
c
3i. 199:
rform i
etiv
n the proc(
tsel
or pro mot ion;
le aeti\
rform j
tal in a
M2onl
hat usi
‘ (Davis
hat usi
nerjob
ro
ntr einforoi
tivity pt
Q.
be ins
listinol
rmanc
0
vill wa
_2 E o
al.
If
that an
ved job pe
iclude
X)
penceived
at user
AJTPB.
free c
0 CD
.^•
apun
M/S Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 3/September 2003
SB UJJC
TO
would
p. 321
< triinsic Moti ro L' 0 0 JD m peier 1999). •o 0 ro teef lnology adopti H" '0 T- rstand jnkate ro < " a: tional theo ry to and use (s ee al Q. o l_ 0 "to rr tenets ot tlIIS theoret loal beise. Withiin the informa tion systems diomai, vis et ia!. (1992) 1 applied motiv 0 .2 0 CJ3"' rinsic Moi Q. ^g c CD /chology has E )Up- C 0 d ported gerleral motiv ation 1 :heor an explanatio behavior :ral st udies have: exa mined motivaljonal theory anc1 ada pted it for s|Decifiiceo ntexts. Valler; (1997) pre sent; fxcelle nt re'^'lew of thefundanrlental o O" c lodel (MM) c r c ro o CD A signifiea nt beidy of resea reh ir s > ro
c
_i
O3
1 Motivatioi
CO
JT”
in 197;
CO
dely applied t(
rs.
0
TO
ion be
(e who are
ngs (e’^alu
vior (F•ishi
CN”
intention \i
and Davis 200C
diverse set o f t f
.11
to
lieh a p
0
would
ivis 19E
(0
a. “«
ceived E
5
Q.
O3
C
derto better eexplain
:ended TAM b;/ iniddit ional predictor
ettings (Venkc
bein a
O
«
o
lich a p
at mo
hould
Q.
O o
ceived U
“M
d.
exeludes t he at
! eon SI
intention plarsin
usiy.
eluding su
ive nc
< "(0 AM) 0_ JD Q. 1 r*. was designed to prediet inforn"latior 1 teehnologj epta nee and usagi the job. Unlike TRA , thefinal e jptualization o fTAM o. C avii .c pen ception Ihmk h( lest ion" (Fi k_ "o ccepitance Mod o cu t TAM is tai lored to IS conte xts, i o ro 1 Technoto 0) 0 Djeetive ^ 1 • o >
(1989) apiDlied IKA to individuc
ceptanee of technothati[he vairianc eexiplained was la
eonsistent: with studi
t hac
ployed TRA in the
1 context of othe r behiaviors.
negati
e targ< 1 ositive ( orming 0 anqe of behav'iors (see Shepipard etal. 1988 fora revi ew). Davis et al. ct tude Tow lavior "(3 pune 428 inil 1 • fundamen tal ar luentiall the. It has bee )d to 1predic' k is one of the most ; of human belhavior. •• 0 LUI ^^M cial p:sychol Hi Drawn froi 1 ••lr 1 UJI re Const ^H Theory ol Rea sone d Acti Ver)katesh et al./User Acceptance of IT 0 CM '0 to ' ^ to CM" d 0 to >
ro
03
03
.9
0/
0
ro
CJ
ro .£
TO
0
0
0
Q.
to
to
c
0
CO
ro
CO
0
to
wp
Kip O
[^
0
E o
C)
< C TJ 0 >
“o
CO
c
n
1-
ll
Q-
CD X
1—
ro
B
a.
B
“Q.
0
TJ
ro
T3
< 0 XJ o .if CD 0 c o .^ ^t >•—
o
_2
«•- .0
ro
o
o
>
TJ
“c 0 CQ
0
0 ro CO
T3
o
^
X3
c
E
c
c/3
±j
“TO
c
ro
0
0
CO
‘
o
c
0
0
0
X3
ro
.S
x:
O
“g
E
ro
3
Z
0
>
0
a
m\
b
x;
a;
0
^>
TJ
0
CO
—
T-
0
Q
O
r—
CO
c ro
(0
0 CD
Q.
‘o
c Q.
B
“g f” n\ E 0
TJ
o
x:
0
•
1
o
0
0
Q
1.
u 1H- T3 o
_,_:,
T—
a o c
c
0
O
< 0 Q. Q f— Q jf C13 n 0 tn 0 h 0 X3 CQ CL CD Q. l~ 1— it a: ^— 1— E E o g H- >
T5
TJ
•D
TD
o xro:
_0
B
“a.
0
O
O
X3
c
0 g o
o ro E
E “0 —
“s ^
“o
c
CU
1
0
a. 0 ‘ –
I 5
E
o
C
“5.
ro
o
TJ
< "2 o TJ ro 5 0 o Q- CJ OQ 1 - sn T3 H CO u LL. "5 Q- o E o E o o z0 >
TJ
o
^
D ro 0
.a”
K 0
< CO CO — UJ CO tJ TJ 1- Q. E "AM. CO «t ro TJ < •a < Q. ro "TO o sz 0 D[0 Tl 0 TJ 0 0 rceiv o .}TJ E g 4— Oi U) c lavi o c B rceiv ntrol "o •o 95b, o Tiodel combines the p dictors fived IJ sefulness from \ M t o r H (Ta>‘lor and To’
^ •
eptior
raylor
0
-TAM-
E
lavi
t—
rceiv
ntrol
perf ormi
the coni
•n
•
nst
CO
jfceive
tructur
ffieul
. 188
\ intei
tTod
I•
ease •
RA.
••
•
eontr
s” att
al eo
c
o
bject
V)
ings.
nding
!rent i
1;Ta5
Dmpo
tn
o
de var
d to thf
age of
‘; Math
model ist
DTPB
ntieal t
^ H (=
predi’
reC
^1-2
;ion arId behavio r in a
een s uccessfull^/ appi
livi’dual aicceptance and I
loqlies (hlarrison et al. 19
‘odd 1 995b). A l’elatei
*lanned Be havio
;tin g inte ntion, DTP B is ic
Bbut similar to 1lAM,
subje etive norm , and
s the underlying beliei
tion cc3ntexts.
bined TAM and TPB’
(1)
perci
vin ral cc
inten
1
} the Cl
ereeivf
al dete
)resenl
ully usi
I•
SUJ
0
ry of 1Planned B ehavi r(TPB
E
sxtencJed TRA b:/addi
^ioral eontrol. In TPR
orizeci to be an
0
•^
_
ro
. ^ ^
.E ro
O
•Q
0
c ro
0 x:
O E .-^
O
CO
c
o
O
cn
c
E 5
a.
CO
E
o
O
c
o
58
CO
0
>
c
_: P
0 ro ”
t
0
to
^
ro —
C B
CD
O O)
.i c
ro ro O 0 ro 2!
d 3 ^ —
x : •- sz
0 0 *-
-9 €
E
^
05 * ro
ro
CO
i£
ro -c
_ N Q. 3 o05 *j=Q. 0
£ –
t
C
ca
ro
^ E E
0 .2 u
J 0 Q^ -‘- “S
ii
CO CO
ro i5 ,_
P CD
o
a
«, 2 S5 9 3
0
«
O
C LL
CD
” cn 0 (N
fr ro Q. T2^ _ CO
0
ci
O
^ ro ^
3
^
tu
0
0
0
E rf ^ ro 3
Ii
c to
iR 2: ‘ o CD
•5 c > .
oi
Si
CO
2
CJ
•>
_:
0)
0
0 -D 5
3 c “TO
-n O D
CD 0)
_3 CL
>S^ o . ro
(0 Q.
ro
tfl
CD
05
Q.
.9 ~ E
05 !S2
^ o
CO
.b c
0 .9
£ “to
ro
« g
ro
ro c
01 3
«- ro
o ^ iy
ro
E
o
0 O CN
•D i t ‘ –
ro «_
x: o
c
o
c
o
^ B
CD
c
ro .».-
I 1°
o
ro
ro Qi=
cn
Q. c ro
3 o *O 0
CO
c
I
5
«
“”
0
0
x:
0
•
*
Hi
^^-^
CT)
\-
0 e
ing
sat
ore 1
1
0
3
CO
0)
.E
CJ
TO
.c.
• ^
s
to
05
3
^ Csl
2J CO
CD
C
0
^
0
•–•
^~
tn
p
£ P
i: a.
‘o o
:§ “p – ^
.„ 0 “^
fl5
c
_•
o
O
X cn
0
-r-
Q)
d.
CJ
2O
0
o
>
0
._
^
CJ
?^
–
XZ
ro f
>
o
LO
s
CO
C
0
0
JD
to
ro
—
^
x : c g £ ~—
a
“^ . . ro
l O >•— ro
“TO
(o
ra
”
Q
. c
N >
0)
CJ)
c £
0
Ol
* ^ CJ
ro O
p: u) CJ
ro o ro
o
0) Q
0
CD
0
cn
O
•—•
i2 >. c^
3 1= o
CJ
0
T3
0
nov
.9 ro
ro
D
B h-c cn o
novati on Di
Cl
0 _ro c
p
ra
>
E o p
LE
O) 0
cn TS
c
ro
.c
ro
CO
ro
Q. c
“£^Ei
-^ “D
P ro
> S”
-E c ro
•5-
“> E -C J =
S
o CO a
“*”^ ‘j^s r r
P
E o i
o
ro
CJ
(1
–
0 E2
“ra ^ 0
Q.
c
P
.c
CO
0
>
0
O
to CD
c
u
1
It
ro
jE c
”
o
E
o
t/)
o
0
Ol
^ C f l (A
o
01
3
;=
2! o
O) ” ^
a
0
KTB
E P
x:
0
•
I1
0
gree 1
ttert han it
jfinit ions
•
tj
{-
ral 30lS to orgar
^H
^
H
^H
Cu
ro 0
^ O
c O
C
0
0
12 g 0}
“-1 O ^
m
c
Q
CO
3
CJ
sz
p
^
ro 3 D- c
p iS 1- ro B
CD
.-
E
c
O If
c CT
t/)
O
c
.9 =
ro if”
“^ o
fli
^-
iir
o
o
C
.c
c
D.
c
gree t
.c
c^
c 2^
o
p
ro
VolunI irin
0
“TO
0
0
gree t
.g
(0
“‘
CO
ficult
nj
ro
.c
isat
.52
c
ro ro
O
• ”
CJ)
0
C
ro ro 0
91).
0
fd
«
CO
c
O l CO
and
L
(fl
usin
ro
X3
CD X I
1=
0 01
D- ^
o
05
igibilit
ig the
nbasc
ci.
ro
nsisti
perie
91, p
CJ S?
0
CO
gree t
CO
Stem 1
1
ro cn
•a
0
“TO
0
• —
E
1 —
0
CJ
•
•
E
“* 0
0 —5
CO
Ol
> . to
the 0rgani;zatic
TD
0
•
ing
1
ro
0
X
d BenIDasat
•
0
X)
ra
T3
Ct
I/;
0)
0) Q.
0 •o
lidity o
•
–
n is
iocia
^H
^H
ing
1r
dto 1
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance ot IT
o
c
c “n
ro
“TO
“0
0
X3 O to c
ro o
•n
c
tn
0
,_:,
cd ro 0
(0
d)
•a
75
(j
a
0
0
>
d)
0
tn
H
o c
c 0
cn -C
c O)
3
o
o
x:
“ro
0
ro
0
r~
(0
0
“T3
“to
0
o
DJ
C
0
CJ
0
c0 c
di
o
t ^
M/S Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 3/September 2003
–
•o
CD
•c
>
0
r—
ions).
)er-
.E
.e., threi
for wom
‘St ages of
0
orri
t_
“o 0
c o •B
•
B
–
^ –
0
Q.
tn
ro
o
CO
o
3
CO
to
c
_0
0
XI
.—.
cn
U)
tu
ro
o
tn _3)
CO
CO
1-
o
c
o
o
0
N/A
•
o o
ers.
in
nterj
men
Tiore
iubje Cti’
r wor
was lore
liient
1
1
per( Jived
viors eont rol was
1
1
Ven
ldth
:esh
attiient
o
1 wiek
C
CD
impo
use \
if
alie
eeived 1
was
•2 5 % E
o
ro
tn
m ro
5
UJ
0
Experi nee was i ncorpo Bd inteithiE
model
en-sub jects des ign
(exper
id ancJ inexpt meed i
Pereei
jsefuliness, a Jde to’
rceived ihavioi
were £
re sal ient wit icreasling
experi
while subjee
less s< ient with 1ncreasi exper ienc (Taylo and Todd 1995a 0 Q. orm was D be more len system ceived to ntary (Hartrki 1994). o "o E CQ ro Dntrol w 3 subjf sugg ste 0 a ro cn 0 .sz 0 C C >
m
o < o ax s dj ^- ~l 5 •c g Si ro 111 —' — .= >
o.
c
.o
03
LUJOU t
1- 0 .
Q
ro
0
text
Q.
1
t tested,
“5
ro
—
-5.
0 |B-
(8
T3
iqiu
o
lat attitL
alient foi
3sh et a
0
rega
c 1-
B. As
diseussion
“ro
notei
0
C
•o
0
TPB
:he original
0
d
h200C
Empiri
videnice has
nonsti
experi nee modejrates tl relatio nshi
betwe
1 bjective norm a nd bellavii
intenti
lat subj’ ive no
becorr
!ss im portant th incr easi
levels •f ex pener ice. Th IS simi lart
sugge tion of Ka rahann (tal. (1
sS was not
>
0
UJJ
2
CN
f ^
0
ined
E
o
ineorp rate d into TPBvi
!orri!3 and Venkat
K
c
ior
H^
Votu ari
inclu
lHIi
Experi nee was 1not exp licl tly inel udei
the ori inal TPB or DTP
It has
• l
o
o
0
“o
UJJC
;
a
c
0
JOLU
434
ro
to
tn
0
CO – ^
•(UO!
^•< ro "ro UJJ' 1 Volu 1 •r Bunc Exper •• • ooo; •del Ver^katesti et at./U$er Acceptance of tT tu 0 ro Z o < z o CQ •o ro ro e o » E ro 0 0 ^ o >
E 0O
cn
c
0
m
i_
N/A
V/N
Voluntariness was not
tested as a moderator,
but was shown to have
a direct effect on
intention.
V/N
Thompson et al. (1994) found that complexity, affect toward use, social factors,
and facilitating conditions were all more
salient with less experience. On the other
hand, concern about long-term consequences became increasingly important
with increasing levels of experience.
Karahanna et al. (1999) conducted a
between-subjects comparison to study the
impact of innovation characteristics on
adoption (no/low experience) and usage
behavior (greater experience) and found
differences in the predictors of adoption
vs. usage behavior. The results showed
that for adoption, the significant predictors
were relative advantage, ease of use, trialability, results demonstrability, and visibility. In contrast, for usage, only relative
advantage and image were significant.
V/N
Innovation
Diffusion
Theory
Social
Cognitive
Theory
N/A
V/N
V/N
N/A
V/N
Model of PC
Utilization
Venkatesh et al./User Acceptance of IT
MIS Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 3/September 2003
435
^CB
B
436
-O
ft
c
o
o
as ” Q . 5?
1
in
TS
CD
•o
ro o
t-