untitled - PDF 免费下载

(65) * ** *** * ** ***

(66) 2006 2001 Technology acceptance model, TAM Davis 1989 Theory of Reasoned Action, TRA TAM Perceived Usefulness Perceived Ease of Use

(67) Davis,1989 Moon and Kim, 2001 External Variables Davis et al., 1989 1 1 Davis, 1989 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 Self-Efficacy Bandura, 1977 Bandura 1977 Specific Capabilities Belief Computer Self-Efficacy Compeau and Higgins, 1995 什什 Hasan 2006 TAM H6 H7

(68) Parasuraman 2000Technology Readiness Index, TRI optimism H8 H9 Ajzen 1985 Perceived Behavioral Control, PBC 2 2 Ajzen, 1985 H10 H11 3

(69) 3 1 7 123 477 79.5% pilot test 0.5 1.0 Cronbach`s α 0.7 Gay, 1992; Nunnally, 1978 1 1 Davis(1989) Hsu and Lin(2008) Hsu and Lin(2008) Davis(1989)

(70) Fu et al.(2006) Davis(1989) Davis(1989) Davis(1989) Taylor and Todd(1995) Wu and Chen(2005) Wu and Chen(2005) Wu and Chen(2005) Wu and Chen(2005) Hsu and Lin(2008) Hsu and Lin(2008) Vijayasarathy(2004) Vijayasarathy(2004) Fu et al.(2006) Hu et al.(2003) Taylor and Todd(1995) Hu et al.(2003) Walczuch et al.(2007) Walczuch et al.(2007) Parasuraman(2000) Fu et al.(2006) Fu et al.(2006) Taylor and Todd(1995) Taylor and odd(1995) Taylor and odd(1995) Taylor and odd(1995) Taylor and odd(1995)

(71) SPSS13.0 for windows - Structural Equation Model; SEM 2006 LISREL 8.54 SEM Maximum likelihood, ML 477 62% 36-55 度都 Cronbach α Cronbach α 若 0.35~0.7 若 0.7~0.98 2 Cronbach`s α 0.835 0.829 0.799 0.836 0.798 0.727 0.751 0.828

(72) Cronbach α 2 2 α 0.7 Nunnally et al., 1994 Bagozzi & Yi 1988 Maximum Likelihood Estimation; MLE Indicator ReliabilityComposite Reliability; CR Average Variance Extracted; AVE 3 CRVE 1 2 3 t SMC PU1 0.76 -- 0.42 0.6 PU2 0.73 15.41 0.46 0.5 PU3 0.76 15.41 0.46 0.6 PU4 0.73 15.92 0.42 0.5 EOU1 0.73 -- 0.47 0.5 EOU2 0.72 14.12 0.49 0.5 EOU3 0.77 14.99 0.41 0.6 EOU4 0.75 14.70 0.44 0.6 ATT1 0.74 -- 0.45 0.5 ATT2 0.74 14.49 0.45 0.5 ATT3 0.66 13.08 0.56 0.4 ATT4 0.67 13.21 0.55 0.4 BI1 0.60 -- 0.64 0.4 BI2 0.65 11.30 0.58 0.4 BI3 0.77 12.67 0.41 0.6 BI4 0.73 12.25 0.47 0.5 BI5 0.73 12.28 0.47 0.5 CSF1 0.70 15.60 0.52 0.5 CSF2 0.71 15.94 0.50 0.5 CSF3 0.70 15.71 0.51 0.5 CSF4 0.71 15.93 0.50 0.5 CR VE 0.83 0.6 0.83 0.5 0.80 0.5 0.82 0.5 0.80 0.5

(73) t SMC OP1 0.60 12.58 0.64 0.4 OP2 0.67 14.18 0.56 0.4 OP3 0.78 16.94 0.39 0.6 PBC1 0.70 15.55 0.51 0.5 PBC2 0.76 17.21 0.42 0.6 PBC3 0.67 14.77 0.55 0.4 SN1 0.75 17.79 0.44 0.6 SN2 0.76 18.18 0.43 0.6 SN3 0.75 17.95 0.44 0.6 SN4 0.70 16.48 0.50 0.5 CR VE 0.73 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.83 0.5 2 ( ) 2 ( ) + ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) + ( ) = (CR) = 1 2 0.5 Fornell et al., 1981 度 AVE 若 7 4 Fornell et al., 1981

(74) 4 0.747* 0.48 0.741* 0.59 0.09 0.704* 0.34 0.00 0.37 0.698* 0.04 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.703* 0.28 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.687* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.711* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.740* * VE Chi-square Chi-square GFI AGFIRoot Mean Square Error of Approximation, RMSEANFI NNFI CFI Bagozzi et al., 1988; Hair et al., 1998; Hair et al. 1992; Joreskog et al.,1992 5 5 Chi-square 1106.25 P = 0.0 417 Chi-square <3 2.653 GFI >0.9 0.87 AGFI >0.9 0.84 CFI >0.9 0.97 NFI >0.9 0.95 NNFI >0.9 0.96 RMSEA <0.08 0.059 5 p 0.0 Bagozzi et al., 1988 若 3 Chin et al., 1995; Hair et al., 1998 1.951

(75) GFI AGFI 0.9 GFI AGFI 0.8 MacCallurn et al., 1997 1 6 R 2 0.60 0.15 0.87 0.95 4 6 4 * p<0.05 ** p<0.01 6 H1: 0.48** H2 0.59** H3 0.09 H4 0.34** H5 0.37** H6 0.04 H7 0.30** H8 0.28** H9 0.34** H10 0.14** H11 0.25** * p<0.05 ** p<0.01

(76)

(77) 1. 97 81-104 2. 90 12-23 3. - 97 4. Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intention to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior, in J.Kuhl and J. Bechmann (Eds), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Springer, Heidelberg, 11-39. 5. Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y., On the evaluation for structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.16:1, pp.74-94, 1988. 6. Bandura, A., Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychological Review, Vol.84:2, pp.191-215, 1977. 7. Chin, W. W., and Todd P., On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: A note of caution, MIS Quarterly, Vol.19:2, 237-246, 1995. 8. Compeau, D. R., and Higgins, C. A., Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test, MIS Quarterly, Vol.19:2, pp189-211, 1995. 9. Davis, F. D., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol.13:3, pp319-340, 1989. 10. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F., Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and measurement errors, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18:1, pp.39-50, 1981. 11. Fu, J. R., Farn, C. K., and Chao, W. P., Acceptance of Electronic Tax Filing: A study of Taxpayer Intentions, Information & Management, Vol.43:1, pp.109-126, 2006. 12. Gay, L. R., Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application, Macmillan, New York, 1992. 13. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C., Multivariate data analysis with reading, (3rd ed.) Macmillan Publishing Company, New York., 1992. 14. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C., Multivariate data analysis with reading, (3rd ed.) Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1998. 15. Hasan, B., Delineating the effects of general and system-specific computer self-efficacy beliefs on IS acceptance," Information & Management, Vol.43:5, pp.565-571, 2006. 16. Hsu, C. L., and Lin, J. C. C., Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation, Information & Management, Vol.45:1, pp.65-74, 2008. 17. Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H. K., and Ma, W. W., Examining technology acceptance by school teachers: a longitudinal study, Information & Management, Vol.41:2, pp.227-241, 2003. 18. Joreskog, K.G., and Sorbom, D., LISREL: A Guide to the Program and Applications, (3rd ed.) Scientific Software International, Inc., Chicago, 1992.

(78) 19. MacCallum, R.C., S. Hong., Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol.32:2, pp.193-210, 1997. 20. Moon, J. W., and Kim, Y. G., Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context, Information & Management, Vol.38:4, pp.217-230, 2001. 21. Nunnally, J. C., Psychometric Theory, (2nd ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978. 22. Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H., Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994. 23. Parasuraman, A., and Grewal, D., The Impact of Technology on the Quality-Value-Loyalty Chain: A Research Agenda, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.28:4, pp.168-174, 2000. 24. Reisinger, Y., & L. Turner., Structural equation modeling with LISREL: application in tourism, Tourism Management, Vol.20, pp.71-88, 1999. 25. Taylor, S., and Todd, P., Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models, Information Systems Research, Vol.6:2, pp.44-176, 1995. 26. Vijayasarathy, L. R., "Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: the case for an augmented technology acceptance model, Information & Management, Vol.41:6, pp.747-762, 2004. 27. Walczuch, Rita., Jos Lemmink, Sandra Streukens, The effect of service employees technology readiness on technology acceptance, Information & Management, Vol.44, pp.206-215, 2007. 28. Wu, I. L., and Chen, J. L., An extension of Trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of online tax: an empirical study, International Journal of Human Computer studies, Vol.62:6, pp.784-808, 2005.