« Back to Assessment Instruments
Qualitative/Quantitative:
Type of Instrument:
Number of Items:
18 Can varySubscale Information:
Perceived ease of use (6)
Perceived usefulness (6)
Intention to use (6)Language Availability:
Brief Description:
Van Schaik's Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an extension of Davis's original TAM, which was proposed in 1989. Researchers and practitioners can use this model to design interventions and strategies that facilitate technology acceptance and adoption among users. While the original TAM focused primarily on the cognitive beliefs of users, Van Schaik's model incorporates additional factors that influence technology acceptance. Van Schaik's TAM expands the original TAM by incorporating additional factors beyond perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, offering a more comprehensive understanding.Citing Literature - Development/Original:
Saldana, S. J., Marsh, A. P., Rejeski, W. J., Haberl, J. K., Wu, P., Rosenthal, S., & Ip, E. H. (2017). Assessing balance through the use of a low-cost head-mounted display in older adults: a pilot study. Clinical interventions in aging, 12, 1363–1370. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S141251. PMID: 28883717 PMCID: PMC5580706.Citing Literature - Empirical Use/Application:
Rahimi, B., Nadri, H., Lotfnezhad Afshar, H., & Timpka, T. (2018). A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model in Health Informatics. Applied clinical informatics, 9(3), 604–634. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1668091. PMID: 30112741 PMCID: PMC6094026.Website:
Not FoundAttachments:
Version:
Not FoundRelated Instruments:
Not Found
Van Schaik’s Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Qualitative/Quantitative:
The assessment instrument uses quantitative and/or qualitative data
- Quantitative
Type of Instrument:
The type of the assessment instrument
- Survey
Number of Items:
Number of items in the assessment instrument
18 Can varySubscale Information:
Names of each of the subscales and the number of items for each of the subscales
Perceived ease of use (6)Perceived usefulness (6)
Intention to use (6)
Language Availability:
Language(s) in which the assessment instrument is available
- English
Brief Description:
Brief summary description of assessment instrument
Van Schaik's Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an extension of Davis's original TAM, which was proposed in 1989. Researchers and practitioners can use this model to design interventions and strategies that facilitate technology acceptance and adoption among users. While the original TAM focused primarily on the cognitive beliefs of users, Van Schaik's model incorporates additional factors that influence technology acceptance. Van Schaik's TAM expands the original TAM by incorporating additional factors beyond perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, offering a more comprehensive understanding.Citing Literature - Development/Original:
Reference for publication describing the development of the assessment instrument
Saldana, S. J., Marsh, A. P., Rejeski, W. J., Haberl, J. K., Wu, P., Rosenthal, S., & Ip, E. H. (2017). Assessing balance through the use of a low-cost head-mounted display in older adults: a pilot study. Clinical interventions in aging, 12, 1363–1370. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S141251. PMID: 28883717 PMCID: PMC5580706.Citing Literature - Empirical Use/Application:
Reference for publications on the application of the assessment instrument
Rahimi, B., Nadri, H., Lotfnezhad Afshar, H., & Timpka, T. (2018). A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model in Health Informatics. Applied clinical informatics, 9(3), 604–634. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1668091. PMID: 30112741 PMCID: PMC6094026.Website:
Website providing access to and/or describing the assessment instrument
Not FoundAttachments:
Related files uploaded (instrument if directly available) including descriptions for each
Version:
Number/name of the most recent version of the assessment instrument
Not FoundRelated Instruments:
Indicate if assessment instrument is related to another instrument in the repository.
Not FoundImplementation Science Considerations
- Active Implementation Framework
- Adherence Optimization Framework
- Availability, Responsiveness & Continuity (ARC): An Organizational & Community Intervention Model
- Behaviour Change Wheel
- Blueprint for Dissemination
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research Knowledge Translation within the Research Cycle Model or Knowledge Action Model
- Choosing Wisely Deimplementation Framework
- Conceptual Model of Knowledge Utilization
- Conduct and Utilization of Research in Nursing (CURN)
- Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
- Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0
- Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework
- Coordinated Implementation Model
- Critical Realism & the Arts Research Utilization Model (CRARIUM)
- Davis' Pathman-PRECEED Model
- Diffusion of Innovation
- Dissemination and Implementation Framework for an Early Childhood Obesity Prevention Program
- Dissemination of Evidence-based Interventions to Prevent Obesity
- EQ-DI Framework
- Effective Dissemination Strategies
- Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) model (Conceptual Model of Evidence-based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors)
- Facilitating Adoption of Best Practices (FAB) Model
- Framework for Analyzing Adoption of Complex Health Innovations
- Framework for Dissemination of Evidence-Based Policy
- Framework for Enhancing the Value of Research for Dissemination and Implementation
- Framework for Knowledge Translation
- Framework for Spread
- Framework for the Dissemination & Utilization of Research for Health-Care Policy & Practice
- Framework for the Transfer of Patient Safety Research into Practice
- Framework of Dissemination in Health Services Intervention Research
- General theory of implementation
- Greenhalgh Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations
- Health Equity Implementation Framework
- Implementation Effectiveness Model
- Interactive Systems Framework
- Intervention Mapping
- Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice
- Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model and Guidelines
- Kingdon's Multiple-Streams Framework
- Knowledge Exchange Framework
- Knowledge Transfer and Exchange
- Model for Predictors of Adoption
- OutPatient Treatment in Ontario Services (OPTIONS) Model
- Pathways to Evidence Informed Policy
- Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM)
- Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2
- Process Model of Implementation from a Policy Perspective Depicting the Process at One Policy Level
- Proctor's Implementation Outcomes
- Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS)
- RAND Model of Persuasive Communication and Diffusion of Medical Innovation
- RE-AIM 1.0 Framework
- RE-AIM 2.0/Contextually Expanded RE-AIM
- Six-Step Framework for International Physical Activity Dissemination
- The SPIRIT Action Framework
- Theoretical Domains Framework
- Transcreation Framework for Community-engaged Behavioral Interventions to Reduce Health Disparities
- Adoption
- Appropriateness
- Penetration
- Assess for readiness and identify barriers and facilitators
- Audit and provide feedback
- Identify and prepare champions
- Identify early adopters
- Mandate change
- Model and simulate change
- Implementation
- Sustainment
Constructs Assessed:
Constructs assessed by the assessment instrument (linked to constructs included in the D&I models webtool)Theories, Models, Frameworks Assessed:
The D&I TMFs relevant for the assesment instrument based on constructs assessedImplementation Outcomes:
The relevance of the assessment instrument to various implementation outcomesImplementation Strategies:
The implementation strategy/ies evaluated by the assessment instrumentPhase of Implementation Process:
Phase of implementation process when the assessment instrument can be used
Intended Focus
- Organizational
- Community Members/Patients
- Researcher/Evaluator
- Clinician
- Administrator
- Public Health Practitioner
- Clinical Outpatient
- Clinical Inpatient
- Public Health Agency
- Organization
- Clinical Practice
Levels of Data Collection:
The level(s) from which the assessment instrument collects dataIntended Priority Population:
Intended priority population from whom data are collected using the assessment instrumentIntended Priority Setting:
Intended priority setting in which the assessment instrument is usedPolicy:
Assessment instrument is relevant to policyEquity Focus:
Not Found
Psychometric Properties
Scoring:
YesThe assessment instrument produces a composite scoreNorms:
Not FoundMeasures of central tendency and distribution for the total score are based on small, medium, large sample sizeResponsiveness:
Not FoundThe ability of the assessment instrument to detect change over time (i.e., sensitivity to change or intervention effects).Validity:
Not FoundThe extent to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure accurately.Reliability:
Not FoundThe extent to which results are consistent results over time, across raters, across settings, or across items intended to measure the same thing.Factor Analysis:
YesA statistical method that uses the correlation between observed variables to identify common factors.
Pragmatic Properties
- Low: Automated collection of data or secondary data
Time to Administer:
Not FoundThe amount of time required to complete the assessment instrumentSecondary Data:
Not FoundCost:
FreeCost associated with access to assessment instrument (Some instruments might require login.)Literacy:
YesReadability of the items reported on.Interpretation:
NoExpertise needed for interpretation of data is reported.Training:
NoExpertise needed to use the assessment instrument is reportedResources Required to Administer:
None/LowResources needed to administer the assessment instrument (FTE for data collector, equipment, etc.)User Guidance:
Not FoundGuides are provided to support administration of assessment instrument/data collection, and/or analysis of data from the assessment instrument, and/or interpretation of data, and/or action/decision on how to use dataObtrusiveness:
Degree of intrusion the participants will experience because of the data collection when using the assessment instrument (e.g., assessment instruments that rely on use of secondary data or automated data will be less obtrusive)Interactivity:
Not FoundData collection and/or result generation involves interactive components.
Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to write one.