Construct · 6 names · 9 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · six names, one construct Nearest construct by meaningperformance expectancycompare 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 perceived usefulness is performance expectancy.
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 to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance their job performance, Davis's 1989 definition, and the name the rest of this map is measured against. Davis wrote fourteen candidate items, pruned them with judges and two field studies, and kept six on speed, performance, productivity, effectiveness, ease of the job, and overall usefulness; usefulness correlated with use at .63 and .85, ease of use at .45 and .59. Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw set it inside the model the same year, with usefulness driving intention both directly and through attitude. This is the referent construct: every other name here was either its source or its rename.[1][2]
The degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes, Rogers's first and, by his own account, strongest of the five perceived attributes of innovations, expressible as economic profit, social prestige, convenience, or satisfaction. Moore and Benbasat built the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating instrument in 1991 to measure Rogers's attributes for information technology, and reported that their relative-advantage items were adapted from Davis's usefulness scale because the two constructs were, in their judgement, the same thing. The one thing that differs is the comparator: Rogers compares an innovation with its predecessor, Davis compares a job with and without the system.[3][4]
The degree to which an individual believes that using the system will help them attain gains in job performance, Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis's 2003 label for the pool of perceived usefulness, relative advantage, extrinsic motivation, outcome expectations, and job-fit. They took four items from the parents, showed the pooled construct was the strongest predictor of intention in every model, and gave it a new name. UTAUT2 in 2012 reworded the referent for consumers as benefit in performing activities. The full history of that rename, its extensions, and its critics has its own page at performance expectancy; here it is the terminus of the lineage.[5][6]
Performing an activity because it is perceived to be instrumental in achieving valued outcomes distinct from the activity itself, such as improved pay, performance, or promotions. Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw brought the intrinsic–extrinsic distinction from Deci's motivation psychology into computer use in 1992, paired usefulness with enjoyment, and found both predicted intention with usefulness the stronger. For the extrinsic side they administered the perceived-usefulness scale unchanged. This is the cleanest rename on the map: same items, same author, new theoretical parent.[7]
A person's judgement of the likely consequences of a behaviour, in Bandura's theory the partner of self-efficacy, which is the judgement of whether one can perform the behaviour at all. Compeau and Higgins measured both for computing in 1995, with outcome expectations split into performance-related items (a better job, more efficiency) and personal items (respect from colleagues, status), and found self-efficacy fed outcome expectations which fed affect and use. UTAUT kept the performance half as a parent of performance expectancy. What differs is the theory: here the belief is one of two co-determinants of action, and the personal half is part of the construct.[8]
The extent to which an individual believes that using a personal computer can enhance the performance of their job, Thompson, Higgins, and Howell's 1991 construct, drawn from Triandis's theory of interpersonal behaviour rather than from Fishbein and Ajzen. Job-fit sat beside complexity, long-term consequences, affect, social factors, and facilitating conditions as a predictor of self-reported utilization, and was the strongest of them. The definition is Davis's usefulness with two words changed; what differs is the theory behind it and the criterion in front of it, which is use rather than intention.[9]
Next
Combine items across the perceived usefulness 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