Construct · 6 names · 10 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · four names, one construct Nearest construct by meaningperceived ease of usecompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to effort expectancy is perceived ease of use.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The degree of ease associated with the use of the system, Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis's 2003 definition, written to absorb perceived ease of use, complexity, and ease of use from three parent models. The four items were taken from those parents, and the construct predicted intention only in the early periods of use, more strongly for women and older workers; once experience accumulated it dropped out. UTAUT2 in 2012 kept the name and the items for consumers, where it stayed significant. The construct is defined as a belief about the system, not as a property of the system and not as a belief about oneself, which is what separates it from the two neighbours at the bottom of this map.[1][2]
The degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort, Davis's 1989 definition, built and validated alongside perceived usefulness in the same paper. Davis wrote fourteen candidate items, pruned them to six, and found ease of use predicted use less strongly than usefulness did and largely through it. Venkatesh's 2000 study of its determinants showed that computer self-efficacy, perceptions of external control, computer anxiety, and playfulness anchor it before experience and objective usability adjusts it afterwards. The definition and the UTAUT one differ in nothing but the word effort.[3][4]
The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being difficult to use, reversed, Moore and Benbasat's 1991 rendering of Rogers's complexity attribute for the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating instrument. They renamed the attribute ease of use, and by their own account adapted the items from Davis's perceived-ease-of-use scale after their own candidates failed to separate from it. The scale arrived in information systems already merged with the TAM construct; the theory behind it is diffusion across a population rather than acceptance by an individual, and that is the only difference.[5]
The degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use, Thompson, Higgins, and Howell's 1991 construct, taken from Rogers and placed in Triandis's theory of interpersonal behaviour. The model predicted actual utilization of personal computers rather than intention, and complexity had a negative effect on it. Complexity is ease of use with the sign flipped and a different outcome in front of it; the items ask about the time it takes to learn, the mechanics of use, and the difficulty of getting results.[6]
The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use, the ISO 9241-11 definition, fixed in 1998. Nielsen's 1993 textbook had already decomposed it into learnability, efficiency, memorability, errors, and satisfaction, and made it something engineers test on tasks rather than something users rate on a questionnaire. Hornbæk's 2006 review of 180 studies found the field measuring it with task time, error counts, and completion rates as often as with self-report. This is a property of the system measured by observing behaviour; effort expectancy is a belief about the system measured by asking. Venkatesh's 2000 model treats the first as an input to the second.[7][8][9]
A judgement of one's capability to use a computer, Compeau and Higgins's 1995 application of Bandura's self-efficacy to computing, with a ten-item scale that asks how confident a person is that they could complete a task with an unfamiliar package under decreasing levels of help. The belief is about the person, not the system, and it predicts outcome expectations, affect, anxiety, and use. Venkatesh showed in 2000 that it is the strongest anchor of perceived ease of use before experience. Neighbour, not synonym: a confident user can still find a given system hard, and the items make the referent explicit.[10][4]
Next
Combine items across the effort expectancy scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct