Abstract
This paper reports on the development of an instrument designed to measure the various perceptions that an individual may have of adopting an information technology (IT) innovation. This instrument is intended to be a tool for the study of the initial adoption and eventual diffusion of IT innovations within organizations. While the adoption of information technologies by individuals and organizations has been an area of substantial research interest since the early days of computerization, research efforts to date have led to mixed and inconclusive outcomes. The lack of a theoretical foundation for such research and inadequate definition and measurement of constructs have been identified as major causes for such outcomes. In a recent study examining the diffusion of new end-user IT, we decided to focus on measuring the potential adopters' perceptions of the technology. Measuring such perceptions has been termed a “classic issue” in the innovation diffusion literature, and a key to integrating the various findings of diffusion research. The perceptions of adopting were initially based on the five characteristics of innovations derived by Rogers (1983) from the diffusion of innovations literature, plus two developed specifically within this study. Of the existing scales for measuring these characteristics, very few had the requisite levels of validity and reliability. For this study, both newly created and existing items were placed in a common pool and subjected to four rounds of sorting by judges to establish which items should be in the various scales. The objective was to verify the convergent and discriminant validity of the scales by examining how the items were sorted into various construct categories. Analysis of inter-judge agreement about item placement identified both bad items as well as weaknesses in some of the constructs' original definitions. These were subsequently redefined. Scales for the resulting constructs were subjected to three separate field tests. Following the final test, the scales all demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability. Their validity was further checked using factor analysis, as well as conducting discriminant analysis comparing responses between adopters and nonadopters of the innovation. The result is a parsimonious, 38-item instrument comprising eight scales which provides a useful tool for the study of the initial adoption and diffusion of innovations. A short, 25 item, version of the instrument is also suggested.
Keywords
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
1. Introduction 2. Basic concepts 3. Devising the items 4. Scaling responses 5. Selecting the items 6. Biases in responding 7. From items to scales 8. Reliability 9. Generalizab...
Causal Variables, Indicator Variables and Measurement Scales: An Example from Quality of Life
Summary There is extensive literature on the development and validation of multi-item measurement scales. Much of this is based on principles derived from psychometric theory an...
Implementing a Five-Factor Personality Inventory for Use on the Internet
Abstract. A short five-factor personality inventory developed from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) was implemented as an online questionnaire and completed by 2,4...
Toward Understanding and Measuring Conditions of Trust: Evolution of a Conditions of Trust Inventory
Ten conditions of trust were suggested by 84 interviews of managers, and two previous studies of managerial trust. Statements made in the interviews and the studies were used to...
Patient-assessed health in ankylosing spondylitis: a structured review
This review provides a contribution to AS assessment. AS-specific multi-item measures specific to the assessment of pain, stiffness, fatigue and global health were not identifie...
Publication Info
- Year
- 1991
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 192-222
- Citations
- 8873
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
Cite This
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1287/isre.2.3.192