Examining the determinants of technology acceptance has been a central interest across disciplines. The technology acceptance model (TAM) and its variants and extensions are the most popular theoretical frameworks in this line of research. Two model-based meta-analytical approaches, that is, meta-meta-analysis and conventional meta-analysis, are used to pool the correlations and to test the path relationships among the variables of the TAM. We find that the extended TAM, which we term the TAM Plus, prevails in the model fit testing and that the results of the pooled correlations and path coefficients estimated using the meta-meta-analysis and meta-analysis are generally consistent.
AbdullahF.WardR. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning (getamel) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036
2.
AjzenI. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In KuhlJ.BeckmannJ. (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Springer.
AtkinsonJ. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6 Pt 1), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445
7.
BagozziR. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), Article 12. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol8/iss4/12
8.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
9.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
10.
BeckerB. J. (2009). Model-based meta-analysis. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 377–395). Russell Sage Foundation.
11.
BishA.SuttonS.GolombokS. (2000). Predicting uptake of a routine cervical smear test: A comparison of the health belief model and the theory of planned behaviour. Psychology & Health, 15(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440008400287
BrockwellS. E.GordonI. R. (2001). A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 20(6), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.650
14.
CafriG.KromreyJ. D.BrannickM. T. (2010). A meta-meta-analysis: Empirical review of statistical power, type I error rates, effect sizes, and model selection of meta-analyses published in psychology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(2), 239–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171003680187
15.
ChauhanS.JaiswalM. (2017). A meta-analysis of e-Health applications acceptance: Moderating impact of user types and e-Health application types. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(2), 295–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2015-0078
16.
CheungM. W. L. (2015a). Meta-analysis: A structural equation modeling approach. John Wiley.
17.
CheungM. W. L. (2015b). Metasem: An R package for meta-analysis using structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521
18.
CleophasT. J.ZwindermanA. H. (2017). Meta-meta-analysis. In CleophasT. J.ZwindermanA. H. (Eds.), Modern meta-analysis: Review and update of methodologies (pp. 135–143). Springer.
19.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
CooperH.KoenkaA. C. (2012). The overview of reviews: Unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. American Psychologist, 67(6), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027119
21.
DavisF. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
22.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
23.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
FergusonC. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808
27.
FishbeinM. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676301600302
GefenD.KarahannaE.StraubD. W. (2003). Trust and tam in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519
35.
GlassG. V.SmithM. L.McGawB. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. SAGE.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164588
38.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
39.
HsiaoC. H.YangC. (2011). The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: A co-citation analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 31(2), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.07.003
40.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling-A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
41.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. SAGE.
42.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L.JacksonG. B. (1986). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies (Vol. 4). SAGE.
43.
JacksonM. H. (1996). The meaning of “communication technology”: The technology-context scheme. Annals of the International Communication Association, 19(1), 229–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1996.11678932
JakS.CheungM. W. L. (2018a). Accounting for missing correlation coefficients in fixed-effects masem. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1375886
46.
JakS.CheungM. W. L. (2018b). Testing moderator hypotheses in meta-analytic structural equation modeling using subgroup analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 50(4), 1359–1373. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1046-3
47.
JakS.RoordaD.KoomenH. (2013). Meta-analytic structural equation modelling with missing correlations. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 67(4), 132–139. https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.400174
48.
JohnsonB. T.MullenB.SalasE. (1995). Comparison of three major meta-analytic approaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.94
49.
JonesP. (2010). Retail experience stores: Experiencing the brand at first hand. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28(3), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501011041408
50.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
51.
KarahannaE.AgarwalR.AngstC. M. (2006). Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 781–804. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148754
52.
KarahannaE.StraubD. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Information & Management, 35(4), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00096-2
53.
KazrinA.DuracJ.AgterosT. (1979). Meta-meta analysis: A new method for evaluating therapy outcome. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17(4), 397–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(79)90011-1
54.
KhayyatN. T.HeshmatiA. (2013). Determinants of mobile telecommunication adoption in Kurdistan. International Journal of Communication, 7, 2285–2311. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1543
55.
KhechineH.LakhalS.NdjambouP. (2016). A meta-analysis of the UTAUT model: Eleven years later. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 33(2), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1381
56.
KhorE. T. (2014). An analysis of ODL student perception and adoption behavior using the technology acceptance model. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(6), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1732
LeeY.KozarK. A.LarsenK. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1), Article 50. http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol12/iss1/50
59.
LegrisP.InghamJ.ColleretteP. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4
60.
LiX.DusseldorpE.MeulmanJ. J. (2017). Meta-cart: A tool to identify interactions between moderators in meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 70(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12088
61.
LinC. A. (2009). Exploring the online radio adoption decision-making process: Cognition, attitude, and technology fluidity. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(4), 884–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600410
62.
LinC.-P.AnolB. (2008). Learning online social support: An investigation of network information technology based on UTAUT. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(3), 268–272. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0057
63.
MaQ.LiuL. (2004). The technology acceptance model: A meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 16(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2004010104
64.
MacInnisD. J.JaworskiB. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisements: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298905300401
65.
MacInnisD. J.MoormanC.JaworskiB. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299105500403
MichelJ. S.ViswesvaranC.ThomasJ. (2011). Conclusions from meta-analytic structural equation models generally do not change due to corrections for study artifacts. Research Synthesis Methods, 2(3), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.47
68.
MichieS.PrestwichA. (2010). Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychology, 29(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016939
69.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
70.
MooreG. C.BenbasatI. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192
71.
MorgensternO.Von NeumannJ. (1953). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.
72.
MortensonM. J.VidgenR. (2016). A computational literature review of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6 Part B), 1248–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.07.007
73.
National Research Council. (1992). Combining information: Statistical issues and opportunities for research (Vol. 1). National Academies.
74.
ParkE.KimK. J. (2014). An integrated adoption model of mobile cloud services: Exploration of key determinants and extension of technology acceptance model. Telematics and Informatics, 31(3), 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.11.008
75.
PeughJ. L.EndersC. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 525–556. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004525
76.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206553
77.
RanaN. P.DwivediY. K.WilliamsM. D. (2015). A meta-analysis of existing research on citizen adoption of e-government. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(3), 547–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-013-9431-z
78.
RogersE. M. (1983). Diffusion on innovations. Free Press.
79.
RosenbergM. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53(3), 367–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044579
80.
RosenbergM. S. (2005). The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution, 59(2), 464–468. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448935
RosenthalR. (1991b). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Vol. 6). SAGE.
83.
SchepersJ.WetzelsM. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.10.007
84.
SchmidE. J.KochG. G.LavangeL. M. (1991). An overview of statistical issues and methods of meta-analysis. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 1(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543409108835008
85.
SoberE. (1981). The principle of parsimony. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 32(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/32.2.145
86.
ŠumakB.HeričkoM.BudimacZ.PušnikM. (2017). Investigation of moderator factors in e-business adoption: A quantitative meta-analysis of moderating effects on the drivers of intention and behavior. Computer Science and Information Systems, 14(1), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.2298/Csis160902033s
87.
SykesT. A.VenkateshV.GosainS. (2009). Model of acceptance with peer support: A social network perspective to understand employees’ system use. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650296
88.
TaiwoA. A.DowneA. G. (2013). The theory of user acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A meta-analytic review of empirical findings. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 49(1), 48–58. http://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol49No1/7Vol49No1.pdf
89.
TaylorS.ToddP. (1995a). Assessing it usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 561–570. https://doi.org/10.2307/249633
90.
TaylorS.ToddP. (1995b). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(94)00019-K
91.
TurnerM.KitchenhamB.BreretonP.ChartersS.BudgenD. (2010). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.005
92.
Van RaaijE. M.SchepersJ. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in china. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001
93.
VenkateshV. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
96.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
97.
VenkateshV.ThongJ. Y.XuX. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
98.
WangH.-Y.WangS.-H. (2010). User acceptance of mobile internet based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: Investigating the determinants and gender differences. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(3), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.3.415
99.
WebbT. L.SheeranP. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
100.
WilliamsM. D.RanaN. P.DwivediY. K. (2015). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), 443–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0088
101.
WilsonS. J.PolaninJ. R.LipseyM. W. (2016). Fitting meta-analytic structural equation models with complex datasets. Research Synthesis Methods, 7(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1199
102.
WuJ.-H.ChenY.-C.LinL.-M. (2007). Empirical evaluation of the revised end user computing acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.04.003
103.
YenD. C.WuC.-S.ChengF.-F.HuangY.-W. (2010). Determinants of users’ intention to adopt wireless technology: An empirical study by integrating TTF with TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 906–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.005
104.
YoonG.DuffB. R. L.RyuS. (2013). Gamers just want to have fun? Toward an understanding of the online game acceptance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(9), 1814–1826. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12133
