Technology has evolved in surprising ways, and augmented reality (AR) has positioned itself as one of the technologies with outstanding value. Its importance in education is still being debated, but its incorporation in business training has been left out.
OBJECTIVE:
This study aims to determine variables that explain the intention to use this technology in construction training, focused on preventing injuries and disabilities.
METHODS:
This study was carried out using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) through the structural equation method. The variables: perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude toward using, and behavioral intention to use were incorporated. An AR app was developed that addresses the teaching of safety elements on scaffolding, and we collected data from Chilean construction companies.
RESULTS:
The results show that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use explain the attitude towards using augmented reality, while perceived usefulness and attitude towards using explain behavioral intention to use.
CONCLUSIONS:
These findings enrich AR’s literature in the construction industry and have high business managers’ implications. It may allow them to implement this technology more likely to succeed in their virtual business training to prevent injury-related disability.
RuizD. La realidad aumentada: un nuevo recurso dentro de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC) para los museos del siglo XXI. Intervención. 2012;3(5):39–44.
2.
Del CastilloA, SardiN. Realidade aumentada: poder00E1 enriquecer a pr00E1tica da anestesiologia?Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia. 2012;62(6). doi: 10.1590/S0034-7094212000600015
3.
PintoF, CentenoJ. A realidade aumentada em smartphones naexploração de informações estatísicas ecartogrficas. Boletim de Ciências Geod. 2012;18(2):282–301. doi: 10.1590/S1982-21702012000200007
4.
JaramilloG, QuirozJ, CartagenaC, VivaresC, BranchJ. Aplicaciones de realidad aumentada móvil en entornos cotidianos. Revista EIA. 2010;7(14):125–134. doi: 10.24050/reia.v7i14.424
5.
VidalN, VidalR. Augmented reality systems for weed economic thresholds applications. Planta Daninha. 2010;28(2):449–454. doi: 10.1590/S0100-83582010000200025
6.
ListonP, KayA, CromieS, LevaC, D’CruzM, PatelH, LangleyA, SharplesS, AromaaS. Evaluating the iterative development of VR/ARhuman factors tools for manual work. Work-A Journal of PreventionAssessment & Rehabilitation. 2012;41(1):2208–2215. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0443-2208
7.
AlbertazziD, OkimotoM, FerreiraM. Developing an usability test to evaluate the use of augmented reality to improve the first interaction with a producto. Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation. 2012;41(1):1160–1163. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0297-1160
8.
FaustF, RoepkeG, CatecatiT, AraujoF, FerreiraM, AlbertazziD. Use of augmented reality in the usability evaluation of products. Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation. 2012;41(1):1164–1167. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0298-1164
9.
HofmannT, KonigC, BruderR, BergnerJ. How to reduce workload - augmented reality to ease the work of air traffic controllers. Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation. 2012;41(1):1168–1173. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0299-1168
10.
RuizD. Realidad Aumentada, educación y museos. Comunicación y Tecnologías Emergentes. 2011;9(2):212–226. doi: 10.7195/ri14.v9i2.24
11.
YamabeT, NakajimaT. Playful training with augmented reality games: case studies towards reality-oriented system design. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 2013;62(1):259–286. doi: 10.1007/s11042-011-0979-7
12.
MerinoC, PinoS, MeyerE, GarridoJ, GallardoF. Realidad aumentadapara el diseño de secuencias de enseñanza-aprendizaje enquímica. Educación química. 2015;26(2):94–99. doi: 10.1016/j.eq.2015.04.004
13.
DünserA, SteinbüglK, KaufmannH, GlückJ. Virtual and Augmented Reality as Spatial Ability Training Tools. International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design Centered. 2006;125-132. doi: 10.1145/1152760.1152776
14.
BillinghurstM, DuenserA. Augmented Reality in the Classroom. Computer. 2012;45(7):56–63. doi: 10.1109/MC.2012.111
15.
Martín-GutiérrezJ, PeñaF, BenesovaW, MenesesM, MoraC. Augmented reality to promote collaborative andautonomous learning in higher education. Computers in HumanBehavior. 2015;51:752–761. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.093
16.
CaiS, WangX, ChiangF. A case study of Augmented Reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014;37:31–40. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.018
17.
AiniN, MohammedH, SulaimanR. Students’ Perception of Mobile Augmented Reality Applications in Learning Computer Organization. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;176:111–116. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.450
18.
BaccaJ, BaldirisS, FabregatR, Kinshuk, GrafS. Mobile Augmented Reality in Vocational Education and Training. Procedia Computer Science. 2015;75:49–58. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.203
19.
Buitrago-PulidoR. Incidencia de la realidad aumentada sobre el estilo cognitivo: caso para el estudio de las matemáticas. Educación y Educadores. 2015;18(1):27–41. doi: 10.5294/edu.2015.18.1.2
20.
AkçayírM, AkçayírG, HüseyinM, Akif OcakM. Augmented reality in science laboratories: The effects of augmentedreality on university students’ laboratory skills and attitudestoward science laboratories. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016;57:334–342. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.054
21.
MancaD, BrambillaS, ColomboS. Bridging between Virtual Reality and accident simulation for training of process-industry operators. Advances in Engineering Software. 2013;55:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2012.09.002
22.
HořejšíP. Augmented Reality System for Virtual Trainingof Parts Assembly. Procedia Engineering. 2015;100:699–706. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.01.422
23.
PerdikakisA, ArayaA, KiritsisD. Introducing Augmented Reality in Next Generation Industrial Learning Tools: A Case Study on Electric and Hybrid Vehicles. Procedia Engineering. 2015;132:251–258. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.492
24.
SegoviaD, RamírezH, MendozaM, MendozaM, MendozaE, GonzálezE. Machining and Dimensional Validation Training Using Augmented Reality for a Lean Process. Procedia Computer Science. 2015;75:195–204. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.238
25.
WangX, DunstonP. Design, strategies, and issues towards an augmented reality-based construction training platform. ITcon. 2007;12:363–380.
26.
LeeK. Augmented Reality in Education and Training. TechTrends. 2012;56(2):13–21. doi: 10.1007/s11528-012-0559-3
27.
Martín-GutiérrezJ, ConteroM, AlcañizM. Augmented Reality to Training Spatial Skills. Procedia ComputerScience. 2015;77:33–39. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.356
28.
WangP, WuP, WangJ, ChiH, WangX. A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2018;15(6). doi: 10.3390/ijerph15061204
29.
FerradaX, MasalanP, GuarelloM, NúñezP. Training workersand reducing the rate of accidents: A proposal inspired by thechronic care model. Journal of Construction. 2019;18(2):364–374. doi: 10.7764/rdlc.18.2.364
30.
Lopez-ArquillosA, Pardo-FerreiraM, GibbA, Rubio-RomeroJ. Occupational safety needs into construction formwork market. Perception of stakeholders. Journal of Construction. 2019;18(1):16–28. doi: 10.7764/RDLC.18.1.16
31.
ForcaelE, RissoL, ÁlvarezP, GómezN, OrozcoF. Evaluationof the occupational hazard perception of building constructionworkers from a psychometric paradigm and consideringsociodemographic variables. Journal of Construction. 2018;17(3):436–456. doi: 10.7764/RDLC.17.3.436
ParkE, ParkM. Factors of the Technology Acceptance Model for Construction IT. Applied Sciences. 2020;10(22):8299. doi: 10.3390/app10228299
34.
BastanM, ZareiM, Tavakkoli-MoghaddamR, ShakouriH. A new technology acceptance model: a mixed-method of grounded theory and system dynamics. Kybernetes. 2020. doi: 10.1108/K-03-2020-0127
35.
LeeS, YuJ. Longitudinal Study on Construction Organization’s BIM Acceptance. Applied Sciences. 2020;10(15):5358. doi: 10.3390/app10155358
36.
WangG, WangP, CaoD, LuoX. Predicting behavioural resistance to BIM implementation in construction projects: an empirical study integrating technology acceptance model and equity theory. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 2020;26(7):651–665. doi: 10.3846/jcem.2020.12325
37.
LeeC, LeeM, ThurasamyR. Using Mediation in Project Disputes Based on Theory of Planned Behavior and Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction. 2020;12(1):04519044. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000361
38.
SharmaM, KumarS. The Implication of Blockchain as a Disruptive Technology for Construction Industry. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review. 2020;9(2). doi: 10.1177/2277975220932343
39.
WangG, LuH, HuW, GaoX, Pishdad-BozorgiP. Understanding Behavioral Logic of Information and Communication Technology Adoption in Small- and Medium-Sized Construction Enterprises: Empirical Study from China. Journal of Management in Engineering. 2020;36(6):05020013. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000843
40.
WangM, WangC, SepasgozarS, ZlatanovaS. A Systematic Review of Digital Technology Adoption in Off-Site Construction: Current Status and Future Direction towards Industry 4.0. Buildings. 2020;10(11):204. doi: 10.3390/buildings10110204
41.
McNamaraA, SepasgozarS. Developing a theoretical framework for intelligent contract acceptance. Construction Innovation. 2020;20(3):421–445. doi: 10.1108/ci-07-2019-0061
42.
BerlakJ, HafnerS, KuppelwieserV. Digitalization’s impacts on productivity: a model-based approach and evaluation in Germany’s building construction industry. Production Planning & Control. 2020;335-345. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2020.1740815
43.
SepasgozarS. Digital technology utilisation decisions for facilitating the implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies. Construction Innovation. 2020. doi: 10.1108/ci-02-2020-0020
44.
OkpalaI, NnajiC, KarakhanA. Utilizing Emerging Technologies for Construction Safety Risk Mitigation. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction. 2020;25(2):04020002. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000468
45.
NnajiC, KarakhanA. Technologies for safety and health management in construction: Current use, implementation benefits and limitations, and adoption barriers. Journal of Building Engineering. 2020;29:101212. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101212
46.
NnajiC, GambateseJ, KarakhanA, Osei-KyeiR. Development and Application of Safety Technology Adoption Decision-Making Tool. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2020;146(4):04020028. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001808
47.
OrtegaI. Jornada de campaña comunicacional: Prevención delriesgo de exposición a Sílice, ruido laboral y trabajo enaltura en el sector de la construcción. Santiago: Ministerio de Salud; 2014.
48.
DavisF. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3):319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008
49.
BalogA, PribeanuC. Developing a measurement scale for the evaluation of AR-based educational systems. Stud. in Inform. and Control. 2009;18(8):137–148.
50.
WojciechowskiR, CellaryW. Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Comput. and Educ. 2013;68:570–585. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.014
51.
DavisF. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 1993;38(3):475–487. doi: 10.1006/imms.1993.1022
52.
FishbeinM, AjzenI. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. 1975. Reading. MA: Addison Wesley, USA.
53.
HuP, ChauP, ShengO, TamK. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of management information systems. 1999;16(2):91–112. doi: 10.1080/07421222.1999.11518247
54.
MathiesonK. Predicting user intention: comparing the technology acceptance model with theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research. 1991;2(3):173–19. doi: 10.1287/isre.2.3.173
55.
SzajnaB. Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science. 1996;42(1):85–92.
56.
SheppardB, HarwickJ, WarshawP. The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendation for modification and future research. Journal of Consumer Research. 1988;15(3):325–343. doi: 10.1086/209170
57.
BrownO, HendrickH. Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management. International Symposium on Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management. 1986;2.
58.
LeeI, ChenC, SuC. App based souvenirs and entry tickets: A new means of enhancing post visit memories: A case study from Taiwan. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2017;24:177–185. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2017.09.001
59.
PantanoE, ReseA, BaierD. Enhancing the online decision-making process by using augmented reality: A two country comparison of youth markets. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2017;38:81–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.05.011
60.
ArvanitisT, WilliamsD, KnightJ, BaberC, GargalakosM, SotiriouS, BognerF. A Human Factors Study of Technology Acceptance of a Prototype Mobile Augmented Reality System for Science Education. Advanced Science Letters. 2011;4(11-12):3342–3352. doi: 10.1166/asl.2011.2044
61.
IbanezM, SerioA, VillaranD, Delgado-KloosC. Acceptance of Learning Augmented Reality Environments: A Case Study. International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 2016:307-311. doi: 10.1109/icalt.2016.124
62.
AdamsD, NelsonR, ToddP. Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication. MIS Quarterly. 1992;16(2):227–247. doi: 10.2307/249577
63.
HendricksonA, MasseyP, CronanT. On the test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales. MIS Quarterly. 1993;17(2):227–230. doi: 10.2307/249803
64.
DavisF, BagozziR, WarshawP. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science. 1989;35(8):982–1003. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
65.
StraubD. Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS quarterly. 1989;13(2):147–169. doi: 10.2307/248922
66.
BianchiC. Investigating the Export Behavior of Family SMEs from Chile. Contemporary Influences on International Business in Latin America. 2019;155-178. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-98340-0_7
67.
SantosJ. Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of extensión. 1999;37(2), 1–5.
68.
Holgado-TelloF, Chacón-MoscosoS, Barbero-GarcíaI, Vila-AbadE. Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity. 2010;44(1):153–166. doi: 10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y
69.
BentlerP, BonettD. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin. 1980;88(3):588–606. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
70.
BentlerP. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin. 1990;107(2):238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
71.
HuL, BentlerP. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal. 1999;6(1):1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
72.
VenkateshV, DavisF. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science. 2000;46(2):186–204. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
73.
BianchiC, CarneiroJ, WickramasekeraR. Internationalisation commitment of emerging market firms: A comparative study of Chile and Brazil. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 2018;25(2):201–221. doi: 10.1108/JSBED-07-2017-0221
74.
TaylorS, ToddP. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information systems research. 1995;6(2):144–176.
