A Review on the Relationship Between New Variables and Classical TAM Structure

Abstract

Abstract. Integration of different theories and expansion of research areas are the main trends in the research domain of IS adoption. Classical T AM structure has been largely expended by newly added variables. Prior studies [I] have analyzed relationships among variables in T AM and found the stability of c1assical structure, but what about relationships between new variables and c1assical structure? We selected 30 articles from the main international journals for analyses. It is found that, SE. SN and PBC are used mostly in extended TAM. Tbe relations between SE, PBC and TAM are consistently significant, but the integration of SN into T AM is not so ideal. In OUT review scale, this relation is inconsistent. Other variables and relations are also discussed in this article. Tbe conclusions of this article will provide guidance for future researches about extended T AM model building.

"Understanding the Elephant: The Discourse Approach to Boundary Identification and Corpus Construction for Theory Review Articles"

“…Han (2003) was not considered comprehensive because of a focus on five top journals. King and He (2006) focused only on journal articles, whereas Li, Qi, & Shu (2007) used only journals and only a small subset of journals. Li et al (2008) used databases with primary focus on journals and only journal articles were retained.…”

“…Part of this discrepancy may be explained by the way the conventional approach was implemented by specific author teams. For example, as shown in Table A2, different teams used different inclusion criteria, such as requiring a minimum number of citations (Hsiao & Yang, 2011), a measure of actual use (Han, 2003;Turner et al, 2010), a specific construct not traditionally associated with TAM such as Trust (Wu & Lederer, 2009), a type of system (Dohan & Tan, 2013), only manuscripts available through a specific university library (King & He, 2006), or included only journal articles (Li et al, 2007;Li et al, 2008). Conversely, some review articles went beyond TAM manuscripts and included related manuscripts such as those examining the relative advantage label for the usefulness construct (Han, 2003) or including results from UTAUT (Venkatesh et al, 2003) and manuscripts containing equivalent construct relationships (Dohan & Tan, 2013).…”

“…About 88% of the 420 manuscripts were journal articles compared to 66% in our 137 sample manuscripts, a significant difference (X 2 = 34.45; p < 0.01). This suggests that the conventional approach as currently practiced suffers from bias-a problem that takes on added significance for reviews that intentionally included only journals in their corpus (i.e., Han, 2003;Hsiao & Yang, 2011;King & He, 2006;Lee et al, 2003;Li et al, 2007) or only "top journals" (Han, 2003). While we here do not undertake the task of establishing that the conventional approach directly leads to bias, it is likely that any research approach that leads to low precision will force researchers to develop heuristics such as exclusive focus on journal articles or even articles in "top" journals.…”

Factors Influencing the Behavioural Intention to Use Statistical Software: The Perspective of the Slovenian Students of Social Sciences

“…The authors also noted that there is no clear pattern with respect to the choice of the external variables considered. Some authors suggest that researchers choose external variables that are used widely and have theoretical support (Li et al, 2007). However, Yousafzai et al (2007) determined that more than 70 different external variables for perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use can be found with practical applications of TAM.…”

“… As suggested Li et al (2007), external variables which have theoretical supports in the literature are preferred. Selection of TAM external variables is based on students' personal characteristics.…”