The aim of this study is to test the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model for explaining the intention to use exoskeletons among industrial workers.
Background
Exoskeletons could help reduce physical workload and risk for injuries among industrial workers. Therefore, it is crucial to understand which factors play a role in workers’ intention to use such exoskeletons.
Method
Industrial workers (N = 124) completed a survey on their attitudes regarding the use of exoskeletons at their workplace. Using partial least squares (PLS) path modeling, the UTAUT model and a revised version of the UTAUT model were fitted to these data.
Results
The adapted UTAUT model of Dwivedi et al. (2017) was able to explain up to 75.6% of the variance in intention to use exoskeletons, suggesting a reasonable model fit.
Conclusion
The model fit suggests that effort expectancy (how easy it seems to use an exoskeleton) plays an important role in predicting the intention to use exoskeletons. Social influence (whether others think workers should use exoskeletons) and performance expectancy (how useful exoskeletons seem to be for work) play a smaller role in predicting the intention to use.
Applications
This research informs companies about the optimal implementation of exoskeletons by improving the determinants of acceptance among their workers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2.
AmandelsS. (2019). Introduction and testing of a passive exoskeleton in an industrial working environment. InBagnaraS.TartagliaR.AlbolinoS.AlexanderT.FujitaY. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (pp.387–392). Springer International Publishing.
3.
BoschT.van EckJ.KnitelK.de LoozeM. (2016). The effects of a passive exoskeleton on muscle activity, discomfort and endurance time in forward bending work. Applied Ergonomics, 54, 212–217.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.12.003
4.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.doi:10.1037/h0046016
5.
CarterL.Christian ShauppL.HobbsJ.CampbellR. (2011). The role of security and trust in the adoption of online tax filing. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5, 303–318.doi:10.1108/17506161111173568
6.
ChinW. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. InMarcoulidesG. A. (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp.236–295). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7.
ChinW. W.MarcolinB. L.NewstedP. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14, 189–217.doi:10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018
8.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
9.
de LoozeM. P.BoschT.KrauseF.StadlerK. S.O’SullivanL. W. (2016). Exoskeletons for industrial application and their potential effects on physical work load. Ergonomics, 59, 671–681.doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1081988
10.
de LoozeM. P.KrauseF.O’SullivanL. W. (2017). The potential and acceptance of exoskeletons in industry. InGonzález-VargasJ.IbáñezJ.Contreras-VidalJ. L.van der KooijH.PonsJ. L. (Eds.), Wearable robotics: Challenges and trends: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Wearable Robotics, WEROB2016, October 18-21, 2016, Segovia, Spain (pp.195–199). Springer International Publishing.
11.
DezmanM.DebevecT.BabicJ.GamsA. (2017). Effects of passive ankle exoskeleton on human energy expenditure: Pilot evaluation [Proceedings Paper]. InRodicT.BorangiuA. (Eds.), Advances in robot design and intelligent control (Vol. 540, pp.491–498). Springer International Publishing Ag.
12.
DwivediY. K.RanaN. P.JeyarajA.ClementM.WilliamsM. D. (2017). Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21, 719–734.doi:10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y
13.
Escobar-RodríguezT.Carvajal-TrujilloE. (2013). Online drivers of consumer purchase of website airline tickets. Journal of Air Transport Management, 32, 58–64.doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2013.06.018
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
16.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.doi:10.1177/002224378101800104
17.
GrahamR. B.AgnewM. J.StevensonJ. M. (2009). Effectiveness of an on-body lifting aid at reducing low back physical demands during an automotive assembly task: Assessment of EMG response and user acceptability. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 936–942.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2009.01.006
18.
HairJ. F.HultG. T. M.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
19.
HeneweerH.StaesF.AufdemkampeG.van RijnM.VanheesL. (2011). Physical activity and low back pain: A systematic review of recent literature. European Spine Journal, 20, 826–845.doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1680-7
20.
HenselR.KeilM. (2019). Subjective evaluation of a passive industrial exoskeleton for lower-back support: A field study in the automotive sector. IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 64, 1–9.doi:10.1080/24725838.2019.1573770
21.
NäfM. B.KoopmanA. S.BaltruschS.Rodriguez-GuerreroC.VanderborghtB.LefeberD. (2018). Passive back support exoskeleton improves range of motion using flexible beams. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 1–16.doi:10.3389/frobt.2018.00072
22.
PhilipH.AmyL.EdwardJ. (1991). The implementation and adoption of new technology in organizations. Human Resource Management,, 30, 113–139.
SpadaS.GhibaudoL.GilottaS.GastaldiL.CavatortaM. P. (2017). Investigation into the applicability of a passive upper-limb exoskeleton in automotive industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 11, 1255–1262.doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.252
25.
TaylorS.ToddP. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144–176.doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144
26.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.doi:10.2307/30036540
27.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
28.
VinziV. E.TrincheraL.AmatoS. (2010). PLS path modeling: From foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. InVinziV. E.ChinW. W.HenselerJ.WangH. (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (pp.47–82). Springer.
