Modeling the user acceptance of long-term evolution (LTE) services

  • Eunil Park
  • Angel P. del Pobil


With an integrated framework, this paper aims to analyze user perception and acceptance toward long-term evolution (LTE) services, focusing on factors that may influence the intention to use. We conducted a web-based survey of 1,192 users to test our research model. We employed structural equation modeling (SEM) as the analysis method. The results of the integrated model analysis indicate that system satisfaction is a core determinant of intention to use LTE services. The model also found that other factors, including perceived usefulness and system and service quality, significantly affect intention to use these services. In addition, both perceived adaptivity and processing speed significantly influence perceived usefulness and service quality, respectively. These factors also play key roles in determining users’ attitudes. This paper is of value to researchers and engineers designing and improving LTE services for use via mobile phones.


Long-term evolution (LTE) Technology acceptance Service quality System satisfaction 



This study was supported by a grant from the World-Class University program (Grant No. R31-2008-000-10062-0) of the Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology via the National Research Foundation of South Korea.


  1. 1.
    Dahlman E, Parkvall S, Skold J (2001) 4 G LTE/LTE-advanced for mobile broadband. Academic, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rumney, M.: LTE and the evolution to 4 G wireless: design and measurement challenges. Agilent Technologies, Padstow, Cornwall, UK (2009).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seoul Finance: three telecommunication companies have finished successful national LTE networks, available at: = 131027 (accessed 5 May 2012).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bieber G, Voskamp J, Urban B (2009) Activity recognition for everyday life on mobile phones. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5615:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim G, Shin B, Lee HG (2009) Understanding dynamics between initial trust and usage intentions of mobile banking. Inf Syst J 19(3):283–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luo X, Li H, Zhang J, Shim JP (2010) Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: an empirical study of mobile banking services. Decis Support Syst 49(2):222–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhou T, Lu Y, Wang B (2010) Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption. Comput Hum Behav 26(4):760–767MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evans C (2008) The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Comput Educ 50(2):491–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang YS, Wu MC, Wang HY (2009) Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. Br J Educ Technol 40(1):92–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balocco R, Mogre R, Toletti G (2009) Mobile internet and SMEs: a focus on the adoption. Industrial Management & Data Systems 109(2):245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuo Y, Yen S (2009) Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use 3 G mobile value-added services. Comput Hum Behav 25(1):103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    3rd Generation Partnership Project: 3GPP long term evolution, available at: (accessed 10 May 2012).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Astely D, Dahlman E, Furuskar A, Jading Y, Lindstrom M, Parkvall S (2009) LTE: the evolution of mobile broadband. IEEE Commun Mag 47(4):44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khan F (2009) LTE for 4 G mobile broadband: air interface technologies and performance. Cambridge University Press, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sesia S, Toufik I, Baker M (2009) LTE-the UMTS long term evolution: from theory to practice. Wiley Publishing, Hoboken, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pospishny I, Vasyuk V, Romanchyk S, Dovzhenko O, Shvaichenko V (2010) 3GPP long term evolution (LTE), Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Modern Problems of Radio Engineering, Telecommunications and Computer Science (TCSET 2010), p. 192Google Scholar
  18. 18. long term evolution: 3GPP long term evolution, available at: (accessed at 10 May 2012).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khandekar A, Bhushan N, Ji T, Vanghi V (2010) LTE-advanced: heterogeneous networks, Proceedings of the 2010 European Wireless Conference (EW’10), pp. 978–982.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin-Sacristan D, Monserrat JF, Cabrejas-Penuelas J, Calabuig D, Garrigas S, Cardona N (2009) On the way towards fourth-generation mobile: 3GPP LTE and LTE-advanced. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw 2009:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davis F (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis FD (1993) User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International journal of man–machine studies 38(3):475–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag Sci 35(8):982–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cheong JH, Park M (2005) Mobile Internet acceptance in Korea. Internet Research 15(2):125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heijden H (2004) User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q 23(4):695–704Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2003) Person identification and interaction of social robots by using wireless tags, Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS ‘03), pp. 1657–1664Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Hum Comput Interact 19(1):61–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huang JH, Lin YR (2007) Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning. Electron Libr 25(5):585–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang C, Lo S, Fang W (2008) Extending the technology acceptance model to mobile telecommunication innovation: the existence of network externalities. J Consum Behav 7(2):101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wu J, Wang S, Lin L (2007) Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model. International Journal of Medical Informatics 76(1):66–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shin D (2007) User acceptance of mobile Internet: implication for convergence technologies. Interacting with Computers 19(4):472–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mallat N, Rossi M, Tuunainen VK, Oorni A. (2006) The impact of use situation and mobility on the acceptance of mobile ticketing services, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 42–51.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen L (2008) A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment. Int J Mob Commun 6(1):32–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wu J, Wang S (2005) What drives mobile commerce?: an empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inf Manag 42(5):719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Park E, Kim KJ, Jin D, del Pobil AP (2012) Towards a successful mobile map service: an empirical examination of technology acceptance model. Communications in Computer and Information Science 293:420–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Luana P, Lin H (2005) Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Comput Hum Behav 21(6):873–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heerink M, Kröse BJA, Wielinga BJ, Evers V (2009) Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot. Proceedings of Ro-man 2009:528–533Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lin H (2009) Examination of cognitive absorption influencing the intention to use a virtual community. Behaviour & Information Technology 28(5):421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Teo H, Chan H, Wei K, Zhang Z (2003) Evaluating information accessibility and community adaptivity features for sustaining virtual learning communities. Int J Hum Comput Stud 59(5):671–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shin D, Choo H (2011) Modeling the acceptance of socially interactive robotics: social presence in human–robot interaction. Interact Stud 12(3):430–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heerink M, Ben K, Evers V, Wielinga B (2008) The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. Journal of Physical Agents 2(2):33–40Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yoo B, Donthu N (2001) Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an Internet shopping site (Sitequal). Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce 2(1):31–46Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pagani M (2006) Determinants of adoption of high speed data services in the business market: evidence for a combined technology acceptance model with task technology fit model. Inf Manag 43(7):847–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Buss DB (1987) Selection, evocation and manipulation. J Personal Soc Psychol 53(6):1214–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Delone WH, McLean ER (1992) Information systems success. The quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res 3(1):60–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McFarland DJ, Hamilton D (2006) Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model. Comput Hum Behav 22(3):427–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ahn T, Ryu S, Han I (2007) The impact of Web quality and playfulness on user acceptance of online retailing. Inf Manag 44(3):263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lederer A, Maupin DJ, Sena MP, Zhuang Y (2000) The technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web. Decis Support Syst 29(3):269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Liao Z, Cheung MT (2011) Internet-based e-shopping and consumer attitudes: an empirical study. Inf Manag 38(5):299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Srinivasan A (1985) Alternative measures of system effectiveness: associations and implications. MIS Q 9(3):243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lai TL (2004) Service quality and perceived value’s impact on satisfaction, intention and usage of short message service (SMS). Inf Syst Front 6(4):353–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nysveen H, Pederson PE, Thorbjornsen H. Explaining intention to use mobile chat services: moderating effects of gender, Journal of Consumer Marketing 22(5):247–256Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bhattacherjee A (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation–confirmation model. MIS Q 25(3):351–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bitner MJ (1990) Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. J Mark 54(2):69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chiu CM, Hsu M, Sun S, Lin T, Sun P (2005) Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Comput Educ 45(4):399–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hayashi A, Chen C, Ryan T, Wu J (2004) The role of social presence and moderating role of computer self-efficacy in predicting the continuance usage of e-learning systems. Journal of Information Systems Educations 15(2):139–154Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    LaBarbera PA, Mazursky D (1983) A longitudinal assessment of consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction: the dynamic aspect of the cognitive process. J Mark Res 20(4):393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Oliver RL (1981) Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction process in retail setting. J Retail 57(3):25–48Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Roca JC, Chiu CM, Martinez FJ (2006) Understanding e-learning continuance intention: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(8):683–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yang Z, Cai S, Zhou Z, Zhou N (2005) Development and validation of an instrument to measure user perceived service quality of information presenting Web portals. Inf Manag 42(4):575–589Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yang Z, Jun M, Peterson RT (2004) Measuring customer perceived online service quality: scale development and managerial implications. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24(11):1149–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wolters M, Georgila K, Moore JD, Logie RH, MacPherson SE, Watson M (2009) Reducing working memory load in spoken dialogue systems. Interacting with Computers 21(4):276–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Delone WH, McLean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst 19(4):9–30Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lee KC, Chung N (2009) Understanding factors affecting trust in and satisfaction with mobile banking in Korea: a modified DeLone and McLean’s model perspective. Interacting with Computers 21(5):385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Liu C, Arnett KP (2000) Exploring the factors associated with web site success in the context of electronic commerce. Inf Manag 38(1):23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Schacklett M (2000) Nine ways to create a retail environment on your web site, Credit Union Magazine, pp. 12–13Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Cronbach LJ (1971) Test validation. In: Thorndike RL (ed) Educational measurement. American Council on Education, Washington, DC, pp 443–507Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Garver MS, Mentzer JT (1999) Logistics research methods: employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. J Bus Logist 20(1):33–57Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hoe SL (2008) Issues and procedure in adopting structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Method 3(1):76–83Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hoelter DR (1983) The analysis of covariance structures: goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research 11:325–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bentler PM, Bonnet DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structure. Psychol Bull 88(3):588–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Seyal AH, Rahman MN, Rahim MM (2002) Determinants of academic use of the Internet: a structural equation model. Behaviour and Information Technology 21(1):71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2006) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kline RB (2004) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guildford Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fornell C, Larcker D (1981) F.: evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychol Bull 107(2):238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hsu L, Chang K, Chen M (2011) The impact of website quality on customer satisfaction and purchase intention: perceived playfulness and perceived flow as mediators. Information Systems and E-Business Management 10:1–22Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Tseng F, Lo H (2011) Antecedents of consumers’ intentions to upgrade their mobile phones. Telecommunications Policy 35(1):74–86MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kim S, Garrison G (2009) Investigating mobile wireless technology adoption: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Front 11(3):323–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Qi J, Li L, Li Y, Shu H (2009) An extension of technology acceptance model: analysis of the adoption of mobile data services in China. Syst Res Behav Sci 26(3):391–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institut Mines-Télécom and Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Interaction ScienceSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Computer Science and Engineering DepartmentUniversity Jaume-ICastellonSpain

Personalised recommendations