IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v11y2000i1p37-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing User Competence: Conceptualization and Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara L. Marcolin

    (Faculty of Management, The University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4)

  • Deborah R. Compeau

    (Faculty of Management, The University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4)

  • Malcolm C. Munro

    (Faculty of Management, The University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4)

  • Sid L. Huff

    (Faculty of Commerce and Administration, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand)

Abstract

Organizations today face great pressure to maximize the bene its from their investments in information technology (IT). They are challenged not just to use IT, but to use it as effectively as possible. Understanding how to assess the competence of users is critical in maximizing the effectiveness of IT use. Yet the user competence construct is largely absent from prominent technology acceptance and it models, poorly conceptualized, and inconsistently measured. We begin by presenting a conceptual model of the assessment of user competence to organize and clarify the diverse literature regarding what user competence means and the problems of assessment. As an illustrative study, we then report the findings from an experiment involving 66 participants. The experiment was conducted to compare empirically two methods (paper and pencil tests versus self-report questionnaire), across two different types of software, or domains of knowledge (word processing versus spreadsheet packages), and two different conceptualizations of competence (software knowledge versus self-efficacy). The analysis shows statistical significance in all three main effects. How user competence is measured, what is measured, what measurement context is employed:all influence the measurement outcome. Furthermore, significant interaction effects indicate that different combinations of measurement methods, conceptualization, and knowledge domains produce different results. The concept of frame of reference, and its anchoring effect on subjects' responses, explains a number of these findings. The study demonstrates the need for clarity in both defining what type of competence is being assessed and in drawing conclusions regarding competence, based upon the types of measures used. Since the results suggest that definition and measurement of the user competence construct can change the ability score being captured, the existing information system (IS) models of usage must contain the concept of an ability rating. We conclude by discussing how user competence can be incorporated into the Task-Technology Fit model, as well as additional theoretical and practical implications of our research.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara L. Marcolin & Deborah R. Compeau & Malcolm C. Munro & Sid L. Huff, 2000. "Assessing User Competence: Conceptualization and Measurement," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 37-60, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:11:y:2000:i:1:p:37-60
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.11.1.37.11782
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.1.37.11782
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.11.1.37.11782?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deborah R. Compeau & Christopher A. Higgins, 1995. "Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Computer Skills," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 118-143, June.
    2. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    3. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    4. Peter B. Seddon, 1997. "A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 240-253, September.
    5. Cardy, Robert L. & Keefe, Thomas J., 1994. "Observational Purpose and Evaluative Articulation in Frame-of-Reference Training: The Effects of Alternative Processing Modes on Rating Accuracy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 338-357, March.
    6. Jane M. Mackay & Joyce J. Elam, 1992. "A Comparative Study of How Experts and Novices Use a Decision Aid to Solve Problems in Complex Knowledge Domains," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 150-172, June.
    7. Kil Soo Suh & A. Milton Jenkins, 1992. "A Comparison of Linear Keyword and Restricted Natural Language Data Base Interfaces for Novice Users," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 252-272, September.
    8. Kieran Mathieson, 1991. "Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 173-191, September.
    9. Erik Brynjolfsson, 1996. "The Contribution of Information Technology to Consumer Welfare," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 281-300, September.
    10. William H. DeLone & Ephraim R. McLean, 1992. "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 60-95, March.
    11. Shirley Taylor & Peter A. Todd, 1995. "Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 144-176, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Radhika Santhanam & De Liu & Wei-Cheng Milton Shen, 2016. "Research Note—Gamification of Technology-Mediated Training: Not All Competitions Are the Same," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 453-465, June.
    2. Zabih-Allah Torabi & Mehdi Pourtaheri & Colin Michael Hall & Ayyoob Sharifi & Fazlollah Javidi, 2023. "Smart Tourism Technologies, Revisit Intention, and Word-of-Mouth in Emerging and Smart Rural Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Weiling Ke & Lele Kang & Chuan-Hoo Tan & Chih-Hung Peng, 2021. "User Competence with Enterprise Systems: The Effects of Work Environment Factors," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 860-875, September.
    4. Yoon, Jeewhan & Vonortas, Nicholas S. & Han, SungWon, 2020. "Do-It-Yourself laboratories and attitude toward use: The effects of self-efficacy and the perception of security and privacy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    5. Andrew Burton-Jones & Camille Grange, 2013. "From Use to Effective Use: A Representation Theory Perspective," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 632-658, September.
    6. Andrew Burton-Jones & Olga Volkoff, 2017. "How Can We Develop Contextualized Theories of Effective Use? A Demonstration in the Context of Community-Care Electronic Health Records," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 468-489, September.
    7. Henri Barki & Ryad Titah & Céline Boffo, 2007. "Information System Use--Related Activity: An Expanded Behavioral Conceptualization of Individual-Level Information System Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 173-192, June.
    8. Michael A. Erskine & Dawn G. Gregg & Jahangir Karimi & Judy E. Scott, 2019. "Individual Decision-Performance Using Spatial Decision Support Systems: A Geospatial Reasoning Ability and Perceived Task-Technology Fit Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 1369-1384, December.
    9. J. J. Po-An Hsieh & Arun Rai & Mark Keil, 2011. "Addressing Digital Inequality for the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Through Government Initiatives: Forms of Capital That Affect ICT Utilization," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 233-253, June.
    10. Crittenden, Victoria L. & Crittenden, William F. & Ajjan, Haya, 2019. "Empowering women micro-entrepreneurs in emerging economies: The role of information communications technology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 191-203.
    11. Christoph Weinert & Christian Maier & Sven Laumer & Tim Weitzel, 2020. "Technostress mitigation: an experimental study of social support during a computer freeze," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(8), pages 1199-1249, September.
    12. Robert E. Crossler & France Bélanger, 2019. "Why Would I Use Location-Protective Settings on My Smartphone? Motivating Protective Behaviors and the Existence of the Privacy Knowledge–Belief Gap," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 995-1006, September.
    13. Mun Y. Yi & Fred D. Davis, 2003. "Developing and Validating an Observational Learning Model of Computer Software Training and Skill Acquisition," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 146-169, June.
    14. Michael Ahearne & Eli Jones & Adam Rapp & John Mathieu, 2008. "High Touch Through High Tech: The Impact of Salesperson Technology Usage on Sales Performance via Mediating Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 671-685, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 2017. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 549-568, June.
    2. Nripendra P. Rana & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Banita Lal & Michael D. Williams & Marc Clement, 0. "Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: towards a unified view," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    3. Peng, Zeyu & Sun, Yongqiang & Guo, Xitong, 2018. "Antecedents of employees’ extended use of enterprise systems: An integrative view of person, environment, and technology," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 104-120.
    4. Rajiv Sabherwal & Anand Jeyaraj & Charles Chowa, 2006. "Information System Success: Individual and Organizational Determinants," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1849-1864, December.
    5. Ritu Agarwal & V. Sambamurthy & Ralph M. Stair, 2000. "Research Report: The Evolving Relationship Between General and Specific Computer Self-Efficacy—An Empirical Assessment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 418-430, December.
    6. Barbara H. Wixom & Peter A. Todd, 2005. "A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 85-102, March.
    7. Brown, Susan A. & Venkatesh, Viswanath & Kuruzovich, Jason & Massey, Anne P., 2008. "Expectation confirmation: An examination of three competing models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 52-66, January.
    8. Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Nripendra P. Rana & Anand Jeyaraj & Marc Clement & Michael D. Williams, 2019. "Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a Revised Theoretical Model," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 719-734, June.
    9. Young Mee Shin & Seung Chang Lee & Bongsik Shin & Ho Geun Lee, 2010. "Examining influencing factors of post-adoption usage of mobile internet: Focus on the user perception of supplier-side attributes," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 595-606, November.
    10. Yu-Ping Lee & Hsin-Yeh Tsai & Athapol Ruangkanjanases, 2020. "The Determinants for Food Safety Push Notifications on Continuance Intention in an E-Appointment System for Public Health Medical Services: The Perspectives of UTAUT and Information System Quality," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-15, November.
    11. Hasan, Rajibul & Lowe, Ben & Petrovici, Dan, 2020. "Consumer adoption of pro-poor service innovations in subsistence marketplaces," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 461-475.
    12. Francisco Rejón-Guardia & Juán Sánchez-Fernández & Francisco Muñoz-Leiva, 2011. "Motivational Factors that influence the Acceptance of Microblogging Social Networks: The µBAM Model," FEG Working Paper Series 06/11, Faculty of Economics and Business (University of Granada).
    13. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    14. Nawal Abdalla Adam, 2016. "An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Technological Factors on Computer ¨C Based Information Systems (CBIS) Usage by Managers in Banking Sector in Sudan," Journal of Social Science Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 3(1), pages 12-22, January.
    15. Vicki McKinney & Kanghyun Yoon & Fatemeh “Mariam” Zahedi, 2002. "The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 296-315, September.
    16. Saghafi, Fatemeh & Noorzad Moghaddam, Ehsan & Aslani, Alireza, 2017. "Examining effective factors in initial acceptance of high-tech localized technologies: Xamin, Iranian localized operating system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 275-288.
    17. Heijden, Hans van der, 2000. "E-Tam : a revision of the Technology Acceptance Model to explain website revisits," Serie Research Memoranda 0029, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    18. Andrei OGREZEANU, 2015. "Models Of Technology Adoption: An Integrative Approach," Network Intelligence Studies, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 5, pages 55-67, June.
    19. repec:dau:papers:123456789/13000 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Dani Safaa & Faridi Mohamed, 2020. "The factors of acceptance and use of HRIS," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 9(1), pages 397-404, July.
    21. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2076 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Jang, Hyeong Yu & Noh, Mi Jin, 2011. "Customer acceptance of IPTV service quality," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 582-592.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:11:y:2000:i:1:p:37-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.