Journal of Computers in Education

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 169–191 | Cite as

A comparison of competing technology acceptance models to explore personal, academic and professional portfolio acceptance behaviour

  • E. Ahmed
  • R. Ward


This paper presents a comparison analysis of two competing models, the technology acceptance model and the decomposed theory of planned behaviour (DTPB), which can be used for predicting and explaining students’ acceptance of electronic portfolios (e-portfolios). E-portfolios are considered important pedagogical tools, with a substantial amount of literature supporting their role in personal, academic and professional development. However, achieving students’ acceptance of e-portfolios is still a challenge for higher education institutions. Data were collected from 204 participating students via a cross-sectional survey method and analysed using structural equation modelling. An in-depth analysis of measures was completed before structural level analysis of the two models was undertaken, in which goodness-of-fit indices were observed and hypotheses analysed. The results from structural level analysis were compared in terms of overall model fit, explanatory power and path significance. The results demonstrated that the DTPB attained higher explanatory power with better insight of the phenomenon under investigation.


Technology acceptance model Decompose theory of planned behaviour E-portfolio Educational technology Higher education 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Agarwal R (2000) Individual acceptance of information technologies. In: Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future through the past. Pinnaflex Education Resources, Cincinnati, OH (pp. 85–104).Google Scholar
  2. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer, pp. 11–39.Google Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill International.Google Scholar
  6. Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 26, 1113–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andrews, F., Robinson, J., Shaver, P., & Wrightsman, L. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Houston: Gulf Professional Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Armitage, C., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Brooks, R., & Everett, G. (2009). Post-graduation reflections on the value of a degree. British Educational Research Journal, 35, 333–349. doi: 10.1080/01411920802044370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Chau, P. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59, 1054–1064. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chou, C. (2012). Influence of teachers’ perceived e-portfolio acceptance on teacher evaluation effectiveness in Taiwan. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 719–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 1, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Compeau, D., Higgins, C., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1429–1464. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis FD (1986) A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dearing R (1997) Report of the national committee of inquiry into higher education (The Dearing Report).Google Scholar
  23. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief. Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An introduction to theory and research.Google Scholar
  25. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. George, J. (2004). The theory of planned behavior and internet purchasing. Internet Research, 14, 198–212. doi: 10.1108/10662240410542634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerbic P, Lewis L, Northover M (2009) Student perspectives of eportfolios: A longitudinal study of growth and development. In Proceedings of the ASCILITE Conference, Auckland, New Zealand (pp. 327–331).Google Scholar
  28. Goertz, G. (2012). Social science concepts: A user’s guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2010). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (Gravetter). Belmont: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  30. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Higher Education.Google Scholar
  31. Hair, J. F., Celsi, M. W., Money, A. H., et al. (2003). Essentials of business research methods. New York: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
  32. Hair, J., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. (2007). Research methods for business. England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Hoyle RH (1995) The structural equation modeling approach. Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In: Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1–15).Google Scholar
  34. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huang, E., & Chuang, M. H. (2007). Extending the theory of planned behaviour as a model to explain post-merger employee behaviour of IS use. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 240–257. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huh, H. J., Kim, T. T., & Law, R. (2009). A comparison of competing theoretical models for understanding acceptance behavior of information systems in upscale hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 121–134. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hwang, G. (2015). A structural equation model to analyse the antecedents to students’ web-based problem-solving performance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 400–420.Google Scholar
  38. Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., Ackerman, R. A., & Russell, D. W. (2009). Reporting and interpreting research in PSPB: Practices, principles, and pragmatics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1131–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lai H-J (2016) Examining civil servants’ decisions to use Web 2.0 tools for learning, based on the decomposed theory of planned behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–11.Google Scholar
  41. Lee, M.-C. (2010). Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Computers & Education, 54, 506–516. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leitch, S. (2006). Prosperity for all in the global economy-world class skills: Final report. Norwich: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  43. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology, 140, 55.Google Scholar
  44. Lin, H.-F. (2007). Predicting consumer intentions to shop online: An empirical test of competing theories. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6, 433–442. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2007.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Educause Learning Initiative, 1, 1–27.Google Scholar
  46. Luchoomun, D., McLuckie, J., & Van, Wesel M. (2010). Collaborative e-learning: e-Portfolios for assessment, teaching and learning. Electron J e-Learning, 8, 21–30.Google Scholar
  47. Masrom M (2007) Technology acceptance model and E-learning. In 12th International Conference on Education, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education, Universiti Brunei Darussalam 21–24 May 2007 (pp. 1–10).Google Scholar
  48. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2, 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 97–144. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2010.521684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  51. Mitchell, M., & Jolley, J. (2012). Research design explained. Belmont: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  52. Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2, 192–222. doi: 10.1287/isre.2.3.192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moore GC, Benbasat I (1996) Integrating diffusion of innovations and theory of reasoned action models to predict utilization of information technology by end-users. In: Diffusion and adoption of information technology. Springer, pp. 132–146.Google Scholar
  54. Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53, 375–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00206.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mueller R (2015) Shifting from product to pedagogy: Investigating the use of e-portfolios as pedagogical practice.Google Scholar
  56. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  57. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Sydney: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  58. Paver, J., Walker, D. A., & Hung, W. C. (2014). Factors that predict the integration of technology for instruction by community college adjunct faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38, 68–85. doi: 10.1080/10668926.2013.799449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47, 222–244. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. QAA (2003) Progress files for higher education: Guidelines for HE progress files.Google Scholar
  61. Ramayah, T., Rouibah, K., Gopi, M., & Rangel, G. J. (2009). A decomposed theory of reasoned action to explain intention to use Internet stock trading among Malaysian investors. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1222–1230. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raykov, T., & Maarcoulides, G. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling. Second Edi: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  63. Renda dos Santos LM, Okazaki S (2015) Planned e-learning adoption and occupational socialisation in Brazilian higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1–21.Google Scholar
  64. Robins, R., Fraley, R., & Krueger, R. (2009). Handbook of research methods in personality psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  65. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovation. New York, London: Free Press, Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  66. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  67. Sadaf, A., Newby, T., & Ertmer, P. (2013). Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers’ intentions to use Web 2.0 technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45, 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence preservice teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  71. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research method for business: A skill building approach. Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 1–36. doi: 10.1080/14792772143000003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sheppard, B. H., Jon, H., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325–343. doi: 10.2307/2489467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shih, H.-P. (2008). Using a cognition-motivation-control view to assess the adoption intention for Web-based learning. Computers & Education, 50, 327–337. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shih, Y.-Y., & Fang, K. (2004). The use of a decomposed theory of planned behavior to study internet banking in Taiwan. Internet Research, 14, 213–223. doi: 10.1108/10662240410542643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shroff, R. R. H., Deneen, C. C. C., & Ng, E. M. W. E. (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students’ behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 600–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sivo, S. A., Fan, X., Witta, E. L., & Willse, J. T. (2006). The search for “optimal” cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 267–288. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.74.3.267-288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stefani, L., Mason, R., & Pegler, C. (2007). The educational potential of e-portfolios: Supporting personal development and reflective learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  79. Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for is positivist research. The Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 380–427.Google Scholar
  80. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  81. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995a). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995b). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 137–155. doi: 10.1016/0167-8116(94)00019-K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Taylor S, Todd P (1995c) Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 561–570.Google Scholar
  84. Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computers & Education, 56, 1032–1044. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thompson R, Higgins C, Howell J (1991) Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 125–144.Google Scholar
  86. Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29, 28–45. doi: 10.1109/TEM.1982.6447463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Triandis H (1979) Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  88. Universities U (2007) Beyond the Honours degree classification: The Burgess Group final report.Google Scholar
  89. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 342–365. doi: 10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 273–315. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. M. G., Davis, G. G. B., & Davis, F. D. F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478. doi: 10.2307/30036540.Google Scholar
  93. Widaman, K. F. (2010). Multitrait-multimethod analysis. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  94. Yao, Y., & Thomas, M. (2008). Validity evidence of an electronic portfolio for preservice teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27, 10–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007). Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2, 281–304. doi: 10.1108/17465660710834462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Beijing Normal University 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK

Personalised recommendations