Interface Characteristics, Perceived Ease of Use and Intention to Use an Online Library in Malaysia

Information Development

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 123-133

  Ramayah, T ^a  

^a SCHOOL OF PHYSICS   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Interface characteristics; online libraries; perceived ease of use; students; Technology Acceptance Model (TAM); Universiti Sains Malaysia

Indexed keywords

EID: 84998090340     PISSN: 02666669     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0266666906065575     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Cahoy, E.S. and L.M. Moyo. Meeting the needs of remote library users. Library ManagementVol. 24, No. 6/7, 2003, 281–290.
2. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance ofinformation technology. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, 1989, 319–340.
3. Akla, W.I. Perpustakaan Digital@Maya@Elektronik. Jendela, Buletin Perpustakaan USM, Buletin Bil. 1, 2002.
4. Borgman, C.L. What are digital libraries? Competing visions. Information Processing and Management, Vol. 35, 1999, 27–243.
5. Sharma, R.K. and K.R. Vishwanathan. Digital libraries: development and challenges. Library Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2001, 10–16.
6. Bahari, C.N. USM Library goes virtual. USM Frontiers. Buletin for Research and Development, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.
7. Thong, J.Y.L., W. Hong and T. Kar-Yan. Understanding user acceptance of digital libraries: what are the roles ofinterface characteristics, organizational context, and individual differences? International Journal Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 57, 2002, 215–242.
8. Jamaludalin, K.F. Penggunaan Sumber Perpustakaan Elektronik dan Usaha Diri Pelajar diUniversiti Sains Malaysia. Unpublished final year project paper,School of Management, 2004, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.
9. Tay, B.K., L.K. Tan, P.C. Tan and M.A. Md. Ismail. Online Library dalam kalangan pelajar-pelajar. Unpublishedfinal year project paper, School of Management, 2004, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.
10. Hammond, C. Nontraditional students and the library: options, preference, and behaviors. College and Research Libraries, Vol. 55, 1994, 323–341.
11. Wood, F., N. Ford, D. Miller, R. Duffin and G. Sobczky. Information skills for student centred learning. In M. Collier and K. Arnolds (eds). ELVIRA: Electronic Library and Visual Information Research,Proceedings of the First ELVIRA Conference. Milton Keynes, London: Aslib, The Associationfor Information Management, 1995, 134–148.
12. Hsieh-Yee, I. Students use of online catalogs and other information channels. College and Research Libraries, Vol. 57, 1996, 161–175.
13. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory andresearch. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
14. Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall, NJ, 1980.
15. Ajzen, I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann (eds). Action control from cognition to behavior, Springer Verlag, New York, 1985. 11–39.
16. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.50, 1991, 179–211.
17. Davis, F.D., R.P. Bagozzi and P.R. Warshaw. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, Vol. 35, No.8, 1989, 982–1003.
18. Davis, F.D. and V. Venkatesh. A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technologyacceptance model: three experiments. International Journal Human-Computer Studies, Vol.45, 1996, 19–45.
19. Agarwal, R. and J. Prasad. Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new technologies? Decision Sciences, Vol. 30, No. 2, 1999, 361–391.
20. Keen, P.G.W. Shaping the future: business design through information technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1991.
21. Radner, R. and M. Rothschild. On the allocation of effort. Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 10, 1975, 358–376.
22. Ndubisi, N.O., M. Jantan and S. Richardson. Is the technology acceptance model valid for entrepreneurs? model testingand examining usage determinants. Asian Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 6, No. 2, 2001, 31–54.
23. Adams, D.A., R.R. Nelson and P.A. Todd. Perceived usefulness, ease of use and usage of information technology: a replication. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16, 1992, 227–247.
24. Koay, P.L. Receptiveness of E-Banking by Malaysian consumers. Unpublished MBAthesis, School of Management, 2002, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.
25. Ramayah, T., R. Siron, N. Dahlan and O. Mohamad. Technology usage among owners/managers of SMEs: the role of demographic andmotivational variables. The proceedings of the 6th Annual Asian-Pacific Forum for SmallBusiness on Small and Medium Enterprises Linkages, Networking andClustering, 16-18th October 2002, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
26. Ramayah, T., J.J. Ma'ruf, W.H. Liong and K.L. Soh. Persepsi Pelajar Universiti Sains Malaysia Terhadap Penggunaan SebenarPerpustakaan Secara Talian. International Journal of Management Studies, Vol.1, No. 2, 2004, 153–169.
27. Ramayah, T. and B. Aafaqi. Role of self-efficacy in elibrary usage among students of a publicuniversity in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science,Vol. 9, No. 1, 2004, 39–57.
28. Lindgaard, G. Usability testing and system evaluation: a guide for designing useful computersystems. Chapman & Hall, New York, 1994.
29. Meadow, C.T., J. Wang and W. Yuan. A study of user performance and attitudes with information retrieval interfaces. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol.46, 1995, 490–505.
30. Rao, R., J.O. Pedersen, M.A. Hearst, J.D. Mackinlay, S.K. Card, L. Masinter, P. Halvorsen and G.G. Robertson. Rich interaction in the digital library. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 38, 1995, 29–39.
31. McClements, N. and C. Becker. Writing web page standards. College & Research Libraries New s, Vol.57, No. 1, 1996, 16–17.
32. Talja, S., R. Heinisuo, E. Kasesniemi, H. Kemppainen, S. Luukkainen, K. Pispa and K. Jarvelin. Discourse analysis of user requests. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 41, 1998, 93–94.
33. Goon, T.L., N. Dahlan, T. Ramayah, N. Karia and M. H. Abu Hassan Asaari. Impact of interface characteristics on digital libraries usage. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, Vol.2, No. 1, 2005.
34. Rettig, J. Beyond cool: analog models for reviewing digital resources. Online, 1996, Online available: http://www.onlinemag.net/SeptOL/rettig9.html
35. Todd, P.A. and I. Benbasat. The use of information in decision making: an experimental investigation ofthe impact of computer-based decision aids. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16, 1992, pp. 373–393.
36. Lim, K.H., I. Benbasat and P.A. Todd. An experimental investigation of the interactive effects of interfacestyle, instructions, and task familiarity on user performance. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol.3, 1996, 1–37.
37. Hu, P.J., P.C. Ma and P.Y.K. Chau. Evaluations of user interface designs for information retrieval systems: acomputer-based experiment. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 27, 1999, 125–143.
38. Liu, Y., P. Dantzig, M. Sachs, J.T. Corey, M.T. Hinnebusch, M. Damashek and J. Cohen. Visualising document classification: a search aid for the digital library. Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences, 51, 2002, 216–227.
39. Robbins, S.S. and A. C. Stylianou. Global cooperate web sites: an empirical investigation of content and design. Information and Management, Vol. 2001, 1–8.
40. Klobas, J.E. Network information resources: electronic opportunities for users and librarians. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications andPolicy, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1996, 53–62.
41. Dillon, A. Spatial-semantics: how users derive shape from information space. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol.51, 2000, 521–528.
42. Marchionini, G., C. Plaisant and A. Komlodi. Interfaces and tools for the Library of Congress National Digital Library program. Information Processing and Management, Vol. 34, 1998, 535–555.
43. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.
44. Campbell, D.T. and D. W. Fiske. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56, No. 1, 1959, 81–105.
45. Igbaria, M., J. Iivari and H. Maragahh. Why do individuals use computer technology? A Finnish case study. Information and Management, Vol. 5, 1995, 227–238.