Information technology acceptance in the social services sector context: An exploration

Social Work

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 221-231

  Zhang, Wei ^a   Gutierrez, Oscar ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Decomposed theory of planned behavior; Information technology; Perceived client usefulness; Perceived organizational usefulness; Social services sector

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; PATIENT ADVOCACY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIAL WORK; STANDARD; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CULTURE; HUMANS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; PATIENT ADVOCACY; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIAL WORK; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 35148853195     PISSN: 00378046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sw/52.3.221     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ajzen, I. (1991).The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
2. Austin, J. E. (2002). Overview of the nonprofit sector (Note No. 9-399-027). Boston: Harvard Business School.
3. Bedard, J. C., Jackson, C., Ettredge, M. L., & Johnstone, K. M. (2003). The effect of training on auditors' acceptance of an electronic work system. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 4, 227-250.
4. Benedetto, M. D., & Pirie, V. (1989). Social work: New roles in computer information systems. In W. Lamendola, B. Glastonbury, & S.Toole (Eds.), A casebook of computer applications in the social and human services (pp. 41-47). NewYork: Haworth Press.
5. Berlinger, L. R., &Te'eni, D. (1999). Leaders' attitudes and computer use in religious congregations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 9, 399-412.
6. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725.
7. Burt, E., & Taylor, J. A. (2000). Information and communication technologies: Reshaping voluntary organizations? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11, 131-143.
8. Chin, W.W. (1998).The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Chin, W.W. (2000). Frequently asked questions - Partial least squares & PLS-graph. Available at http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsfaq.htm
10. Chin, W.W. (2001). PLS-Graph user's guide. Version 3.0. Available at http://www.cis.gsu.edu/~ghubona/info790/PLSGRAPH3.0Manual.pdf
11. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., &Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982-1003.
12. Dukler, M. A. (1989). Improving the quality and reducing the cost of human services through on-line transaction processing. In W. Lamendola, B. Glastonbury, & S.Toole (Eds.), A casebook of computer applications in the social and human services (pp. 205-216). NewYork: Haworth Press.
13. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of AIS, 16, 91-109.
14. Gutierrez, Ö., & Friedman, D. H. (2005). Managing project expectations in human services information systems implementations: The case of homeless management information systems. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 513-523.
15. Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40, 440-465.
16. Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23, 183-213.
17. Laczo, R. M., & Hanisch, K. A. (1999). An examination of behavioral families of organizational withdrawal in volunteer workers and paid employees. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 453-477.
18. Liao-Troth, M. A. (2001). Attitude differences between paid workers and volunteers. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11, 423-442.
19. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2, 173-191.
20. Mirvis, R H. (1992). The quality of employment in the nonprofit sector: An update on employee attitudes in nonprofits versus business and government Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 3, 23-39.
21. Saidel, J. R., & Cour, S. (2003). Information technology and the voluntary sector workplace. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 5-24.
22. Semke, J. I., & Nurius, P. S. (1991). Information structure, information technology, and the human services organizational environment. Social Work, 36, 353-358.
23. Speckbacher, G. (2003). The economics of performance management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13, 267-281.
24. Taylor, S., & Todd, P.A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144-176.
25. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2006). Gross output by industry. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http://www.bea.gov/bea/industry/gpotables/ gpo_action.cfm?anon=29&table_id=14101&format_type=0
26. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2004). Homeless management information systems: Data and technical standards. Final notice. Federal Register 69(146).
27. U.S. Department of Labor. (2005). Social workers. In Occupational outlook handbook, 2004-05. Retrieved February 27,2005, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos060.htm
28. Venkatesh,V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 21, 425-478.
29. WordNet 2.0, (2005). Social service. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.0?stage=1&word= social+service