Technological self-efficacy

Last updated

Technological self-efficacy (TSE) is "the belief in one's ability to successfully perform a technologically sophisticated new task". [1] TSE does not highlight specific technological tasks; instead it is purposely vague. [1] This is a specific application of the broader and more general construct of self-efficacy, which is defined as the belief in one's ability to engage in specific actions that result in desired outcomes. [2] Self efficacy does not focus on the skills one has, but rather the judgments of what one can do with his or her skills. Traditionally, a distinguishing feature of self efficacy is its domain-specificity. In other words, judgments are limited to certain types of performances as compared to an overall evaluation of his or her potential. Typically, these constructs refer to specific types of technology; for example, computer self-efficacy, [3] or internet self-efficacy [4] and information technology self-efficacy. [5] In order to organize this literature, technology specific self-efficacies (e.g., computer and internet) that technology specific self-efficacies can be considered sub-dimensions under the larger construct of technological self-efficacy.

Contents

Origins

This construct was intended to describe general feelings toward the ability to adopt new technology and is therefore generalizable across a number of specific technologies. Furthermore, this construct can account for and be applied to technologies that have yet to be invented. Although these features have allowed TSE to remain relevant through the times, this definitional breadth has also created confusion and a proliferation of related constructs.

Importance

21st-century society is completely embedded within a technological context, which makes the understanding and evaluation of technological self efficacy critical. Indeed, nearly half of Americans own smartphones [6] and this trend towards technology use is not limited to the United States; instead cell phone, computer, and internet use is becoming increasingly common around the world. [7] Technology is particularly prevalent in the workplace and learning environments. At work, 62% of employed Americans use the internet and email, but workplace internet users either use the internet everyday (60%) or not at all (28%). [8] Internet and email use is obviously influenced by work duties, but 96% of employed Americans use some sort of new communication technology on the job. [8] Successful investment in technology is associated with enhanced productivity; however, full realization of technological potential commonly plagues organizations. [9] In learning environments, college courses are more frequently being offered online. This is commonly referred to as distance education and implementation ranges from courses being supported by the web (teaching occurs predominantly through face-to-face instructor interactions with supplemental materials being offered on the web) to blended learning (significantly less face-to-face instructor interactions and more online instruction) to fully online (all instruction is conducted virtually with no face-to-face instructor interactions). A number of advantages are associated with distance learning such as increased flexibility and convenience, which allows individuals the opportunity to enroll in classes that would otherwise be off-limits due to geographical or personal reasons. [10] Another commonly cited advantage is that instruction is self paced, which allows for personalized tailoring based on individual needs. [11] However, these advantages are not likely to be realized if the individual is anxious about the method of instructional delivery and/or his or her expectation of success is low due to its technological component. Taken together, these two critical arenas discussed above (workplace and learning) reinforce the extent to which technology has impacted modern activities and consequently the importance of perceived beliefs in one's ability to master new technology. Success in everyday life often hinges on the utilization of technology and by definition, new technology will always be new. Therefore, this construct warrants review.

Furthermore, studies have shown that technological self-efficacy is a crucial factor for teaching computer programming to school students, as students with higher levels of technological self-efficacy achieve higher learning outcomes. In this case, the effect of technical self-efficacy is even stronger than the effect of gender. [12]

Differentiation from other forms of self-efficacy

Since TSE stems from the same theory as general self-efficacy and other task-specific self-efficacy, the differentiation of this construct from these other forms of self-efficacy is crucial. Unfortunately, previous studies focusing in on TSE have not shown the uniqueness of TSE measures. Despite the dearth of differentiating research on TSE, the uniqueness of this construct can be shown by considering closely related and technology specific self-efficacies (i.e. computer self-efficacy), which has been established as a unique construct. When compared to general self-efficacy, computer self-efficacy has been shown to be unique based on two measures of general self-efficacy. [13] In this same study, the authors showed computer self-efficacy was not related to many types of specific self-efficacy including art, persuasion, and science self-efficacy. One of the most related types of specific self-efficacy was mechanical. This makes sense given both types of specific self-efficacies are related to using tools albeit one being technology the other being more physical in nature. Computer self-efficacy has a domain has also been shown to be related, but distinct, to self-efficacy about computer programs. [14]

Measurement

Following the definition set forth by Bandura, [2] self-efficacy is an individual's belief and confidence in him or herself. This property has important implications for the measurement of any type of self-efficacy. Specifically, measures of self-efficacy must be self-report because the only person who can accurately portray beliefs in one's ability is the target of investigation. In other words, self-report measures of self-efficacy have definitional truth. While a number of problems exist with self-report inventories, in the case of self-efficacy (and other constructs that are defined as internal beliefs and cognitions) this measurement approach is unavoidable.

While the type of measurement approach is defined by the construct, the process of developing and validating these scales has varied considerably throughout the TSE literature. One major difference between measures concerns the scoring of the items. Previously, research has noted differences in results can be partially attributed to different scoring approaches. [15] Specifically, there are two main ways of scoring self-efficacy items. The first type is called self-efficacy magnitude. Items are worded so participants would respond whether or not they felt they could accomplish a certain task (yes or no). The second type is self-efficacy strength. This scoring approach asks participants to rate how confident they are in completing the task(s) on a numerical scale and then averages across all items. All other scoring types are simply composites of these first two approaches.

Another difference between TSE measures concerns the issue of generality. This consideration is similar to the previous differentiation between-TSE as a broader concept and technology specific self-efficacy. Measurement attempts of the broader concept of technological self-efficacy will be considered first. McDonald and Siegall [1] developed a five-item likert scale of technological self-efficacy based on the consideration of previous theoretical studies. This scale was scored using the strength approach to self-efficacy scales. Items in this scale were not referring to specific technologies, but instead focused on technology as a general concept. Using a development process, Holcomb, King and Brown, also proposed a scale to measure TSE [16] Factor analysis revealed three distinct factors containing 19 likert-type items, which also was scored according to the strength scoring system. In contrast to the McDonald and Siegall [1] scale, the items in this scale referenced certain technologies (specifically computers and software packages). The two studies mentioned above represent of attempts to measure TSE as a broader concept.

In addition to the attempts to measure TSE more broadly, a number of studies have developed measures of technology specific self-efficacy. One of the most cited measures of computer self-efficacy comes from Compeau and Higgins. [3] These authors reviewed previous attempts to measure computer self-efficacy and theoretically derived a 10-item scale. Unlike previously mentioned scales, this study employed a "composite" scoring approach. [15] For each item, participants were first asked whether they could complete a specific task related to computers using a dichotomous yes/no scale. Following this answer, participants were then asked to rate their confidence about completing the task from 1 (not at all confident) to 10 (totally confident). The final score was calculated by counting the number of "yes" answers (reflecting self-efficacy magnitude) and the average of the confidence ratings (representing self-efficacy strength). The authors then validated this measure in a nomological network of related constructs. A second example of technology specific self-efficacy is internet self-efficacy. Similar to previous measurement approaches, internet self-efficacy was developed using a theoretical approach that considered previous measures of related topics and developed novel items to address the missing construct space. [4] This scale showed a high level of reliability and validity.

Antecedents

Bandura [2] proposes four primary sources for self efficacy beliefs; (1) prior experience, (2) modeling, (3) social persuasions, and (4) physiological factors. Research supports that many of these sources for TSE are the same; however, there are additional antecedents as well. Although more complex theoretical development and empirical examination addressing how these antecedents operate and relate to one another has not been addressed, the most immediate predictors of TSE are more likely to be Bandura's primary sources (proximal predictors). The remaining antecedents that have also been associated with TSE (e.g., adequate resources, gender, and age) are likely to be more distal predictors. In other words, these distal variables influence more proximal variables (e.g., prior experience, modeling, and social persuasions), which then result in high or low TSE.

Prior experience

Prior experience with technology is repeatedly found to be influential on technology related self efficacy beliefs. [17] [18] [19] [20] If an individual has had the opportunity to interact with new technologies and, more importantly, has had success with mastering new technologies then individuals are more likely to hold more positive beliefs for future performance.

Modeling or participation in technological training

Modeling or participation in technological training are also found to be significant predictors of technological self efficacy. [21] [22] [23] [24] Although different types of training interventions have been associated with different gains; [25] in general, research supports that seeing other individuals successfully perform the task at hand (for example, the instructor) and then providing the learner with some opportunity for reinforcement and demonstration (for example, trying to successfully utilize the technology without aid) increases technology related self efficacy beliefs.

Social persuasions

Social persuasions such as encouragement by others [17] and organizational support [17] [26] [27] are also important contributors to technology related self efficacy beliefs. The actions and statements of others can significantly alter perceptions of their likelihood for success. Organizational support typically includes management's encouragement and assistance. If management does not appear to enthusiastically support employees' attempts to utilize technology then employees are unlikely to accept technology.

Resources

Resources are commonly cited as one of the largest barriers to adoption of technology. [28] [29] [30] This includes, but is not limited to, sufficient computers, sufficient software licenses, out-of-date hardware/software, and slow or intermittent Internet connections. The success of proper technology use is first and foremost limited by the capabilities of the technology in question.

Gender

Gender is significantly related, such that men tend to have higher levels of technology related self efficacy beliefs than women. [20] [31] [32] [33] It is still unknown why these gender differences exist.

Age

Age is also significantly related, such that younger individuals tend to have higher levels of technology related self efficacy beliefs than older individuals. [28] [34] [35] This finding is not surprising given the widespread stereotype of older adults' inability to learn new material, especially when the material is technology related. [36] However, older adults' low technological self efficacy beliefs suggest that older adults may internalize the 'old dogs can't learn new tricks' stereotype, which consequently affects expectations about future performance in technology related domains.

Consequences

Technology related self efficacy beliefs have been linked with a number of consequences. Although, TSE does predict the outcomes reviewed below, please note that some of the antecedents to TSE are better predictors of these outcomes than TSE itself. For example, prior experience is typically a better predictor of task performance than TSE. A recent meta-analysis about self-efficacy (more generally) supports this conclusion as well. [37] Taken together, TSE is important but its importance should not be overstated. Furthermore, it is possible that the effect of TSE on outcomes (e.g., performance) operates through other variables (e.g., behavioral intentions or anxiety).

Task performance

Task performance is negatively affected, such that lower technology related self efficacy beliefs are related to poorer performance [1] [17] [22] This is extremely important, because these findings suggest that positive perceptions of individuals' technological capabilities may need to be present before successful performance can be achieved.

Perceived ease of use and usage

Perceived ease of use and usage is found to be positively related with technology related self efficacy beliefs. [17] [27] [38] [39] According to the Technology Acceptance Model, [40] perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness influences behavioral intentions and ultimately technology related behaviors. Other scholars have behavioral intentions to act as a mediator between TSE and other outcome variables (performance). These predictions are similar to those of the well supported Theory of Planned Behavior. [41]

Anxiety

Anxiety is negatively related, such that lower technology related self-efficacy beliefs are associated with higher level of anxiety. [17] [27] [31] [42]

See also

Related Research Articles

Psychological testing is the administration of psychological tests. Psychological tests are administered by trained evaluators. A person's responses are evaluated according to carefully prescribed guidelines. Scores are thought to reflect individual differences in the construct the test purports to measure.The science behind psychological testing is psychometrics.

Albert Bandura Canadian-American psychologist

Albert Bandura is a Canadian-American psychologist who is the David Starr Jordan Professor Emeritus of Social Science in Psychology at Stanford University.

Locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they, as opposed to external forces, have control over the outcome of events in their lives. The concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality psychology. A person's "locus" is conceptualized as internal or external.

In industrial and organizational psychology, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a person's voluntary commitment within an organization or company that is not part of his or her contractual tasks.

Theory of planned behavior theory that links behavior

In psychology, the theory of planned behavior is a theory that links one's beliefs and behavior.

Self-efficacy is, according to psychologist Albert Bandura who originally proposed the concept, a personal judgment of "how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations".

Social cognitive theory (SCT), used in psychology, education, and communication, holds that portions of an individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to observing others within the context of social interactions, experiences, and outside media influences. This theory was advanced by Albert Bandura as an extension of his social learning theory. The theory states that when people observe a model performing a behavior and the consequences of that behavior, they remember the sequence of events and use this information to guide subsequent behaviors. Observing a model can also prompt the viewer to engage in behavior they already learned. In other words, people do not learn new behaviors solely by trying them and either succeeding or failing, but rather, the survival of humanity is dependent upon the replication of the actions of others. Depending on whether people are rewarded or punished for their behavior and the outcome of the behavior, the observer may choose to replicate behavior modeled. Media provides models for a vast array of people in many different environmental settings.

Behavioural change theories are attempts to explain why behaviours change. These theories cite environmental, personal, and behavioural characteristics as the major factors in behavioural determination. In recent years, there has been increased interest in the application of these theories in the areas of health, education, criminology, energy and international development with the hope that understanding behavioural change will improve the services offered in these areas. Some scholars have recently introduced a distinction between models of behavior and theories of change. Whereas models of behavior are more diagnostic and geared towards understanding the psychological factors that explain or predict a specific behavior, theories of change are more process-oriented and generally aimed at changing a given behavior. Thus, from this perspective, understanding and changing behavior are two separate but complementary lines of scientific investigation.

Expectancy–value theory has been developed in many different fields including education, health, communications, marketing and economics. Although the model differs in its meaning and implications for each field, the general idea is that there are expectations as well as values or beliefs that affect subsequent behavior.

Health belief model

The health belief model (HBM)) is a social psychological health behavior change model developed to explain and predict health-related behaviors, particularly in regard to the uptake of health services. The HBM was developed in the 1950s by social psychologists at the U.S. Public Health Service and remains one of the best known and most widely used theories in health behavior research. The HBM suggests that people's beliefs about health problems, perceived benefits of action and barriers to action, and self-efficacy explain engagement in health-promoting behavior. A stimulus, or cue to action, must also be present in order to trigger the health-promoting behavior.

The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) is a technology acceptance model formulated by Venkatesh and others in "User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view". The UTAUT aims to explain user intentions to use an information system and subsequent usage behavior. The theory holds that there are four key constructs: 1) performance expectancy, 2) effort expectancy, 3) social influence, and 4) facilitating conditions.

Indirect memory tests assess the retention of information without direct reference to the source of information. Participants are given tasks designed to elicit knowledge that was acquired incidentally or unconsciously and is evident when performance shows greater inclination towards items initially presented than new items. Performance on indirect tests may reflect contributions of implicit memory, the effects of priming, a preference to respond to previously experienced stimuli over novel stimuli. Types of indirect memory tests include the implicit association test, the lexical decision task, the word stem completion task, artificial grammar learning, word fragment completion, and the serial reaction time task.

Sport psychology is an interdisciplinary science that draws on knowledge from many related fields including biomechanics, physiology, kinesiology and psychology. It involves the study of how psychological factors affect performance and how participation in sport and exercise affect psychological and physical factors. Sport psychologists teach cognitive and behavioral strategies to athletes in order to improve their experience and performance in sports. In addition to instruction and training of psychological skills for performance improvement, applied sport psychology may include work with athletes, coaches, and parents regarding injury, rehabilitation, communication, team building, and career transitions. Also closely associated with Sports psychiatry.

Goal orientation is an "individual disposition towards developing or validating one's ability in achievement settings". Previous research has examined goal orientation as a motivation variable useful for recruitment, climate and culture, performance appraisal, and choice. Studies have also used goal orientation to predict sales performance, goal setting, learning and adaptive behaviors in training, and leadership. Due to the many theoretical and practical applications of goal orientation, it is important to understand the construct and how it relates to other variables. In this entry, goal orientation will be reviewed in terms of its history, stability, dimensionality, antecedents, relationship to goal setting and consequences, relevance to motivation, and future directions for research.

While self-efficacy, in general, refers to one's confidence in executing courses of action in managing a wide array of situations, work self-efficacy assesses workers' confidence in managing workplace experiences . The theoretical underpinning is that individuals with higher work self-efficacy are more likely to look forward to, and to be successful in, workplace performance. Furthermore, work accomplishments are believed, in turn, to increases self-efficacy through a feedback loop tying subsequent performance to augmented self-efficacy beliefs.

Core self-evaluations (CSE) represent a stable personality trait which encompasses an individual's subconscious, fundamental evaluations about themselves, their own abilities and their own control. People who have high core self-evaluations will think positively of themselves and be confident in their own abilities. Conversely, people with low core self-evaluations will have a negative appraisal of themselves and will lack confidence. The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) and involves four personality dimensions: locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem. The trait developed as a dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, but has expanded to predict a variety of other outcomes. Core self-evaluations are particularly important because they represent a personality trait which will remain consistent over time. Furthermore, the way in which people appraise themselves using core self-evaluations has the ability to predict positive work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance. These relationships have inspired increasing amounts of research on core self-evaluations and suggest valuable implications about the importance this trait may have for organizations.

Cyberpathology refers to the phenomena that "individuals can become overly attached to their computers, computer games, or the Internet and spend inordinate amounts of time in front of their monitors". It may cause physical and psychological damages to the individual, for examples, insufficient amount of sleep, limited face-to-face interactions, and impacting on daily life activities.

Adaptive performance in the work environment refers to adjusting to and understanding change in the workplace. An employee who is versatile is valued and important in the success of an organization. Employers seek employees with high adaptability, due to the positive outcomes that follow, such as excellent work performance, work attitude, and ability to handle stress. Employees, who display high adaptive performance in an organization, tend to have more advantages in career opportunities unlike employees who are not adaptable to change. In previous literature, Pulakos and colleagues established eight dimensions of adaptive performance.

The Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) is an introspective psychological inventory consisting of 24 items pertaining to an individual's Psychological Capital (PsyCap), or positive psychological state of development. The PCQ was constructed by Fred Luthans, Bruce J. Avolio, and James B. Avey with the goal to assess the dimensions of PsyCap. The PCQ measures four dimensions of PsyCap: hope, efficacy, resiliency, and optimism. The PCQ takes between 10-15 minutes to complete and can be administered to individuals or groups. The PCQ is protected by copyright law and published by Mind Garden, Inc.

Computational Psychometrics is an interdisciplinary field fusing theory-based psychometrics, learning and cognitive sciences, and data-driven AI-based computational models as applied to large-scale/high-dimensional learning, assessment, biometric, or psychological data. Computational psychometrics is frequently concerned with providing actionable and meaningful feedback to individuals based on measurement and analysis of individual differences as they pertain to specific areas of enquiry.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 McDonald, T., & Siegall, M. (1992). The effects of technological self-efficacy and job focus on job performance, attitudes, and withdrawal behaviors. The Journal of Psychology, 126, 465-475.
  2. 1 2 3 Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  3. 1 2 Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. Management Information System Quarterly, 19, 189-211.
  4. 1 2 Joo, Y-J, Bong, M., & Choi, H-J (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and internet self-efficacy in web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 5-17.
  5. ↑ Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10, 758-776.
  6. ↑ "Nearly half of American adults are smartphone owners". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. 1 March 2012.
  7. ↑ "Global Publics Embrace Social Networking". Pew Research Center. 15 December 2010.
  8. 1 2 Madden, M., & Jones, S. (2008, September 24). Networked workers. (PDF)
  9. ↑ Johansen, R., Swigart, R. (1996). Upsizing the Individual in the Downsized Organization: Managing in the Wake of Reengineering, Globalization and Overwhelming Technological Change. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  10. ↑ Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
  11. ↑ Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (2000). Principles of pedagogy and evaluation for web-based learning. Educational Media International, 37, 105-112.
  12. ↑ Brauner, P., Leonhardt, T., Ziefle, M., & Schroeder, U. (2010): The effect of tangible artifacts, gender and subjective technical competence on teaching programming to seventh graders. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Informatics in Secondary Schools (ISSEP 2010), LNCS 5941. pp. 61–71.
  13. ↑ Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62-83.
  14. ↑ Agarwal, R., Sambamurthey, V., & Stair, R. M. (2000). Research Report: The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy-An empirical assessment. Information Systems Research, 4, 418-430
  15. 1 2 Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 364-369
  16. ↑ Holcomb, L. B., King, F. B., & Brown, S. W. (2004). Student traits and attributes contributing to the success in online courses: Evaluation of university online courses. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 2, 1-17.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A. (1995b). Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research, 6, 118-143.
  18. ↑ Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: The case for computers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 307–313.
  19. ↑ Jorde-Bloom, P., & Ford, M. (1988). Factors influencing early childhood administrators' decisions regarding the adoption of computer technology. Journal Educational Computing, 4, 31–47.
  20. 1 2 Murphy, C. A., Coover, D., & Owen, S. V. (1989). Development and validation of the computer self-efficacy scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 893–899.
  21. ↑ Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 22-43.
  22. 1 2 Gist. M. E., Schwoerer, C. E., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 884-891.
  23. ↑ Torkzadeh, G. & Van Dyke, T. P. (2002). Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers and Human Behavior, 18, 479-494.
  24. ↑ Torkzadeh, G., & Koufteros, X. (1994). Factorial validity of computer self-efficacy scale and the impact of computer training. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 813–821.
  25. ↑ Smith, J. M. (1994). The effects of education on computer self-efficacy. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 31, 51–65.
  26. ↑ Henry, J. W., & Stone, R. W. (1994). A structural equation model of end-user satisfaction with a computer-based medical information system. Information Resources Management Journal , 7(3), 21–33.
  27. 1 2 3 Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega, 23(6), 587-605.
  28. 1 2 Burkhardt, M. E. & Brass, D. J. (1990). Changing patterns or patterns of change: The effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 104-127.
  29. ↑ Butler, D., & Sellboom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 2, 22-28.
  30. ↑ Shamburg, C. (2004). Conditions that inhibit the integration of technology for urban early childhood teachers. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 227-244.
  31. 1 2 Durndall, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computer in Human Behavior, 18, 521-535.
  32. ↑ Miura, I. T. (1987). The relationship of self-efficacy expectations to computer interest and course enrollment in college. Sex-Roles, 16, 303–311.
  33. ↑ Ogletree, S. M., & Williams, S. W. (1990). Sex and sex-typing effects on computer attitudes and aptitude. Sex Roles, 23, 703–712.
  34. ↑ Reed, K. Doty, & May, (2005). The impact of aging on self-efficacy and computer skill acquisition. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 212-228.
  35. ↑ Suls, J. & Mullen, C. (1982). From the cradle to the grave: Comparison and self-evaluation across the life-span. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self, Vol. 1, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 97–125.
  36. ↑ Posthuma, R. A. & Campion, M. A. (2009). Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 35,158-188.
  37. ↑ Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., & Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 107- 127. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107
  38. ↑ Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., Stair, R. M. (2000). Research report: The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy –an empirical assessment.Information Systems Research, 11, 418-430.
  39. ↑ Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Science, 27, 451-481.
  40. ↑ Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319- 340.
  41. ↑ Ajzen, I (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
  42. ↑ Russell, G., & Bradley, G. (1997). Teachers' computer anxiety: Implications for professional development. Education and Information Technologies, 2, 1-14.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.