Technology acceptance model for the use of tablet PCs

Wireless Personal Communications

Volumn 73, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 1561-1572

  Park, Eunil ^a   Del Pobil, Angel P ^b,c  

^a Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)   (South Korea)

^b Sungkyunkwan University   (South Korea)

^c UNIVERSITAT JAUME I   (Spain)

Author keywords

Mobility; Tablet personal computers; Technology acceptance model; Viewing experience

Indexed keywords

ELECTRONIC DEVICE; EXTERNAL FACTORS; PERCEIVED EASE OF USE; PERCEIVED USEFULNESS; TABLET PERSONAL COMPUTERS; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL; VIEWING EXPERIENCE; WEB-BASED SURVEYS;

CARRIER MOBILITY; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; LAPTOP COMPUTERS;

SURVEYS;

EID: 84890554850     PISSN: 09296212     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11277-013-1266-x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Sears, A.; Arora, R. (2002). Data entry for mobile devices: An empirical comparison of novice performance with Jot and Graffiti. Interacting with Computers, 14(5), 413-433.
2. Cooper, G.; Green, N.; Murtagh, G. M.; Harper, R. (2003). Mobile society? technology, distance, and presence. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Virtual society? technology, cyberbole, reality (pp. 286-301). London: Oxford University Press.
3. Spooner, J. G.; Foley, M. J. (2005). Tablet PCs' future uncertain, eWeek.com. http://eweek.com. Accessed 30 December 2010.
4. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge.
5. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intentions and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
8. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-machine Studies, 38(3), 475-487.
9. Davis, F. D.; Bagozzi, R. P.; Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 928-1003.
10. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191.
11. Teo, T. (2010). Establishing gender structural invariance of technology acceptance model (TAM). The Asia-Pacific Education researcher, 19(2), 311-320.
12. Vale, C. M.; Leder, G. C. (2004). Students' views of computer-based mathematics in the middle years: Does gender make a difference? Education Studies in Mathematics, 56(3), 287-312.
13. Venkatesh, V.; Speier, C.; Morris, M. G. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: Toward an integrated model. Decision Sciences, 33(2), 297-316.
14. Go, K.; Tsurumi, L. (2010). Arranging touch screen software keyboard split-keys based on contact surface. In E. Mynatt, D. Schoner, G. Fitzpatrick, S. Hudson, K. Edwards,; T. Rodden (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3805-3810). New York: ACM.
15. Warkentin, M.; Bekkering, E.; Schmidt, M.; Johnston, A. (2004). Proposed study of end-user perceptions regarding tablet PCs. In M. Khosrow-Pour, J. Travers, A. Appicello,; M. Rossi (Eds.), Proceedings of the information resources management conference 2004 (pp. 430-431). London: Idea Group Publishing.
16. Levack, K. (2003). Take one tablet and email me in the morning: Tablet PCs and Enewspapers, Econtent Magazine, pp. 8-9.
17. Miller, M. J. (2002). Tablet PCs, take two. PC Magazine. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,6311,00.asp. Accessed 30 December 2011.
18. Pittman, J. A. (2007). Handwriting recognition: Tablet PC text input. Computer, 40(9), 49-54.
19. Schroeder, D. (2004). Tablet PCs and collaboration software improve classroom engagement at Cabrillo High school. Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 32(4), 49-50.
20. Sharples, M.; Beale, R. (2003). A technical review of mobile computational devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 392-395.
21. Weitz, R. R.; Wachsmuth, B.; Mirliss, D. (2006). The tablet PC for faculty: A pilot project. Educational Technology; Society, 9(2), 68-83.
22. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
23. Ng, J. K. Y. (2012). Ubiquitous healthcare: Healthcare systems and applications enabled by mobile and wireless technologies. Journal of Convergence, 3(2), 31-36.
24. Pyshkin, E.; Kuznetsov, A. (2012). Approaches for web search user interface - how to improve the search quality for various types of information. Journal of Convergence, 1(1), 1-8.
25. Brown, I.; Licker, P. (2003). Exploring differences in internet adoption and usage between historically advantaged and disadvantaged groups in South Africa. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 6(4), 6-26.
26. Bruner, G. C.; Kumar, A. (2005). Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld internet devices. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 553-558.
27. Hu, J.; Chau, Y. K.; Sheng, R. L.; Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91-112.
28. Igbaria, M.; Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. International Journal of Management Science, 23(6), 587-605.
29. Park, E.; del Pobil, A. P. (2013). Extending the technology acceptance model in remote pointing technology: Identifying the role of perceived mobility and control. Sensor Review, 33(1), 40-47.
30. Hill, T. R.; Roldan, M. (2005). Toward third generation threaded discussions for mobile learning: Opportunities and challenges for ubiquitous collaborative environments. Information Systems Frontiers, 7(1), 55-70.
31. Ting, R. Y. (2005). Mobile learning: Current trend and future challenges. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 603-607), New York: IEEE.
32. Huang, J.; Lin, Y.; Chuang, S. (2007). Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning: A perspective of the extended technology acceptance model. The Electronic Library, 25(5), 585-598.
33. Kim, K. J.; Sundar, S. S.; Park, E. (2011). The effects of screen-size and communication modality on psychology of mobile device users. In D. Tan, B. Begole,; W. A. Kellogg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1207-1212). New York: ACM.
34. Kim, K. J.; Sundar, S. S. (2011). Does panel type matter for LCD monitors? A study examining the effects of S-IPS, S-PVA, and TN panels in video gaming and movie viewing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6947, 281-288.
35. Park. E.; Kim, K. J. (2013). User acceptance of long-term evolution (LTE) services: An application of extended technology acceptance model. Program: electronic library and information systems, 47(2), 188-205.
36. Saba, T. (2012). Implications of E-learning systems and self-efficiency on students outcomes: a model approach. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, 2(6), 1-11.
37. Bhattacharya, A.; Wu, W.; Yang, Z. (2012). Quality of experience evaluation of voice communication: An affect-based approach. Human-centric Computing and Information Science, 2(7), 1-18.
38. Cronbach, L. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington, D. C: American Council on Education.
39. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(1), 39-50.
40. Qi, J.; Li, L.; Li, Y.; Shu, H. (2009). An extension of technology acceptance model: Analysis of the adoption of mobile data services in China. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(3), 391-407.
41. Kim, S.; Garrison, G. (2009). Investigating mobile wireless technology adoption: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Frontiers, 11(3), 323-333.