Explaining undergraduates’ behavior intention of e-textbook adoption: Empirical assessment of five theoretical models

Abstract

Purpose

The current study aims to investigate college students' behavioral intentions to adopt e-textbooks for their studies according to well-known theoretical intention-based models.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper empirically assesses five theoretical models of technology acceptance, including the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the technology acceptance model (TAM), the decomposed TPB model (DTPB), the combined model of TAM and TPB (C-TAM-TPB), and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). The survey methodology and structural equation modeling (SEM) were employed to examine and compare these five models. Moreover, explanatory power, goodness-of-fit indices, and model parsimony were taken into consideration in the model comparisons.

Findings

Both TPB and TAM provided less effective but adequate predictive behavioral power. However, TPB appeared to be more parsimonious than TAM and the other models. By focusing on specific beliefs of attitude, social and control influences, DTPB shares many of the same advantages as TPB and TAM, but is less parsimonious. Similarly, C-TAM-TPB, an augmented version of TAM that incorporates social influences and behavioral control, is superior to TPB and TAM in terms of its explanatory power of behavioral intention to use e-textbooks. Overall, however, the results indicated that UTAUT appeared to be the best model in terms of the metrics of parsimonious fit and explanatory power.

Originality/value

Theoretical comparison of different models is important. This is believed to be the first study to present model comparisons by investigating undergraduates' intention to adopt e-textbooks as tools for their on-campus learning in Taiwan.

Citation

Hsiao, C.-H. and Tang, K.-Y. (2014), "Explaining undergraduates’ behavior intention of e-textbook adoption: Empirical assessment of five theoretical models", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 139-163. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-09-2013-0126

Download as .RIS