C-OAR-SE-based single-item measures for the two-stage Technology Acceptance Model

Australasian Marketing Journal

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 30-35

  Rossiter, John R ^a   Braithwaite, Bradley ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

C OAR SE theory's " doubly concrete" constructs; Content valid answer scales; Content valid single item measures; Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871676510     PISSN: 14413582     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2012.08.005     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Arts J.W.C., Frambach R.T., Bijmolt T.H.A. Generalization on consumer innovation adoption: a meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing 2011, 28(2):133-144.
2. Bergkvist L., Rossiter J.R. The predictive validity of multiple-item vs. single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 2007, 44(2):175-184.
3. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 1977, Academic Press, New York. revised ed.
4. Davis F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of new technology. MIS Quarterly 1989, 13(3):319-340.
5. Davis F.D., Bagozzi R.P., Warshaw P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 1989, 35(8):982-1003.
6. Guilford J.P. Psychometric Methods 1954, McGraw-Hill, New York.
7. Malhotra N.K., Kim S.S., Patil A. Common method variance in IS research: a comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science 2006, 52(12):1865-1883.
8. Podsakoff P.M., MacKenzie S.B., Lee J.-Y., Podsakoff N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 2003, 88(5):879-903.
9. Podsakoff P.M., MacKenzie S.B., Podsakoff N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 2012, 63:539-569.
10. Rogers E.M. Diffusion of Innovations 2003, Free Press, New York. fifth ed.
11. Rossiter J.R. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing 2002, 19(4):305-335.
12. Rossiter J.R. Measurement for the Social Sciences: The C-OAR-SE Method and Why it Must Replace Psychometrics 2011, Springer, New York.
13. Rossiter J.R. Measurement revolution: the C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. European Journal of Marketing 2011, 45(11/12):1561-1568.
14. Rossiter J.R., Bergkvist L. The importance of choosing one good item for single-item measures of attitude towards the ad and attitude towards the brand and its generalization to all measures. Transfer: Werbeforschung & Praxis 2009, 55(2):8-18.
15. Sharma R., Yetton P., Crawford J. Estimating the effect of common method variance: the method-method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research. MIS Quarterly 2009, 33(3):473-490.
16. Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems Research 2000, 11(4):342-365.
17. Venkatesh V., Morris M.G., Davis G.B., Davis F.D. User acceptance of new technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003, 27(3):425-478.
18. Venkatesh V., Thong J.Y.L., Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly 2012, 36(1):157-178.