Role of self-efficacy in e-library usage among students of a public University in Malaysia

Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 39-57

  Ramayah, T ^a   Aafaqi, Bushra ^a  

^a SCHOOL OF PHYSICS   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

E Library; Electronic resources usage; Perceived Ease of Use (PEU); Perceived Usefulness (PU); Self efficacy; Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Indexed keywords

EID: 30144440707     PISSN: 13946234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Agarwal, R., and Prasad, J. 1999. Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new technologies? Decision Sciences, Vol.30, no.2:361-391.
2. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 50:179-211.
3. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4. Akla, W.I. 2002. Perpustakaan Digital@ Marya@Elektronik. Jendela, Buletin Perpustakaan USM, Buletin Bil. 1.
5. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 51, no. 6:1173-1182.
7. Chau, P.Y.K. 1996. An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of CASE by systems developers. Information and Management. Vol.30, no. 4:269-280.
8. Chau, P.Y.K. 2001. Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on IT usage behavior. Journal of End User Computing. Vol.13, no.1:26-33.
9. Compeau, D.R. and Higgins, C.A. 1995. Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly. Vol.19,no.2:189-211.
10. Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13:319-40.
11. Davis, F.D. 1993. User acceptance of computer technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. Vol.38, 475-87.
12. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science. Vol.35, no.8:982-1003.
13. Decker, C.A. 1998. Training transfer: perceptions of computer use self-efficacy among university employees. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education. Vol.14, no.2.
14. Dishaw, M.T., and Strong, D.M. 1999. Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information and Management. Vol.36:9-21.
15. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,.
16. Igbaria, M. 1993. User acceptance of microcomputer technology: an empirical test. OMEGA International journal of Management Science. Vol.21:73-90.
17. Igbaria, M. and Iivari,, J. 1995. The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. OMEGA International Journal of Management Science. Vol.23, no.6:587-605.
18. Igabria, M., Iivari, J., and Maragahh, H. 1995. Why do individuals use computer technology? A Finnish case study. Journal of Information & Management. Vol.29:227-238.
19. Igbaria, M., Schiffman, S.J., and Weickowski, T.J. 1994. The respective roles of perceived usefulness and perceived fun in the acceptance of microcomputer technology. Behavior and Information Technology. Vol.13, 349-61.
20. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P., and Cavaye, A. 1997. Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model. MIS Quarterly. Vol. 29,no.3:279-305.
21. Jackson, CM., Chow, S., and Leitch, R.A. 1997. Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decision Sciences. Vol.28, no.2:357-389.
22. Jantan, M., Ramayah, T., and Chin, W.W. 2001. Personal computer acceptance by small and medium companies: Evidence from Malaysia. Jurnal Manajemen & Bisnis. Vol.3, no. 1:1-14.
23. th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'03).
24. Lopez, D.A. and Manson, D.P. 1997. A study of individual computer self-efficacy and perceived usefulness of the empowered desktop information system, pp. 83-92. Available at: www.csupomona.edu/~jis/1997/Lopez.pdf.
25. Mathieson, K. 1991. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research. Vol.2, no.3:173-191.
26. McKinnon, D.P., Warsi, G., and Dwyer, J.H. 1995. A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 30, no. 1: 41-62.
27. Moore, G. C, and Benbasat, I. 1991. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research. Vol.2, no.3:192-222.
28. Ndubisi, N.O., Jantan, M., and Richardson, S. 2001. Is the technology acceptance model valid for entrepreneurs? Model testing and examining usage determinants. Asian Academy of Management Journal. Vol.6, no.2:31-54.
29. Pintrich, P.R. and Garcia, T. 1991. Students goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom, In: M. Maehr, P.R. Pintrich, eds. Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes, pp. 371-402. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
30. Ren, W.H. 2000. Library instruction and college student self-sufficiency in electronic information searching. Journal of Academic Librarianship. Vol.26, no.5:323-328.
31. Schunk, D.H. 1994. Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In: D.H. Schunk, and B.J. Zimmerman, Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications, pp. 75-99. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Straub, D., Keil, M., and Brenner, W. 1997. Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study. Information and Management. Vol.33:l-ll.
33. Taylor, S., and Todd, P. 1995. Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly. Vol.19, no.4:561-571.
34. Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C, and Howell, J.M. 1991. Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly. Vol.15, no. 1:125-143.
35. Thong, J.Y.L., Hong, W and Tarn, K.Y. 2002. Understanding user acceptance of digital library: What are the roles of interface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences?. International Journal Human-Computer Studies. Vol.57, pp. 215-242. Available at: http://www.idealibrary.com.om.
36. Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D 1994. Modeling the determinants of perceived ease of use. Abstract from: International Conference on Information Systems. Available at: http://webfoot.csom.umn.edu/faculty/phds/venki/cse2.htm.
37. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F.D. 1997. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences. Available at: http://www.CSElai.htm.
38. Waldman, M. 2003. Freshmen's use of library electronic resources and self-efficacy. Information Research. Vol.8, no.2, paper no. 150. Available at: http://informationr.net/ir/8-2/paper150.htm.
39. Yi, M.Y., and Venkatesh, V. 1996. Role of computer self-efficacy in predicting user acceptance and use of information technology. Available at: http://hsb.baylor.edu/ramsower/ais.ac96/papers/mun.html.
40. Zhang, J., Li, F., Duan, C, and Wu, G. 2001. Research on Self-efficacy of Distance Learning and its Influence to Learners' Attainments, In: C.H. Lee (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education/SchoolNet, pp. 1510-1517. Incheon Korea: Incheon National University of Education.