Exploring the relationship between technology acceptance model and usability test

Information Technology and Management

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 243-255

  Lin, Chin Chao ^a  

^a HSIUPING INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

e learning; Mobile device; Technology acceptance model; Usability test

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884587504     PISSN: 1385951X     EISSN: 15737667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10799-013-0162-0     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Adeoye B, Wentling RM (2007) The relationship between national culture and the usability of an e-learning system. Int J E-Learn 6(1): 119-146.
2. Bruner GC, Kumar A (2005) Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet devices. J Bus Res 58(5): 553-558.
3. Calisir F, Calisir F (2004) The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use to end-user satisfaction with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Comput Hum Behav 20(4): 505-515.
4. Chang HH, Wang IC (2008) An investigation of user communication behavior in computer mediated environments. Comput Hum Behav 24(5): 2336-2356.
5. Cheung W, Chang M, Lai V (2000) Prediction of Internet and World Wide Web usage at work: a test of an extended triandis model. Decis Support Syst 30(1): 83-100.
6. Cowen LL, Ball J, Delin J (2002) An eye-movement analysis of web-page usability. In: Proceedings of HCI 2002: People and Computers XVI-Memorable yet Invisible, London, pp 317-335.
7. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3): 319-340.
8. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35(8): 982-1002.
9. Dishaw MT, Strong DM (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Inf Manag 36(1): 9-21.
10. Fukuda R, Bubb H (2003) Eye tracking study on Web-use: comparison between younger and elderly users in case of search task with electronic timetable service. PsychNology J 1(3): 202-228.
11. Goldberg HJ, Kotval XP (1999) Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: methods and constructs. Int J Ind Ergon 24: 631-645.
12. Gulliver SR, Serif T, Ghinea G (2004) Pervasive and standalone computing: the perceptual effects of variable multimedia quality. Int J Hum Comput Stud 60: 640-665.
13. Henderson R, Divett MJ (2003) Perceived usefulness, ease of use and electronic supermarket use. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 59(3): 383-395.
14. Holzinger A (2005) Usability engineering methods for software developers. Commun ACM 48(1): 71-74.
15. ISO 9241-11 (1998) Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)-part 11: guidance on usability.
16. Jacob RJK, Karn KS (2003) Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promise. In: Hyona J, Radach R, Deubel H (eds) The mind's eyes: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movements. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 573-603.
17. Jasperson J, Cater PE, Zmud RW (2005) A comprehensive conceptualization of post adoptive behavior associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Q 29(3): 525-557.
18. Jiang J, Hsu M, Klein G, Lin B (2000) E-commerce user behavior model: an empirical study. Hum Syst Manag 19: 265-276.
19. Josephson S, Holmes ME (2002) Visual attention to repeated images on the World-Wide Web: another look at scanpath theory. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 34(4): 539-548.
20. Kaikkonen A, Kekäläinen A, Cankar M, Kallio T, Kanainen A (2005) Usability testing of mobile applications: a comparison between laboratory and field testing. J Usability Stud 1(1): 4-16.
21. Kjeldskov J, Stage J (2004) New techniques for usability evaluation of mobile systems. Int Hum Comput Stud 60(4): 599-620.
22. Klopping IM, McKinney E (2004) Extending the technology acceptance model and the task-technology fit model to consumer e-commerce. Inf Technol Learn Perform J 22(1): 35-48.
23. Koufaris M (2002) Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Inf Syst Res 13(2): 205-223.
24. Kushniruk AW, Triola MM, Borycki EM, Stein B, Kannry JL (2005) Technology induced error and usability: the relationship between usability problems and prescription errors when using a handheld application. Int Med Inform 74: 519-526.
25. Lee YS, Hong SW, Smith-Jackson TL, Nussbaum MA, Tomioka K (2006) Systematic evaluation methodology for cell phone user interfaces. Interact Comput 18: 304-325.
26. Liu I-F, Chen MC, Sun YS, Wible D, Kuo C-H (2010) Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community. Comput Educ 54(2): 600-610.
27. Martins LL, Kellermanns FW (2004) A model of business school students' acceptance of a web-based course management system. Acad Manag Learn Educ 3(1): 7-26.
28. Moon JW, Kim YG (2001) Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Inf Manag 38(4): 217-230.
29. Moore GC, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 2(3): 192-222.
30. Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco.
31. Öquist G, Goldstein M (2003) Towards an improved readability on mobile devices: evaluating adaptive rapid serial visual presentation. Interact Comput 15(4): 539-558.
32. Padilla-Melendez A, Garrido-Marrino A, Aguilla-Obra AR (2008) Factors affecting e-collaboration technology use among management students. Comput Educ 51(2): 609-623.
33. Parush A, Yuviler-Gavish N (2004) Web navigation structures in cellular phones: the depth/breadth trade-off issue. Int Hum Comput Stud 60: 753-770.
34. Poole A, Ball LJ (2005) Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research. In: Ghaoui C (ed), Encyclopedia of human computer interaction. Idea Group, Pennsylvania, pp 211-219.
35. Reuss E, Menozzi M, Büchi M, Koller J, Krueger H (2004) Information access at the point of care: what can we learn for designing a mobile CPR system? Int Med Inform 73: 363-369.
36. Roca JC, Chiu CM, Martínez FJ (2006) Understanding E-learning continuance intention: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Int J Hum comput Stud 64(8): 683-696.
37. Rubin J (1994) Handbook of usability testing: how to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. Wiley, New York.
38. Russell MC (2005) Investigating contributions of eye-tracking to website usability testing. Wichita State University, Dissertation.
39. Saadé R, Bahli B (2005) The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manag 42: 317-327.
40. Song L, Singleton ES, Hill JR, Koh MH (2004) Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet High Educ 7(1): 59-70.
41. Taylor S, Todd PA (1995) Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf Syst Res 6(6): 144-174.
42. Venkatesh V (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Res 11(4): 342-365.
43. Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2): 186-204.
44. Virzi RA (1992) Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough? Hum Factors 34(4): 457-468.
45. Wu JH, Wang SC, Lin LM (2007) Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model. Int J Med Inform 76: 66-77.
46. Yi MY, Jackson JD, Park JS, Probst JC (2006) Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: toward an integrative view. Inf Manag 43(3): 350-363.
47. Yoon SY, Laffey J, Oh H (2008) Understanding usability and user experience of Web-based 3D graphics technology. Int J Hum Comput Interact 24(3): 288-306.
48. Zhang D, Adipat B (2005) Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability testing of mobile applications. Int J Hum Comput Interact 18(3): 293-308.