Construct · 3 names · 4 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · how well it does the job, one antecedent Nearest construct by meaningjob relevancecompare 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 output quality is job relevance.
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.
An individual's perception of how well the system performs the tasks it is used for, one of the cognitive-instrumental determinants of perceived usefulness in Venkatesh and Davis's 2000 extension of TAM. Alongside job relevance, result demonstrability, and perceived ease of use, output quality feeds usefulness, but it answers a different question: given that the system can do the tasks that matter to the job, how well does it do them. Venkatesh and Davis modelled it as interacting with job relevance, so that a system judged high on both is rated most useful, and reported output quality as a significant determinant of usefulness across four longitudinal field studies. The referent is a job-holder's belief about performance quality, feeding perceived usefulness, not a property scored on the system itself.[1]
The same construct, carried forward without change into Venkatesh and Bala's 2008 TAM3, which merged TAM2's determinants of perceived usefulness with the determinants of perceived ease of use into one integrated model of individual IT adoption and use. Output quality stays a cognitive-instrumental determinant of usefulness, keeping its anchoring against job relevance and result demonstrability and its interaction with job relevance. TAM3 adds interventions and moderators around the network but leaves the definition and role of output quality intact, so a study citing TAM3 for output quality is measuring the same belief as one citing TAM2. The label changes model but not referent.[2]
The kin that shares the words but sits in a different model. DeLone and McLean's IS success framework, set out in 1992 and updated in 2003, lists system quality and information quality as two of its dimensions of success: system quality names properties of the artifact such as reliability and response time, and information quality names properties of the output such as accuracy, timeliness, and completeness. Both are scored on the system and its output, and in the model they predict use and user satisfaction, which in turn feed net benefits. Output quality in TAM points at the same thing, how well the system does its work, but it is a user's perception acting as an antecedent of usefulness, not a dimension of success measured as an outcome. One belief predicts adoption; the two quality dimensions describe a system's success.[3][4]
Next
See how output quality sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, 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