Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M4, Canada
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada
School of Business and Economics, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
This research has as its objective the discovery of the critical factors that enable citizens to adopt eGovernment (e-Gov) at different stages of service maturity. To accomplish the objective, this research has
explained the related concepts and theories and developed a research framework grounded on a strong
theoretical and literature review background. The empirical study was conducted in Canada, which is a leader
in providing mature e-Gov services. From our results, we have observed two ontological differences from the
present literature in the adoption behavior of e-Gov where organizational and nancial perspectives have
distinct implications over parsimonious technology adoption behavior. First, technology adoption model
(TAM), diffusion of innovation theory (DOI), and theory of planned behavior (TPB) cannot capture and specify
the complete essence of e-Gov adoption behavior of citizens. Second, e-Gov adoption behavior also differs
based on service maturity levels, i.e., when functional characteristics of organizational, technological,
economical, and social perspectives of e-Gov differ. Our ndings indicate the critical factors that enable
citizens to adopt e-Gov at different stages of service maturity. Public administrators and policy-makers have
potential implications from the ndings of the adoption behavior of e-Gov at different maturity levels.
Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
As a new and rapidly growing eld, the concepts and theories of eGovernment (e-Gov) are still in a premature stage. Researchers from
different disciplines address this phenomenal theme from their
respective speculations and conceptualize it in a scattered fashion
(Heeks & Bailur, 2007). e-Gov has several aspects, including social,
technical, economic, political, and public administrative. However,
most dominating concepts of e-Gov arise from the technical
perspective and a combination of the socio-economic and public
administrative perspectives. Nevertheless, all the denitions are
headed towards a single notion and encompass a generic and unique
mission of e-Govpresenting government systems using information
and communication technology (ICT) to serve citizens better (AlMashari, 2007; Evans & Yen, 2006; Gil-Garcia & Martinez-Moyano,
2007; Reddick, 2006; Shareef, Kumar, Kumar, & Dwivedi, 2009;
Sprecher, 2000).
Though different countries' e-Gov implementations extensively differ
in setting common missions and objectives, all of them contain the
similar fundamental essence of e-Gov value: it should be citizen focused.
0740-624X/$ see front matter. Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.006
stages of e-Gov sequentially, i.e., rst static level and then interact
level. They can simply skip any beginning level and start adopting eGov from the next matured level. It can be predicted that the various
development levels of e-Gov might differ in pursuing the intention to
adopt e-Gov for its successful implementation. Static and interaction
levels especially offer different modes of service with different levels
of association of technology. As a result, adoption criteria for different
stages by citizens might have signicant implications. However, no
literature so far has investigated these criteria while exploring
adoption models for e-Gov. To investigate the users' requirements
for the adoption of e-Gov at different levels of service maturity (not
like Layne and Lee, 2001 who look at organizational growth), this
research paper sets its second objective as:
2. Are these critical factors that affect citizens' adoption of e-Government
different at different levels of service maturity?
2. Design perspective
& Yen, 2006; Kim, Kim, & Lee, 2009; Robin, Andrew, & Sasha, 2009;
Titah & Barki, 2005; Turner & Desloges, 2002; Wang & Liao, 2008).
Since e-Gov is a revolutionary reformation of organizational structure
and characteristics, its adoption might have close ties with organizational attributes. e-Gov offers enormous benets to its end users,
which include economic incentives and service improvement.
Therefore, marketing and economic behavior reects citizens'
preferences in adopting e-Gov. Transaction cost analysis (TCA) also
sheds light on these perspectives of e-Gov adoption criteria. From the
core principle of TCA, the motivation for behavioral intention to
interact with different organizational structures is signicantly
inuenced by economic parameters (Shelanski & Klein, 1995).
According to the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991)
and the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980),
social and cultural values affect beliefs and attitudes and the adoption
of e-Gov operated through ICT. Beliefs and attitudes about e-Gov lead
to formation of behavioral intention to learn, accept, and use e-Gov
systems. Therefore, behavioral or attitudinal aspects of citizens are
very important in stimulating an adoption framework of e-Gov. If we
translate the core doctrine of socio-technical theory, which explains
the effect of social and technological aspects on a system, we get
thorough insights into integrating the social, organizational, and
technological aspects of the e-Gov adoption (Damodaran, Nicholls, &
Henney, 2005).
However, these perspectives, where we have concentrated our
investigation of critical factors for the adoption framework of e-Gov,
are not mutually exclusive phenomena. These are interrelated issues.
Adoption perspectives of e-Gov by different stakeholders at different
levels of service maturity of e-Gov are intertwined with different
explanatory variables. Therefore, our investigation for identifying
critical factors of e-Gov will not track those perspectives of e-Gov
adoption factors separately; rather, we will look for interdependent
and comprehensive effects. We will connect technological, behavioral,
social, cultural, organizational, economic, political, and marketing
aspects of consumers to develop a comprehensive e-Gov adoption
model.
3. Theoretical framework
As we mentioned in the Introduction section, the existing
literature on e-Gov has failed to present a comprehensive framework
of e-Gov adoption and performance at different phases of service
maturity of e-Gov implementation. Therefore, although, we are
attempting to identify all of the constructs from our detailed literature
review in conjunction with the insight from different theories related
to technology adoption, diffusion, and behavioral, social, and cultural
characteristics, the adoption behavior of e-Gov is in a very premature
stage (Heeks & Bailur, 2007). Consequently, this study has potentially
an exploratory nature. It means, we are conducting this research not
to test any specied theory of e-Gov adoption, rather we are
conducting this research in the hope of developing a theory of the
adoption of e-Gov at different service maturity levels. So, as we are
advancing from theory development to statistical analysis, we should
continue to rene our exogenous variables and also hypotheses to
develop our nal paradigms of adopting e-Gov at different service
maturity levels. For an exploratory study, this renement of variables
and hypotheses is typical and also a part of the theory development
process (Stevens, 1996).
3.1. Explanatory variables
According to information management principles for open
government adoption, a prime factor for adoption is creating
awareness among the stakeholders. This means informing the
citizens about the transformation of public administration, implementation of innovation, basic paradigms of the new system,
19
21
2005; Kumar et al., 2007; Moon & Norris, 2005; Schedler &
Summermatter, 2007; Shareef et al., 2007, 2009; Wangpipatwong
et al., 2005) have developed their adoption models and measuring
items for the adoption construct by considering complete acceptance
of the process.
Depending on the paradigms of the e-Gov adoption process, we
nd logical underpinnings on the premise that the adoption process of
e-Gov involves the frequent and recurrent use of online services by
citizens not only for obtaining information but also for interaction
with government. Adoption construct has behavioral, organizational,
economic, technological, political, marketing, social, and cultural
perspectives. We have mentioned that this research is concerned to
explore the objective by investigating adoption criteria into two
different levels of service maturity: Static or Publishing stage and
Interaction stage. Therefore, we have differentiated the dependent
variable Adoption into two sub-groups:
Adoption 1: Decision to accept and use an EG system to view, collect
information, and/or download forms for different government
services as the user requires with the positive perception of
receiving a competitive advantage.
Adoption 2: Decision to accept and use an EG system to interact
with, and seek government services, and/or search for queries for
different government services as the user requires with the positive
perception of receiving a competitive advantage.
The endogenous/dependent variable Adoption was operationalized in a way that ensures measurement of the causal effects of the
exogenous variables on the two levels of service maturity of e-Gov
and increases response rate. It is obvious that citizens can view and
interact with e-Gov for many tasks. Dening any specic task for
adoption in the proposed questionnaire might reduce the response
rate in terms of adoption. Therefore, this study formulates the
instruments of Adoption not for any specic tasks but for general
tasks to keep the questionnaire general for all respondents. A total of
six scale items were selected to measure those two dimensions of the
adoption construct (AGIMO, 2003; Gil-Garcia & Martinez-Moyano,
2007; Murru, 2003; Sakowicz, 2007; Turner & Desloges, 2002) (scale
items are shown in Appendix B). Based on these arguments and
identication, a model of e-Gov adoption (GAM) to investigate the
plausible relations is proposed in Appendix C.
4. Methodology
The research methodologies we use in this research are those
typically used in empirical business research. Based on the suggestions of Heeks and Bailur (2007) about e-Gov research, and theories of
Campbell and Fiske (1959) and Bagozzi, Yi, and Philips (1991) about
reliability and validity of research, we designed our research
methodology. In this research, the respondents are the users of the
Canadian e-Gov system; anyone who has experience using Canadian
e-Gov system could participate in the survey. This study was
conducted in four large cities in Ontario, Canada. We selected the
venue for the following purposes:
1. Canada is one of the leading countries in terms of offering e-Gov
services. Canada's e-Gov implementation and offered services are
very mature, and have different services in the static, interaction,
and transaction stages. Therefore, in terms of the development
stage of e-Gov and mission, vision, and objectives, Canada can be
viewed as one the most focused countries for e-Gov development
(Cardin, Holmes, Leganza, Hanson, & McEnroe, 2006).
2. The adoption rate (29.8%) and maturity of services of EG in Ontario is
the highest in Canada according to the study by Parent et al. (2005).
Since this research has set its objectives in detecting adoption criteria
of citizens at different maturity levels of services offered by e-Gov,
Ontario is assumed to fulll the research objectives.
23
3. The selected four cities are the most populated and largest cities in
the respective regions of Ontario. These cities are also located
strategically in important position and are prominent in multicultural assembly. Therefore, it is assumed that the sample should
have enough variability.
To test the model in the most realistic way possible, the study was
conducted through a survey (a self-administered questionnaire) of a
broad diversity of citizens at several communities. From our previous
experience, we assumed that the study would receive around a 10%
response rate. Since there are 11 primary exogenous variables/
constructs, the number of response should be at least 220 (20 samples
per independent variable) for regression and factor analysis (Stevens,
1996, p. 143). However, a sample size of a minimum of 200 is good for
structural equation modeling (SEM) (Kline, 2005, p. 110). Therefore,
the questionnaire was distributed among 2200 citizens (or residents)
in the previously mentioned four cities in Ontario, Canada, to meet the
target and fulll the statistical specications. The specic way we used
to distribute the questionnaire was:
1. We maintained roughly the population ratio of the four cities,
distributing 100 questionnaires in Sudbury, 200 in London, 500 in
Ottawa, and 1400 in Toronto.
2. We divided all the cities into ve regions: east, west, north, south,
and center.
3. We then collected addresses from the Telephone White Pages of
each city; we included houses, condominiums, and apartments
located in the ve regions we identied. We also collected the
addresses of the residents living in the suburban areas in the east,
west, north, and south regions immediately outside the city.
4. We distributed the questionnaires by mail throughout the
suburban areas in the east, west, north, and south regions outside
each city. One half of the total questionnaires allocated for each city
were distributed in this way. The other half was distributed
physically to the houses, condominiums, and apartments in
different areas in the ve zones.
5. We distributed 50% of the questionnaires in houses and condominiums and 50% in apartments.
6. The survey was conducted over a three-month period.
We received a total of 241 questionnaires from the respondents.
Two returned questionnaires were blank. Therefore, the eligible
response number is 239. The response rate is around 11%. This is quite
satisfactory based on our previous knowledge and also considering
the length of the questionnaireeight pages, including a one-page
cover letter.
5. Statistical analysis
Several interrelated procedures were performed to organize, rearrange, and summarize the raw data and make it amenable for
analysis to get justied output. This section sequentially describes
data preparation and analysis techniques for statistical analysis of this
research.
5.1. Data reduction
Before performing any causeeffect relation, reliability, validity,
and normality tests, we rst conducted exploratory factor analyses
(EFA) on the preliminary 57 scale items measuring the latent
variables having direct causal relations to the adoption of e-Gov
excluding the measuring items of the constructs perceived uncertainty (PU), perceived privacy (PP), and perceived security (PS),
which are not hypothesized to have direct relation with adoption in
our model. These three constructs are hypothesized to have causal
relations with perceived trust (PT), which is an exogenous variable
for the adoption model. We have also done EFA on the 10 measuring
items of PU, PP, and PS separately because these three constructs are
widely used as the exogenous variables for PT (Shareef et al., 2008).
For EFA, we have used principal component analysis as the
extraction method and varimax rotation as the rotation method.
We used both the breaks-in-eigenvalues criterion (N1) and scree
plot to determine the number of factors to retain (Stevens, 1996,
pp. 389390).
After conducting a series of EFA of those 57 measuring items, of the
11 exogenous variables and also examining the correlation matrix we
found that nine constructs with 37 measuring items can be retained.
However, to support this renement in measuring items, we also
looked at the correlation matrix, analyzed convergence through CFA,
and thoroughly investigated theoretical aspects of those modications. For PA, AOR, CSE, PI, PIQ, MLO, and PFB constructs,
corresponding measuring items were loaded consistently (though
some items were removed because of low loading or cross loading).
Three PC items, three PATU items, and one PIQ item were loaded on a
single factor. Though the items loaded under this factor are the
measuring items from different hypothesized exogenous variables,
after close examination of those seven items loaded under a single
factor, we observed that all these items reect certain personal beliefs
and perceptions of ability of using e-Gov systems. This personal belief
denotes both physical and psychological perception (resembles to PC)
of ability to use e-Gov systems. Therefore, these seven items have very
close functional alignment. We veried the correlation between these
items and found moderate to strong correlations. This also justies the
convergence of these items under a single factor. We also veried the
convergence of those seven measuring items in CFA by testing the
appropriateness of a single factor or two factor model (Appendix D).
Based on the functional meaning, we argued that PATU can still cause
those seven scale items and thus can be named PATU. However, the
denition of PATU should be edited adding new psychological
dimension. We have done that in Appendix E where all the
explanatory variables are dened. Four items of PT and ve items of
PSR loaded under a single factor in EFA. We can explain this behavior
getting insight from the measuring items. On the one hand, perceived
trust of citizens is related to the credibility of e-Gov; on the other
hand, customer service of e-Gov also helps to enhance the perception
of trust and credibility, particularly in the virtual environment, among
the users of e-Gov. Therefore, we retained the name perceived trust
(PT) for the combined measuring items loaded under a single factor.
We also veried the correlation between these items and found
moderate to strong correlations. This also justies the convergence of
these items under a single factor. However, we also veried the
convergence of those nine measuring items in CFA by testing the
appropriateness of a single factor or two factor model (Appendix D).
We also veried all nine factors with the measuring items individually
by CFA and observed conrmation of EFA results (Appendix D).
However, since 1 item of the construct AOR (AOR3) was loaded in CFA
with a loading factor of less than 0.50, we removed that item. In
addition, since we could retain only two items for CSE with high
internal correlations (more than 0.90) and two items for MLO with
high correlations (more than 0.95) from EFA, we could not perform
CFA for these two variables (since negative degree of freedom exists).
So, we took the average scores of the respective measuring items for
CSE and MLO respectively. Therefore, we retained a total of 34
measuring items with the nine exogenous variables (Appendix E). We
also retained two factors with nine indicators from the EFA of the 10
measuring items of PU, PS, and PP. However, four items of PS and two
items of PP were loaded under the same factor. Although as an
exploratory study we have hypothesized PS and PP as two different
exogenous variables for PT, several researchers used PS and PP as a
single construct by the name PS, because both the constructs are
related to security of nancial transactions, identity, and personal information (Gummerus, Liljander, Pura, & van Riel, 2004; Wolnbarger
& Gilly, 2003). Therefore, we have provided the name of this construct
as PS, however, its denition was revised (Appendix E). We also
veried the correlation between these items and found moderate to
strong correlations. This also justies the convergence of these items
under a single factor. However, we also veried the convergence of
those six measuring items in CFA by testing the appropriateness of
a single factor or two factor model (Appendix D). So, for PT as
endogenous variable, we have retained two exogenous variables
namely, PU (uncertainty) and PS.
The reliability scores for the constructs were measured by a
coefcient alpha, which justied the reliability of the items in each
dimension and thus internal consistency among the items in each
dimension. The reliability scores for all the nal exogenous and
endogenous variables are ranged from 0.706 to 0.974, which suggest
an acceptable internal consistency among the items in each
dimension (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The CFA results suggest
that the scale items are reective indicators of their corresponding
latent constructs, which indicates construct validity (Chau, 1997;
Segars & Grover, 1993). In this data analysis, the average variances
extracted (AVE) for each factor and its measures all exceeded 0.50;
thus, convergent validity is achieved (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). We
also veried the correlation matrix of the items under each factor. All
the items individually under each factor have moderate to strong
correlation coefcients. This result also justied convergent validity.
We also examined multicolinearity, normality, and outliers.
5.2. Model testing: causal relationship by path analysis
We have used LISREL for path analysis, a family of structural
equation modeling (SEM), to test the causal relationships (the
hypotheses) of the model. Since we have measured all of the
exogenous and endogenous variables through Likert scale 15, data
gathered from this empirical study is not perfectly continuous.
Therefore, structural measurement through SEM by maximum
likelihood (ML) is not appropriate for this type of data (Kline, 2005,
p. 219). For structural measurement through SEM, one of the
fundamental requirements is that latent variables should be continuous (Kline, 2005). Therefore, we took the average of the indicators of
each of the latent variables individually for 239 cases and conducted a
path analysis (Kline, 2005) to nd out causeeffect relationships
between exogenous and endogenous variables. In path analysis, all of
the latent variables are treated as observed variables and their scores
represent the average of the scores of their respective indicators. We
have used the maximum likelihood procedure of LISREL for the
purpose of analysis. Since, the measuring items of PC and PATU were
integrated in a single construct and the measuring items of PT and PSR
were also integrated in a single item, we have now nine hypotheses to
test (with certain modications in the composition and denition of
PATU and PT constructs related to two hypotheses) from our
proposed 11 hypotheses having direct relations with adoption. Only
two hypotheses having direct relations with adoption were removed
during statistical renement in the previous section. For path analysis,
we have used the correlation matrix as the input data for all the 11
exogenous variables (nine exogenous variables having direct relations
with adoption, i.e., PA, AOR, CSE, PATU, PFB, PI, MLO, PIQ, and PT and
two exogenous variables having indirect relations with adoption
through PT, i.e., PU and PS) and one endogenous variable (for example
ADOP1). Here PT is both an exogenous variable and endogenous
variable (like a mediator variable for adoption). Therefore, for two
models, i.e., GAM-S and GAM-I we have inputted two different
12 12-correlation matrices. Final Path models and t indices are
shown in Appendices F and G. For path analysis we have tested 11
hypotheses, through path analysis for our research questions of this
research.
After conducting path analysis for the adoption of e-Gov at static
level, we nd that PA and PATU have signicant causal relations with
25
27
29
Construct
Items
Source
Perceived awareness
(PA)
Availability of
resources (AOR)
Computer-self
efcacy (CSE)
Perceived
compatibility (PC)
Perceived ability
to use (PATU)
Perceived information
quality (PIQ)
Multilingual option
(MLO)
Perceived functional
benet (PFB)
Perceived
uncertainty (PU)
Perceived security
(PS)
Appendix
(continued)
A (continued)
Construct
Items
Source
Perceived privacy
(PP)
Perceived trust
(PT)
Perceived service
response (PSR)
Construct
Items
Source
Adoption 1
Adoption 2
Attitude to Use
Perceived Compatibility
Perceived Awareness
Availability of
Resources
Computer-Self Efficacy
Ability to Use
Perceived Ability to Use
Multilingual Option
E-Government
Adoption
Assurance to Use
Perceived Uncertainty
Perceived Security
Perceived Information
Quality
Perceived Trust
Perceived Privacy
Adherence to Use
Perceived Functional
Benefit
Perceived Image
Adaptability to Use
Perceived Service
Response
31
0.00
0.00
0.048
PATU
0.080
AOR
PI
PA
MLO
CSE
PU
PS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.059
ADOP1
ADOP2
0.00
0.00
CFI
Recommended CFI
NFI
Recommended NFI
GFI
Recommended GFI
Comment
Fitted
1.00 0.90 (Churchill, 1979;
0.94 0.90 (Churchill, 1979;
b0.06 (Browne and Cudeck, 1.00 0.90 (Churchill, 1979;
No CFA
No CFA
Appendix E. Revised hypotheses and conceptual denitions of the exogenous variables based on EFA and CFA
Exogenous variable
Conceptual denition
Hypothesis
Measuring items
Perceived awareness
(PA)
CSE1
MLO1
Availability of resources
(AOR)
Computer-self efcacy
(CSE)
Perceived ability to use
(PATU)
Multilingual option
(MLO)
Perceived information
quality (PIQ)
Perceived uncertainty
(PU)
Perceived security
(PS)
Perceived functional
benet (PFB)
Fit measures
Chi-square (2)
Degree of Freedom
2/Degree of freedom (DF)
Root mean square residual (RMR)
Comparative t index (CFI)
Goodness of t index (GFI)
Adjusted goodness of t index (AGFI)
RMSEA
Normed t index (NFI)
Recommended values
p 0.05
3.0
0.05
0.90
0.90
0.80
b 0.06
0.90
Adoption model
Adoption 1
Adoption 2
6.68 (0.15358)
4
1.68
0.026
0.99
0.99
0.95
0.054
0.98
13.66 (0.01794)
5
2.774
0.025
0.99
0.99
0.90
0.086
0.98
33
Model
Endogenous variable
Adoption of EG
at static level
Adoption (ADOP1)
Perceived awareness (PA) has a positive relation with Adoption of EG at static level
Perceived ability to use (PATU) has a positive relation with Adoption of EG at static level
Perceived functional benet (PFB) has a positive relation with Adoption of EG at static level
Perceived uncertainty (PU) has a positive relation with Trust in EG at static level
Perceived security (PS) has a positive relation with Trust in EG at static level
Perceived ability to use (PATU) has a positive relation with Trust in EG at static level
Perceived awareness (PA) has a positive relation with Adoption of EG at interaction level
Perceived trust (PT) has a positive relation with Adoption of EG at interaction level
Perceived ability to use (PATU) has a positive relation with Adoption of EG at interaction level
Perceived information quality (PIQ) has a negative relation with Adoption of EG at interaction level
Perceived image (PI) of using EG has a positive relation with Adoption of EG at interaction level
Perceived uncertainty (PU) has a positive relation with Trust in EG at interaction level
Perceived security (PS) has a positive relation with Trust in EG at interaction level
Perceived ability to use (PATU) has a positive relation with Trust in EG at interaction level
PT
Adoption of EG at
Interaction Level
Adoption (ADOP2)
PT
(0.059)
7.01
Errorvar. = 0.71
(0.065)
10.82
(0.053)
8.17
Errorvar. = 0.54
(0.050)
10.82
Model
R2
Adjusted R2
0.590a
0.348
0.332
0.91787
Errorvar. = 0.65
1
(0.061)
10.77
Errorvar. = 0.54
(0.050)
10.77
(Constant)
PA
PATU
PI
PT
PIQ
Unstandardized
coefcients
Standardized
coefcients
Std. error
Beta
0.338
0.297
0.469
0.193
0.439
0.333
0.423
0.091
0.108
0.067
0.109
0.114
0.200
0.343
0.175
0.278
0.225
Sig.
0.798
3.268
4.326
2.857
4.015
2.925
0.426
0.001
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.004
PT regression summary.
Model summary
Model
R2
Adjusted R2
Std. error of
the estimate
0.681a
0.464
0.455
0.53727
Model summary
Model
R2
0.552
0.304
Adjusted R2
0.295
0.8304
PT regression coefcients.
Coefcientsa
(Constant)
PA
PFB
PATU
Unstandardized
Coefcients
Standardized Coefcients
Std. error
Beta
0.341
0.291
0.174
0.425
0.384
0.082
0.101
0.087
0.219
0.122
0.348
0.889
3.548
1.734
4.877
Model
Sig.
0.375
0.000
0.084
0.000
a
(Constant)
PATU
PS
PU
Unstandardized
coefcients
Standardized
coefcients
Std. error
Beta
0.058
0.329
0.384
0.173
0.242
0.052
0.051
0.037
0.380
0.433
0.254
Sig.
0.239
6.379
7.514
4.700
0.812
0.000
0.000
0.000
References
Accenture (2003). E-government leadership: Realizing the vision. The Government
Executive Series. E-Government Report.
Accenture (2005). Leadership in customer service: New expectations, new experiences.
E-Government Report.
AGIMO (Australian Government Information Management Ofce) (2003). E-government
benets study: Demand for E-government. Department of Finance and Administration,
Australian Government. .
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179221.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc..
Al-Adawi, Z., Yousafzai, S., & Pallister, J. (2005). Conceptual model of citizen adoption of
e-government. The Second International Conference on Innovations in Information
Technology (IIT'05) (pp. 110).
Al-Mashari, M. (2007). A benchmarking study of experiences with electronic-government.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 14(2), 172185.
Al-Shehry, A., Rogerson, S., Fairweather, N. B., & Prior, M. (2006, Sept. 11). The motivations for
change towards e-government adoption: Case studies from Saudi Arabia. eGovernment
Workshop 06 (eGOV06), London: Brunel University.
Andersen, K. V., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of
the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236248.
Angst, C. M., & Agarwal, R. (2009). adoption of electronic health records in the presence
of privacy concerns: The elaboration likelihood model and individual persuasion.
MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 339370.
Anthopoulos, L. G., Siozos, P., & Tsoukalas, L. A. (2007). Applying Participatory Design
and Collaboration in Digital Public Services for Discovering and Re-designing
E-government Services. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 353376.
Babakus, E., & Mangold, W. G. (1992). Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital services:
An empirical investigation. Health Services Research, 26(6), 767786.
Balasubramanian, S., Konana, P., & Menon, N. M. (2003,Julyy). Customer satisfaction
in virtual environments: A study of online investing. Management Science, 7, 871889.
Blanger, F., & Carter, L. (2005). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. Proceedings of
the 11th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Omaha, NE, USA, 1954-1964.
Blanger, F., Hiller, J., & Smith, W. (2002). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: The
role of privacy, security, and site attributes. Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
11, 245270.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-conrmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351370.
Brown, M., & Muchira, R. (2004). Investigating the relationship between internet privacy
concerns and online purchase behavior. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 5(1),
6270.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit, Testing
Structural Equation Models. Chapter 6 Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Philips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421458.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959, Marchh). Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81105.
Cardin, L., Holmes, B. J., Leganza, G., Hanson, J., & McEnroe, W. (2006). Who are Canada's
e-government consumers? Canadian Demographics, Tech Attitudes, and Purchasing
Power, Forrester Research.
Carter, L., & Blanger, F. (2004). Citizen adoption of electronic government initiatives.
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 5
(pp. 50119c).
Carter, L., & Blanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust,
innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15, 525.
Chandler, S., & Emanuels, S. (2002). Transformation not automation. Proceedings of 2nd
European Conference on E-government (pp. 91102). UK: St Catherine's College
Oxford.
Chau, P. Y. K. (1997). Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success:
Using a structural equation modeling approach. Decision Sciences, 28(2), 309334.
Chen, Y. -C., & Thurmaier, K. (2005). Government-to-citizen electronic services:
Understanding and driving adoption of online transactions. The Association for
Public Policy & Management (APPAM) conference, Washington, D.C., November 36.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February), 6473.
Collier, J. E., & Bienstock, C. C. (2006). Measuring service quality in e-retailing. Journal of
Service Research, 8(3), 260275.
Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized
questionnaire. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cox, D. F., & Rich, S. U. (1964). Perceived risk and consumer decision makingThe case
of telephone shopping. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(4), 3239.
Czepiel, J. A., Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C., & Gutman, E. G. (1985). Service encounters:
An overview. In J. A. Czepiel, M. R. Solomon, & C. F. Surprenant (Eds.), The service
encounter (pp. 243254). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Damodaran, L., Nicholls, J., & Henney, A. (2005). The contribution of sociotechnical
systems thinking to the effective adoption of e-government and the enhancement
of democracy. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3(1), 112.
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new enduser information systems: Theory and results, doctoral dissertation. Sloan School of
Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8),
9821003.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the
dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 6095.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of information
systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems,
19(4), 930.
Devaraj, S., Fan, M., & Kohli, R. (2002). Antecedents of B2C Channel Satisfaction and
Preference: Validating E-commerce Metrics. Information Systems Research, 13(3),
316333.
Dorner, D. G. (2009). Public sector readiness for digital preservation in New Zealand: The
rate of adoption of an innovation in records management practices. Government
Information Quarterly, 26(2), 341348.
Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.
Ebrahim, Z., & Irani, Z. (2005). E-government adoption: Architecture and barriers. Business
Process Management Journal, 11(5), 589611.
Eggers, W. D. (2004). Boosting e-government adoption. Deloitte research-public sector,
Canada, FTA Annual Conference.
Evans, D., & Yen, D. C. (2006). E-Government: Evolving relationship of citizens and
government, domestic, and international development. Government Information
Quarterly, 23(2), 207235.
Fang, Z. (2002). E-Government in digital era: Concept, practice and development.
International Journal of the Computer, The Internet, and Information, 20, 193213.
Fassnacht, M., & Koese, I. (2006). Quality of Electronic Services: Conceptualizing and
Testing a Hierarchical Model. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 1937.
Foo, S., Hui, S. C., Leong, P. C., & Liu, S. (2000). An integrated help desk support for
customer services over the world wide webA case study. Computers in Industry,
41(2), 129145.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 3950.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An
integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27, 5190.
Gilbert, D., Balestrini, P., & Littleboy, D. (2004). Barriers and benets in the adoption of
e-government. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(4), 286301.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Martinez-Moyano, I. J. (2007). Understanding the evolution of
e-government: The inuence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics.
Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 266290.
Gottschalk, P. (2009). Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government. Government
Information Quarterly, 26(1), 4250.
Grnroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European
Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 3644.
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Pura, M., & van Riel, A. (2004). Customer loyalty to contentbased websites: The case of an online health-care service. Journal of Services Marketing,
18(3), 175186.
Heeks, R. B., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives,
philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly,
24(2), 243265.
Holden, S. H., Norris, D. F., & Fletcher, P. D. (2003). Electronic government at the local
level, progress to date and future issues. Public Performance and Management
Review, 26(4), 325344.
Howard, M. (2001). E-government across the globe: How will E change government?
Government Finance Review, 17(4), 69.
Hu, Li-tze, & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure
Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 155.
ICMA (2002). Electronic government survey ndings. Retrieved from http://egov.e21corp.
com/site/html/eNewsletter/oct2002/survey.html.
Internet World Stats (2008). Retrieved from http://www.allaboutmarketresearch.com/
internet.htm.
Jaeger, P. T. (2003). The endless wire: E-government as global phenomenon.
Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 323331.
Janda, S., Trocchia, P. J., & Gwinner, K. P. (2002). Consumer Perceptions of Internet Retail
Service Quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(5),
412431.
Kemp, T. (2000). A matter of trust: B-2-Cs seek credibility. September: Internet Week.
Kim, M., Kim, J. -H., & Lennon, S. J. (2006). Online service attributes available on apparel
retail website: An E-S-QUAL approach. Managing Service Quality, 16(1), 5177.
Kim, S., Kim, H. J., & Lee, H. (2009). An institutional analysis of an e-government
system for anti-corruption: The case of OPEN. Government Information Quarterly,
26(1), 4250.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Klievink, B., & Janssen, M. (2009). Realizing joined-up government dynamic capabilities and
stage models for transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 275284.
Kraemer, K. L., & King, J. L. (2003). Information technology and administrative reform:
Will the time after e-government be different? CRITO, Center for Research on
Information Technology and Organizations http://www.crito.uci.edu.
Kumar, V., Mukerji, B., Butt, I., & Persaud, A. (2007). Factors for successful e-government
adoption: A conceptual framework. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(1),
6376.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg,
C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies
(pp. 215254)., 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage
model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122136.
Lee, J. K., & Rao, H. R. (2003). A study of customers' trusting beliefs in government-tocustomer online services. AMCIS 2003 Proceedings. Paper 102 http://aisel.aisnet.org/
amcis2003/102.
35