Construct · 6 names · 11 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · six names, one construct Nearest construct by meaningperceived usefulnesscompare 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 performance expectancy is perceived usefulness.
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 an individual believes that using the system will help them attain gains in job performance: Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis's 2003 definition, written explicitly to absorb the five constructs on the rest of this map. They showed the items load together and that the pooled construct is the strongest predictor of intention in every model tested, moderated by gender and age. UTAUT2 redefined it for consumers in 2012 as benefit in performing certain activities, and added hedonic motivation, price value, and habit alongside it. Dwivedi and colleagues re-examined the model in 2019 and put attitude back in as a mediator; Tamilmani and colleagues' 2021 review of UTAUT2 extensions found the core constructs kept while researchers bolted on trust, risk, self-efficacy, and dozens of context variables: a jangle factory built on a jangle repair.[1][2][3][4]
The degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance their job performance, Davis's 1989 definition, and the single most-cited construct in information systems. Davis built the six-item scale by writing candidate items, pruning them by judges and pretests, and showing that usefulness predicted use better than ease of use did. Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw then placed it in the TAM against the theory of reasoned action; Taylor and Todd combined TAM with the theory of planned behaviour. The definition and the UTAUT one differ by a handful of words.[5][6][7]
The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than its precursor, one of Rogers's five perceived attributes of innovations, which together predict the rate of adoption. Moore and Benbasat built the Perceived Characteristics of Innovating instrument in 1991 to measure it for information technology, and the relative-advantage items were, by their own account, adapted from Davis's perceived-usefulness scale. The construct arrived in information systems already merged with the one next to it on the map; the two names survived the merger.[8]
Beliefs about the consequences of a behaviour, in Bandura's theory, one of the two determinants of action alongside self-efficacy. Compeau, Higgins, and Huff applied it to computing in 1999 and split it: performance-related outcome expectations (using the computer will improve my job) and personal outcome expectations (esteem, status). UTAUT kept the first and folded it into performance expectancy; the personal half was dropped. What differs here is the theory around the belief, not the belief.[9]
The perception that users will want to perform an activity because it is perceived to be instrumental in achieving valued outcomes distinct from the activity itself, such as improved job performance, pay, or promotions. Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw imported the intrinsic–extrinsic distinction into computer use in 1992 and, for the extrinsic side, measured it with perceived usefulness. The construct was renamed on entry to a motivation framework and measured with the scale it had just been renamed from.[10]
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, built from Triandis's theory of interpersonal behaviour rather than from Fishbein and Ajzen. The model measured actual utilization rather than intention and included long-term consequences and social factors as separate predictors. Job-fit is defined in almost exactly the words Davis used for usefulness two years earlier, with a different theory behind it and a different outcome in front of it.[11]
Next
Combine items across the performance 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