Claims

The extended TAM model explains 42.3% of the variance in intention to use mobile library applications

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2023: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? The model explains 42.3% of the variance in behavioural intention to use MLA. → Rafique 2020

Evidence

Rafique 2020

Rafique, H., Almagrabi, A. O., Shamim, A., Anwar, F., & Bashir, A. K. (2020). Investigating the acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Heliyon, 6(6), e03733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103732

q3 · i? · associational · r2

The SEM analysis reports that "BI explained 42.3% variance, 39.8% variance by PEOU and 40.1% variance is explained by PU".

"This is evaluated through squared multiple correlations that BI explained 42.3% variance, 39.8% variance by PEOU and 40.1% variance is explained by PU."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-30
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.