IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i11p5593-d560906.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Searching for New Model of Digital Informatics for Human–Computer Interaction: Testing the Institution-Based Technology Acceptance Model (ITAM)

Author

Listed:
  • Youngcheoul Kang

    (Graduate School of Public Administration, Korea University, Sejong 30019, Korea)

  • Nakbum Choi

    (Department of Police Administration, Seowon University, Cheongju 28674, Korea)

  • Seoyong Kim

    (Department of Public Administration, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea)

Abstract

The fourth industrial revolution has produced new information technology (IT) that is widely used in the healthcare industry. Although the nature of the institution affects IT adoption, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), a dominant theory, has dismissed its role and influence. Our research investigates how institutions influence the adoption of new IT by using the Institution-based Technology Acceptance Model (ITAM). We conducted an empirical test by using survey data collected from 300 employees in the public sector. Structural equation modeling was applied to test the proposed hypotheses. The results showed the total effect of institutions on the intention to use new IT is positive and significant. Second, IT adoption is not only affected by external institutions but also by type of institution; the external institution takes a greater role in inducing perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and intention to use than does the internal. Third, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness play mediating roles between institution and IT adoption. Fourth, an alternative expanded model to which more individual and organizational factors were added confirmed the results of the base model. We concluded that institutions have a strong impact on the level of intention for IT use through perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.

Suggested Citation

  • Youngcheoul Kang & Nakbum Choi & Seoyong Kim, 2021. "Searching for New Model of Digital Informatics for Human–Computer Interaction: Testing the Institution-Based Technology Acceptance Model (ITAM)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-36, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5593-:d:560906
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5593/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5593/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    2. Wookjoon Sung & Changil Kim, 2021. "A Study on the Effect of Change Management on Organizational Innovation: Focusing on the Mediating Effect of Members’ Innovative Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    3. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    4. Jong‐Ae Kim, 2006. "Toward an understanding of Web‐based subscription database acceptance," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(13), pages 1715-1728, November.
    5. Jamie Kelly, 2020. "The New "Covid-19" Home Office Worker: Evolving Computer-Human Interactions and the Perceived Value of Workplace Technology," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 13(1), pages 575-581, November.
    6. Giliberto Capano & Jun Jie Woo, 2017. "Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 399-426, September.
    7. Corrocher, Nicoletta & Fontana, Roberto, 2008. "Objectives, obstacles and drivers of ICT adoption: What do IT managers perceive?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 229-242, September.
    8. Lee S. Strickland & Laura E. Hunt, 2005. "Technology, security, and individual privacy: New tools, new threats, and new public perceptions," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(3), pages 221-234, February.
    9. Margherita Pagani, 2006. "Determinants of adoption of High Speed Data Services in the business market : Evidence for a combined technology acceptance model with task technology fit model," Post-Print hal-02313097, HAL.
    10. Changrok Soh & Daniel Connolly, 2021. "New Frontiers of Profit and Risk: The Fourth Industrial Revolution’s Impact on Business and Human Rights," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 168-185, January.
    11. Santiago Tejedor & Ana Pérez-Escoda & Augusto Ventín & Fernanda Tusa & Fátima Martínez, 2020. "Tracking Websites’ Digital Communication Strategies in Latin American Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-19, December.
    12. Karina Lloyd & Diana Boer & Joshua Keller & Sven Voelpel, 2015. "Is My Boss Really Listening to Me? The Impact of Perceived Supervisor Listening on Emotional Exhaustion, Turnover Intention, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 509-524, September.
    13. David A. Harrison & Peter P. Mykytyn & Cynthia K. Riemenschneider, 1997. "Executive Decisions About Adoption of Information Technology in Small Business: Theory and Empirical Tests," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 8(2), pages 171-195, June.
    14. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2000. "Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 404-428, August.
    15. Carmen Antón & Carmen Camarero & Rebeca San José, 2014. "Public Employee Acceptance of New Technological Processes: The case of an internal call centre," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(6), pages 852-875, September.
    16. Ashok, Mona & Narula, Rajneesh & Martinez-Noya, Andrea, 2016. "How do collaboration and investments in knowledge management affect process innovation in services?," MERIT Working Papers 039, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    17. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    18. Pfeffer, Jeffrey, 1997. "New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195114348.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Huang, Tony Cheng-Kui & Liu, Chuang-Chun & Chang, Dong-Cheng, 2012. "An empirical investigation of factors influencing the adoption of data mining tools," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 257-270.
    2. Paul Juinn Bing Tan, 2013. "Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    3. Sarv Devaraj & Ming Fan & Rajiv Kohli, 2002. "Antecedents of B2C Channel Satisfaction and Preference: Validating e-Commerce Metrics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 316-333, September.
    4. Netsanet Haile & Jörn Altmann, 2016. "Structural analysis of value creation in software service platforms," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 26(2), pages 129-142, May.
    5. Sharath Sasidharan & Radhika Santhanam & Daniel J. Brass & Vallabh Sambamurthy, 2012. "The Effects of Social Network Structure on Enterprise Systems Success: A Longitudinal Multilevel Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(3-part-1), pages 658-678, September.
    6. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    7. Liébana-Cabanillas, Francisco & Marinkovic, Veljko & Ramos de Luna, Iviane & Kalinic, Zoran, 2018. "Predicting the determinants of mobile payment acceptance: A hybrid SEM-neural network approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 117-130.
    8. Chen Wei, 2021. "The influence of Consumers’ Purchase intention on Smart Wearable Device: A study of Consumers in East China," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 5(8), pages 46-72.
    9. Simarpreet Kaur & Sangeeta Arora, 2023. "Understanding customers’ usage behavior towards online banking services: an integrated risk–benefit framework," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 74-98, March.
    10. Fosso Wamba, Samuel & Bhattacharya, Mithu & Trinchera, Laura & Ngai, Eric W.T., 2017. "Role of intrinsic and extrinsic factors in user social media acceptance within workspace: Assessing unobserved heterogeneity," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 1-13.
    11. Irfan Bashir & C. Madhavaiah, 2014. "Determinants of Young Consumers’ Intention to Use Internet Banking Services in India," Vision, , vol. 18(3), pages 153-163, September.
    12. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 2017. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 549-568, June.
    13. Jaeki Song & Yong Jin Kim, 2006. "Social influence process in the acceptance of a virtual community service," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 241-252, July.
    14. Naresh K. Malhotra & Sung S. Kim & Ashutosh Patil, 2006. "Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1865-1883, December.
    15. Türker, Cansu & Altay, Burak Can & Okumuş, Abdullah, 2022. "Understanding user acceptance of QR code mobile payment systems in Turkey: An extended TAM," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    16. Andrei OGREZEANU, 2015. "Models Of Technology Adoption: An Integrative Approach," Network Intelligence Studies, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 5, pages 55-67, June.
    17. Iviane Ramos-de-Luna & Francisco Montoro-Ríos & Francisco Liébana-Cabanillas, 2016. "Determinants of the intention to use NFC technology as a payment system: an acceptance model approach," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 293-314, May.
    18. Wajeeha Aslam & Marija Ham & Imtiaz Arif, 2017. "Consumer Behavioral Intentions towards Mobile Payment Services: An Empirical Analysis in Pakistan," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 29(2), pages 161-176.
    19. Cansu TÜRKER & Abdullah OKUMUŞ, 2019. "Mobil Ödeme Kullanımına Yönelik Niyet ve Algıların SosyoDemografik Özelliklere Göre Farklılıklarının İncelenmesi," Istanbul Management Journal, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 0(87), pages 111-139, December.
    20. Mäntymäki, Matti & Riemer, Kai, 2014. "Digital natives in social virtual worlds: A multi-method study of gratifications and social influences in Habbo Hotel," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 210-220.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5593-:d:560906. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.