Oh I Ou 1339700970

Technology Acceptance Model for Determining the Effects of
Age, Usability, and Content on Mobile Application Usage
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Shijing Liu
August 2012
© 2012 Shijing Liu. All Rights Reserved.

2
This thesis titled
Technology Acceptance Model for Determining the Effects of
Age, Usability, and Content on Mobile Application Usage
by
SHIJING LIU
has been approved for
the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering
and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by
_____________________________________________
Diana J. Schwerha
Assistant Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering
_____________________________________________
Dennis Irwin
Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

3
ABSTRACT
LIU, SHIJING, M.S., August 2012, Industrial and Systems Engineering
Technology Acceptance Model for Determining the Effects of Age, Usability, and
Content on Mobile Application Usage
Director of Thesis: Diana J. Schwerha
With market competition and customer needs, the development of smart phones
and mobile applications is fast and changes our daily life. Meanwhile, our world
population is aging. The group of older people is the fastest growing mobile application
users. This research compared the effects of age, training, different usability
characteristics between younger and older users. The Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) was used as a theoretical construct in this research. Seventeen older adults (over
50 years old) and twenty younger adults (18 – 30 years old) were recruited from the local
community. Four mobile applications were tested on smart phones or similar devices. A
training session was included in the experiment. Results of the experiment showed: (1)
training has significant effect on the increase of TAM measures, (2) customers prefer to
use mobile applications which have higher level of TAM measures, and (3) older and
younger groups have different level of TAM measures. Recommendations for age
targeted design considerations for mobile applications are given.
Approved: ____________________________________________________________
Diana J. Schwerha
Assistant Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering

4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank everyone who helped and inspired me during my master
study in Ohio University.
First and foremost, I am heartily thankful to my advisor Dr. Diana Schwerha,
whose enormous help enable me to complete this research and my thesis. I would also
like to show my gratitude to Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering for
supporting my project and the payment for all participants. I have furthermore to thank
my committee members Dr. David Koonce, Dr. Tao Yuan, and Dr. Vic Matta for their
suggestions and contributions.
Especially, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my parents for their
love and support during my study in the United States. Their continuing advice and love
have always encouraged me towards excellence.

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract................................................................................................................................3
Acknowlegements ...............................................................................................................4
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................6
List of Figures......................................................................................................................7
Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................8
Chapter 2. Literature Review...........................................................................................10
2.1. Mobile Applications Usability.....................................................................10
2.2. Older Adults ................................................................................................11
2.3. Usability Testing Method ............................................................................15
Chapter 3. Hypotheses .....................................................................................................21
Chapter 4. Methods..........................................................................................................22
4.1. Participants ..................................................................................................22
4.2. Environment ................................................................................................22
4.3. Devices ........................................................................................................22
4.4. Procedure .....................................................................................................22
4.5. Analysis Method..........................................................................................28
Chapter 5. Results ............................................................................................................29
5.1. Demographics ..............................................................................................29
5.2. Hypothesis 1: Training will increase TAM measures. ................................30
5.3. Hypothesis 2: Age and type of application are factors of TAM measures
and usability...........................................................................................................43
5.4. Hypothesis 3: Usability characteristics will enhance user preference for
mobile applications................................................................................................52
5.5. Hypothesis 4: Participants will prefer to use mobile applications which have
higher level of PU, PEU, and usability..................................................................56
Chapter 6. Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................61
6.1. Conclusion ...................................................................................................61
6.2. Recommendations for Improvement for Applications Used in This Study 62
6.3. Recommendation and Future Work.............................................................63
References .........................................................................................................................65
Appendix 1: Demographic Survey and Questionnaire ......................................................69
Appendix 2 Modified PU and PEU Scales ........................................................................70
Appendix 3 Usability Characteristics Checklist ................................................................71
6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1 Experimental Session Schedule ........................................................................ 23

Table 5-1 Demographics of younger group ...................................................................... 29
Table 5-2 Demographics of older group ........................................................................... 30
Table 5-3 Baseline of TAM measures for different age groups ....................................... 31
Table 5-4 P-Value for TAM measures by apps ................................................................ 34
Table 5-5 Paired t-tests of PU/PEU for all participants .................................................... 37
Table 5-6 Paired t-tests of PU/PEU for younger group .................................................... 40
Table 5-7 Paired t-tests of PU/PEU for older group ......................................................... 43
Table 5-8 ANOVA for usability of four mobile applications ........................................... 44
Table 5-9 ANOVA for PU of four mobile applications before training ........................... 47
Table 5-11 ANOVA for PEU of four mobile applications before training ...................... 49
Table 5-12 ANOVA for PEU of four mobile applications after training ......................... 50
Table 5-13 ANOVA of Regression Analysis of Usability Characteristics for Younger
Group ................................................................................................................................ 53
Table 5-14 Coefficients Table of Regression Analysis for Younger Group .................... 54
Table 5-15 ANOVA of Regression Analysis for Usability Characteristics of Older Group
........................................................................................................................................... 55
Table 5-16 Coefficients Table of Regression Analysis for Older Group ......................... 55
Table 5-17 ANOVA of Overall Regression Analysis....................................................... 57
Table 5-18 ANOVA of Regression Analysis for Younger Group .................................... 59
Table 5-19 ANOVA of Regression Analysis for Older Group......................................... 60
7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Smart phone users in the United States. .......................................................... 13

Figure 2-2 A framework for the design and implementation of usability testing of mobile
applications. ...................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2-3 The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989). ........................... 18
Figure 2-4 Senior Technology Acceptance & Adoption Model (STAM). ....................... 20
Figure 4-1 Metrics mapped according to usability characteristic. .................................... 27
Figure 5-1 Bar Charts of PU for age groups by apps before training (session 1) and after
training (session 2) ............................................................................................................ 32
Figure 5-2 Bar Charts of PEU for age groups by apps before training (session 1) and after
training (session 2). ........................................................................................................... 33
Figure 5-3 Bar Charts of PU by apps for all participants before training (session 1) and
after training (session 2).................................................................................................... 35
Figure 5-4 Bar Charts of PEU by apps for all participants before training (session 1) and
Figure 5-5 Bar Charts of PU by apps for younger group before training (session 1) and
Figure 5-6 Bar Charts of PEU by apps for younger group before training (session 1) and
Figure 5-7 Bar Charts of PU by apps for older group before training (session 1) and after
training (session 2). ........................................................................................................... 41
Figure 5-8 Bar Charts of PEU by apps for older group before training (session 1) and
Figure 5-9 Interaction Plot of Usability for four applications by age groups. .................. 45
Figure 5-10 Interaction Plot of PU for four applications by age groups. ......................... 48
Figure 5-11 Interaction Plot of PEU for four applications by age groups. ....................... 51
8
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
With market competition and consumer need, the development of multi-function
smart phones and mobile applications is fast and changes our daily life markedly. Mobile
applications are common on most smart phones and consist of software that runs on a
mobile device and executes certain tasks for the user of the mobile phone [1].
Our world population of older people is steadily growing [22]. The United States
Bureau of the Census estimated that there will be about 72.1 million older adults in the
U.S. in 2030, which is almost twice their number (40.2 million) in 2010 [5]. Our world
population is aging [22], and the group of older people (over 50 years old) is the fastest
growing group of mobile applications users [23]. It is challenge for designers and
researchers that develop appropriate mobile applications to satisfy older users’ need and
help them preserve their life quality [22].
For the design of mobile applications, an efficient tool to evaluate mobile devices
and applications is important. Usability is the ease of use and learnability of a human-
made object [2]. It is an elementary criterion to evaluate the efficacy of these mobile
techniques. An appropriate usability evaluation method for mobile applications is
necessary [3]. For using a new technology, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is
an information systems theory that simulates how users accept and use a technology [13].
It utilizes two scales: Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEU).
This research will compare the effect of different usability characteristics between
younger and older users. The Technology Acceptance Model will be used as a theoretical
construct in this research. Two age groups, 17 older adults (older than 50 years of age)
9
and 20 younger adults (between 18 and 30 years of age), were be recruited from local
community. Four different mobile applications were tested on smart phones (iPhone /
iPod touch) in the research. These mobile applications were selected because they have
both same and different usability characteristics, and we predicted that because of these
differences, users will have rate them differently with respect to different level of
Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEU).
There are several objectives of this research. The first objective is to perform TAM
for each application and find its PU and PEU level for both older and younger people.
The second objective is to evaluate different usability characteristics of each application
and determine if there is any relation and connection between usability characteristics and
PU/PEU. The long-term goal for this research is to provide recommendations on
application design for different age groups for mobile designers and providers.
10
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Mobile Applications Usability
2.1.1. Mobile applications
With technological development and market competition, today’s mobile phones
are designed for multiple purposes beyond the typical functions such as voice calls and
texting. Various features and applications are added into regular phones and smart
phones. Mobile applications are common on most modern phones, and consist of
software that runs on a mobile device and executes certain tasks for the user of the mobile
phone [1]. These applications are served by a number of mobile application developers,
publishers and providers. Also, they have an increasing number of markets. For example,
the Apple Store’s website lists thousands of iPhone applications, and these applications
can be placed in several categories: calculate, entertainment, games, news, productivity,
search tools, social networking, sports, travel, utilities, and weather.
2.1.2. Usability
The term usability was originally derived from the term “user friendly” [2].
Generally speaking, usability is the ease of use and learnability of a human-made object.
While many definitions of usability exist, the definition which was specified in
ISO/IEC 9126-1 (2001) is now widely applied [2]. The ISO organization has developed
various usability standards, and its function is to provide and impose consistency. In
ISO/IEC 9126-1, usability was defined as “the capability of the software product to be
understood, learned, used and be attractive to the user, when used under specified
11
conditions” [2]. This definition is primarily concerned with a software product, and it is
suitable for mobile applications [3].
ISO/IEC 9126-1 specifies usability by the following measurable attributes [2]:
• Understandability: The capability of the software product to enable the user to
understand whether the software is suitable, and how it can be used for
particular tasks and conditions of use.
• Learnability: The capability of the software product to enable the user to learn
its application.
• Operability: The capability of the software product to enable the user to
operate and control it.
• Attractiveness: The capability of the software product to be attractive to the
user. For instance the use of colors or nature of graphical design.
2.2. Older Adults
Demographically, older adults (65+ years old) are the fastest growing group
worldwide [4]. By 2030, it is estimated that there will be about 72.1 million older adults
in the U.S., which is almost twice their number (40.2 million) in 2010 [5]. In addition,
this group consists of the fastest growing group of mobile applications users. Therefore,
to face the development and market competition and to help older adults preserve their
life quality and remain independent [22], it is critical that mobile application developers
and designers meet the needs of older customers.

12
2.2.1. Smart phone users
Young people, typically the earliest adopters of new technology, comprise the
majority of smart phone users. However, according to the data of smart phone users in
the United States which Nielsen reported in March 2011 (Figure 1), old adults age 55+
make up approximately 20% of the market. Smart phones are finally breaking into the
older adult market.
For older adults, using a smart phone is far more than fun and games. Older adults
are likely to use smart phones for more serious purposes than younger users. Starting in
2011, millions of baby boomers have begun to turn 65. This generation has an
unforgettable imprint on the development of culture and technology, and they will likely
accept new mobile technologies that enable them to explore and access the web in new
ways.
13
Figure 2-1 Smart phone users in the United States.
While overall smart phone users of old adults is still a small number, it’s important
to note that the older users of technology is growing, and in surprising ways. Generally,
users of technology who are older than 55 year old are considered as older users for
mobile device market. According to a recent research [26], older people are gaming on
their phones. Around 13% of 55- to 64-year-olds and 5% of people 65 and older play
games using a smart phone or standard cellphone. Old adults will embrace the new
mobile technology in the same as younger people, if the technology is really good for
entertainment and daily life use.

14
2.2.2. Limitations of older users
Users of technological products (e.g., notebook, computers, and smart phones), are
required to have some basic knowledge and capability. However, there are many age-
related limitations for older users. When designing mobile applications for older users,
designers and providers must consider these limitations. Characteristics of older adults
can be related to cognition, physical capability, and perceptual ability.
For cognitive factors, the memory functions and spatial abilities of older users,
which are both important to their navigation behavior, decline with age [6 – 9]. Older
adults have more difficulties than younger users with navigation and spend more time on
tasks due to more detours and lost time [10].
In terms of the physical factors, a previous study [11] formed five distinct human
factors that show measurable disparities between older and younger people:
(1) Learning time (=time to perform task)
(2) Speed of performance
(3) Error rate
(4) Retention over time
(5) Subjective satisfaction
During usability testing, these different factors should be considered. Qualitative
and quantitative analysis can be performed within these factors through usability
questionnaire or heuristic evaluation.
Perceptual factors include vision and hearing. During the design and development
of new technology for older adults, age dependent changes in vision, such as visual acuity
15
(ability to resolve detail), visual accommodation (ability to focus on close objects), color
vision (ability to discriminate/perceive shorter wavelengths), contrast detection (ability to
detect contrast), dark adaptation (ability to adapt quickly to darker conditions), and glare
(susceptibility to glare), need to be considered [11].
2.3. Usability Testing Method
2.3.1. Usability testing
Usability evaluation is an elementary activity to test or evaluate mobile devices
[3]. There are various usability evaluation methods, and they can be classified into three
types: usability testing, usability inquiry, and usability inspection [12]. Usability testing
requires representative users to work on typical tasks using the system or the prototype
[2]. It is an evaluation tool used to estimate how well users can use a specific software
system. Traditional guidelines and methods used in usability testing are not applicable to
mobile devices, because they focus on desktop and environment [12]. Therefore, an
appropriate usability testing method for mobile applications is necessary.
Zhang and Adipat [12] provided a generic framework that includes some major
issues that researchers need to consider while designing a usability test for a mobile
application, as shown in Figure 2.

16
Figure 2-2 A framework for the design and implementation of usability testing of mobile
applications.
This first stage is the testing method for usability testing of mobile applications.
For the usability testing of mobile applications, laboratory experiments and field studies
are selected as the two major methodologies. During a laboratory experiment,
participants are required to complete certain tasks using a mobile application in a
controlled lab environment. However, in a field study, participants are allowed to use
mobile applications in a real environment [12]. Both of the lab and field study have pros
17
and cons. Therefore, to select an appropriate methodology for usability testing should
depend on its purpose and usability features.
The second stage includes the tools used for usability testing of mobile
applications. Actual mobile devices are used in both lab experiment and field studies.
Besides, for laboratory study, usability tests of mobile applications in laboratories can be
performed on emulators. Both tools have their pros and cons. It is more controllable that
use an emulator on a desktop, but it will omit some important factors of actual mobile
devices and mobile context. Researchers can collect more realistic information and data
from a test on actual mobile devices in a real environment than testing on emulators.
On the third stage, selection of usability attributes which will be measured should
be considered. The usability attributes (e.g., learnability, efficiency, memorability, error,
and satisfaction), can be tested both in lab and field study to evaluate the mobile
applications.
The fourth stage is data collection approaches. It is much easier for the data
collection in laboratory experiments than field studies. There are several traditional data
collection methods have been applied in usability testing for mobile applications, such as
system log, verbal protocol, interview, questionnaire, and observation. Also, some data
collection approaches have been developed for field studies, such as voice-mail diaries,
multiple interviews, and Web diaries. For this experiment, we have chosen to conduct a
laboratory experiment with a real phone in order to capture as much ecological validity
while having control within the laboratory setting.

18
2.3.2. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (shown in Figure 3) is an information
systems theory that simulates how users accept and use a technology. The Technology
Acceptance Model states that usefulness and ease of use are two essential elements in
describing individuals’ attitudes when using a new technology [13]. TAM is considered
the most influential and widely applied theory to evaluate users’ acceptance of
information systems. TAM, originally proposed by Davis [13] and adapted from the
Theory of Reasoned Action, supposes that an individual’s information systems
acceptance is described by two essential variables:
• Perceived Usefulness (PU)
• Perceived Ease of Use (PEU)
Figure 2-3 The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989).
Previous research has shown some utilization of TAM on usability testing,
especially many empirical studies which involve user acceptance of word processors
[13], spreadsheets [14], e-mail [15], voice mail [16], and telemedicine technology [17].
Also, there are some usability principles (speaking the users’ language, consistency,
19
minimization of the user’s memory load, flexibility and efficiency of use, aesthetic and
minimalist design, chunking, progressive levels of detail, navigational feedback, etc.) and
usability testing criteria (use understandable graphics and terms, displays are easy to read,
and information is easy to find).
These years, some derivational technology acceptance models, which are related to
mobile devices and applications, have been studied. The Mobile Phone Technology
Adoption Model (MOPTAM) [18] focused factors influencing mobile phone employ
such as sociology, computer-supported cooperative work, and human-computer
interaction. The Senior Technology Acceptance& Adoption Model (STAM) for mobile
technology [19] (as shown in Figure 4), integrated the study on TAM for senior users
[20].
20
Figure 2-4 Senior Technology Acceptance & Adoption Model (STAM).
Based on former research, Renaud and van Biljon [19] proposed the Senior
Technology Acceptance & Adoption Model (STAM) in 2008. As shown in Figure 3, this
model contained several components, e.g., user context, perceived usefulness, intention to
use, experimentation and exploration, ease of learning and use, confirmed usefulness, and
actual use. According to former features, acceptance or rejection will be determined by
ease of learning and use, or actual use. This model related technology acceptance factors
to adoption stages, and explained the reason that why many older people failed to fully
accept the new technology. However, STAM is useful for other demographic groups.
21
CHAPTER 3. HYPOTHESES
The objectives for this research are (1) to analyze TAM measures (PU/PEU) for
each application, (2) to analyze the effect of training on TAM measures, (3) to evaluate
usability characteristics and determine if there is any relation between Usability
characteristics and PU/PEU, and (4) to provide recommendations on application design
for different age groups for mobile designers and providers. Differences between older
and younger adults’ usability of mobile applications are studied, and recommendations of
different mobile applications are given. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is
used as a theoretical construct in this research. Three hypotheses are tested in this
research:
Hypothesis 1: Training will increase TAM measures.
Hypothesis 2: Age and type of application are factors of TAM measures and usability.
Hypothesis 3: Usability characteristics will enhance user preference for mobile
applications.
Hypothesis 4: Participants will prefer to use mobile applications which have higher level
of PU, PEU, and usability.

22
CHAPTER 4. METHODS
4.1. Participants
Seventeen older adults (older than 50 years of age) and twenty younger adults
(between 18 and 30 years of age) were recruited from the local community, e.g., Ohio
University (Athens and Lancaster), a local hospital (O’Bleness, Holzer Clinic), the
Athens Village, the Senior Center, and local civic organization in general.
All participants were required to own smart phones (iPhone) or similar devices
(iPod touch), or have experience using smart phones. All participants should be able to
use computers and smart phones. All participants were paid $25 for the whole
experiment, including survey and test.
4.2. Environment
All the experiments were hold in Ohio University facility and public location, e.g.,
Human Factors and Ergonomics Lab and Alden Library in Ohio University, and the
Athens County Senior Center. The noise, light, and temperature were controllable. All
devices used school or public Wi-Fi with same loading speed.
4.3. Devices
All participants used smart phones (iPhone), or similar devices (iPod touch). All
smart phones were able to connect Wi-Fi.
4.4. Procedure
All participants were recruited from the local community and participated on an
informed consent basis before all experimental sessions. All participants were tested in
small groups or individually. All participants had completed a demographic survey and
23
questionnaire (Appendix 1) before all experiment session. One experimental session,
which included five parts, was proposed. The whole lab session took approximately two
hours. Timeline of the experimental session is shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4-1 Experimental Session Schedule
Session Part Session Time (min)
IRB Completion 10
Baseline Survey 10
First Testing 30
Training 20
Practicing 20
Second Testing 40
Completion of Forms and Payment 10
Total 130
4.4.1. Baseline Survey
In computer lab, all participants were given an initial introduction of smart phones
and different mobile applications. First, they were required to finish a survey and
questionnaire (Appendix 2) to evaluate the applications they used most frequently on
their smart phone.
Participants were required to download four applications on their smart phones.
These applications were:
APP 1 Kroger Co.;

24
APP 2 KAYAK;
APP 3 Frugal Flyer;
APP 4 FOX2 Weather.
4.4.2. First Testing
All participants completed two tasks using each application which was
downloaded on their smart phones, and they were allowed to spend 5 minutes on each
application.
APP 1: Kroger Co.
1. Find a Kroger store near you.
2. Find a dairy product on sale this week.
APP 2: KAYAK
1. Find a hotel near you and the lowest price for one room tonight.
2. Find a one-way flight from CMH to SFO this weekend and the lowest price.
APP 3: Frugal Flyer
1. Find a hotel in Athens and the lowest price for one room tonight.
2. Find a one-way flight from CMH to SFO this weekend and the lowest price.
APP 4: FOX2 Weather
1. Find tomorrow’s weather condition in Athens.
2. Find the weather condition of next Tuesday in Athens.
After participants completed the two tasks for each application, they were asked to
complete a survey to evaluate each mobile application based on modified PU and PEU
Scales, which is shown in Appendix 2.

25
4.4.3. Training
After participants completed the evaluations, a training session was given by the
instructor on how to use these mobile applications on their smart phones. For the needs of
customers, a brief introduction and training for each mobile application was done. In
order to guide the participants to use the mobile applications and perform certain tasks,
the training included introduction of the functions for each application and a
demonstration of certain task on each application. The training included:
1. Explanation of what the application is and why use it could be used;
2. Details of the functions of the application;
3. How to use the application;
4. A demonstration of performing a task on the application;
5. Recommendations for using the application.
The training session took approximately 20 minutes.
4.4.4. Practice
To accept the new technology and learn how to use it, participants were given 20
minutes to practice and perform different tasks on these applications.
APP 1 Kroger Co.;
APP 2 KAYAK;
APP 3 Frugal Flyer;
APP 4 FOX2 Weather.

26
4.4.5. Second Testing
After training and practicing on these applications, all participants were required to
finish two different tasks on each application. They were allowed to have 5 minutes on
each application. The following tasks in different order which in first test were given:
APP 4: FOX2 Weather
1. Will it rain in the next six hours in Athens?
2. How about the weather condition in New York City next Tuesday?
APP 3: Frugal Flyer
1. For this weekend, find an available car in CMH and its rental price.
2. For your summer vacation, find the price for a round-trip to NYC in July (from
CMH).
APP 2: KAYAK
1. For this weekend, find an available car in CMH and its rental price.
2. For you summer vacation, find the price for a round-trip to NYC in July (from
CMH).
APP 1: Kroger Co.
1. Find a coupon for Health and Pharmacy.
2. Change another store in Columbus (OH) and write down its address.
When participants completed the two tasks for each application, they completed a
survey to evaluate each mobile application based on modified PU and PEU Scales again,
which is shown in Appendix 2.

27
Then, the participants were asked to fill out a usability characteristics checklist
(Appendix 3) for each mobile application they used during the experiment. This usability
characteristics checklist (Appendix 3) includes twelve questions related to the four
measurable attributes of usability: understandability (Question 1, 2, 3, 7), learnability
(Question 1, 2, 4), operability (Question 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), and attractiveness (Question 10,
11, 12). It is based on a heuristic evaluation checklist for systems (Pierotti, 2007) [25].
The four measurable attributes of usability, which are described as a metric of quality
characteristics including their sub-characteristics, are shown in Figure 5 [24].
Figure 4-1 Metrics mapped according to usability characteristic.
When participants finished all experimental sessions, they were paid $25 per
person.
28
4.5. Analysis Method
Four hypotheses were tested in this experiment, and all of the four hypotheses
utilized the TAM measures (PU and PEU). Sum TAM scores were used in the analyses.
Hypothesis 1: Training will increase TAM measures.
To test this hypothesis, paired t-test was used to compare the difference of TAM
measures before and after training overall and by age groups. Meanwhile, two-sample t-
test was used to set a baseline and measure the increase of TAM measures for each age
group overall and by applications.
Hypothesis 2: Age and type of application are factors of TAM measures and usability.
To test this hypothesis, a two-way GLM (General Linear Model) was used.
Hypothesis 3: Usability characteristics will enhance user preference for mobile
applications.
To test this hypothesis, we conducted a stepwise regression with all the usability
characteristics as independent variables and user preference as the dependent variable.
Hypothesis 4: Participants will prefer to use mobile applications which have higher level
of PU, PEU, and usability.
To test this hypothesis, stepwise regression analysis was used to determine if PU,
PEU, and usability were predictive of user preference for mobile applications. They were
done together and by age groups.

29
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS
5.1. Demographics
Thirty-seven participants were recruited from local community. Twenty
participants were in the younger group (18-30 years old), and seventeen participants were
in the older group (50+ old). All participants owned smart phones (iPhone) or similar
devices (iPod touch), or had experience in using smart phones. Their education level
ranged from associate degree (some college or no college) to PhD or equivalent degree.
All participants completed a demographic survey and questionnaire before the
experiment. The questionnaire included participants’ experience of using smart phones or
similar devices (iPod), number of mobile applications that were downloaded on their
devices, and the total hours per week they spent on the mobile applications. Table 5-1
and Table 5-2 list the descriptive data of demographics and questionnaire.
Table 5-1 Demographics of younger group
Variable Mean Std. Dev Range
Age (years) 24.55 3.502 19 – 30
Years of using smart phones 1.175 0.974 0.1 – 4
Number of downloaded 54.80 44.44 4 – 200

mobile applications
Hours per week on mobile 11.18 8.79 1 – 35
applications
Male Female
Gender
11 9
30
Table 5-2 Demographics of older group
Variable Mean Std. Dev Range
Age (years) 63.06 9.85 50 – 87
Years of using smart phones 1.25 1.91 0–7
Number of downloaded
11.71 11.42 0 – 35
mobile applications
Hours per week on mobile
4.44 4.13 0 – 15
applications
Male Female
Gender
7 10
5.2. Hypothesis 1: Training will increase TAM measures.
To test this hypothesis, a paired t-test was used to compare the difference of TAM
measures before and after training overall and by age groups. Meanwhile, two-sample t-
test was used to set a baseline and measure the increase of TAM measures for each age
group overall and by applications.
5.2.1 Baseline for different age groups
To determine the baseline of the performance for different age groups, there was a
testing session before training and practice session. During the first testing session, all
participants were required to complete two tasks on four mobile applications, and none of
them had used these applications before the test. First, all mobile applications were
grouped and two-sample t-tests were run (see Table 5-3) to determine if baseline scores
were different between age groups. These did not lead to significant results (PU: p-value
31
= 0.742; PEU: p-value = 0.161). To determine if there are directional differences between
applications, bar charts were drawn by applications for each age group (before and after
training). See Figure 5-1 and 5-2. For all the results, statistically significant results were
those having a p-value < 0.05.
Table 5-3 Baseline of TAM measures for different age groups
PU PEU
Age Group
Mean SD Mean SD
Younger 26.9 11.1 30.4 11.5
Older 27.44 9.76 28.12 8.49

32
Chart of Mean PU
40
30
Mean of PU
20
10
0
AGE er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er
u ngOld ungOld u ngOld u ngOld u ngOld ungOld u ngOld u ngOld
Yo Yo Yo Yo Yo Yo Yo Yo
Session 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
App 1 2 3 4
Figure 5-1 Bar Charts of PU for age groups by apps before training (session 1) and after
training (session 2)
33
Chart of Mean PEU
40
30
Mean of PEU
20
10
0
AGE er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er er
u ngOld ungOld u ngOld u ngOld u ngOld ungOld u ngOld u ngOld
Yo Yo Yo Yo Yo Yo Yo Yo
Session 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
App 1 2 3 4
Figure 5-2 Bar Charts of PEU for age groups by apps before training (session 1) and after
training (session 2).
In Figure 5-1 and 5-2, the data indicated that directional differences between
younger and older groups were not constant between applications. Therefore, t-tests were
run (with unequal variances) for each application by age groups and their p-values are
shown in Table 5-4.

34
Table 5-4 P-Value for TAM measures by apps

before training (session 1) and after training (session 2)
Application
TAM Session
1 2 3 4
1 0.719 0.944 0.074 0.108

PU
2 0.979 0.707 0.048 0.533
1 0.994 1.000 0.054 0.288

PEU
2 0.999 1.000 0.036 0.847
In Table 5-4, significant results of p-values were bold. Results indicated that
TAM measures were different for Application 3 (Frugal Flyer) by age groups, but not for
the other ones.
5.2.2 Paired t-test
The experiment included one training session given between two test sessions.
During the training session, the instructor gave participants an introduction for each
mobile application, which included a brief introduction of the functions for each
application and a demonstration of certain tasks on each application. All participants
were allowed to practice different tasks on the four mobile applications. The training and
practice took 40 minutes in total. To analyze the effect of training on TAM measures, bar
charts of the sum scores of PEU and PU for different mobile applications (before
training, session 1, and after training, session 2) are drawn for all participants (see Figure
5-3 and 5-4). Then, a paired t-test was conducted (see Table 5-5).
35
Chart of Sum( PU )
1400
1200
1000
Sum of PU
800
600
400
200
0
Session 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
App 1 2 3 4
Figure 5-3 Bar Charts of PU by apps for all participants before training (session 1) and
after training (session 2).
36
Chart of Sum( PEU )

1400
1200
1000
Sum of PEU
800
600
400
200
0
Session 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
App 1 2 3 4
Figure 5-4 Bar Charts of PEU by apps for all participants before training (session 1) and
37
Table 5-5 Paired t-tests of PU/PEU for all participants

Session N Mean SD SE Mean T-Value P-Value
PU_1 148 27.135 10.481 0.862
PU_2 148 32.878 8.657 0.712

-8.72 0.000
Difference 148 -5.743 8.016 0.659
95% upper bound

-4.653
for Mean Difference
PEU_1 148 29.372 10.254 0.843
PEU_2 148 33.743 8.836 0.726

-7.03 0.000
Difference 148 -4.372 7.568 0.622
95% upper bound

-3.342
for Mean Difference
In Figure 5-3 and 5-4, results indicated that TAM measures had increased after
training. Quantitative results from Table 5-5 shows TAM measures had significant
differences after training.
To determine if training had the same effect on TAM measures for different age
groups, bar charts and paired t-tests were done by age groups. For the younger group, bar
charts of TAM measures and the results of paired t-tests are shown in Figure 5-5 and 5-6,
and Table 5-6. Results indicated that training had a significant effect on increasing TAM
measures.
38
Chart of Sum( PU )
800
700
600
500
Sum of PU
400
300
200
100
0
Session 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
App 1 2 3 4
Figure 5-5 Bar Charts of PU by apps for younger group before training (session 1) and
39
Chart of Sum( PEU )

900
800
700
600
Sum of PEU
500
400
300
200
100
0
Session 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
App 1 2 3 4
Figure 5-6 Bar Charts of PEU by apps for younger group before training (session 1) and
40
Table 5-6 Paired t-tests of PU/PEU for younger group

PU_1 80 26.88 11.11 1.24
PU_2 80 32.80 9.17 1.03
Difference -6.98 0.000

80 -5.925 7.589 0.848
95% upper bound for

-4.513
Mean Difference
PEU_1 80 30.44 11.49 1.28
PEU_2 80 34.84 9.58 1.07

80 -4.400 7.336 0.820
95% upper bound for

-3.305
Mean Difference
For the older group, bar charts of TAM measures and results of paired t-tests are
shown in Figure 5-7 and 5-8, and Table 5-7. Results indicated that training had a
significant effect on increasing TAM measures.

41
Chart of Sum( PU )
600
500
400
Sum of PU
300
200
100
0
Session 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
App 1 2 3 4
Figure 5-7 Bar Charts of PU by apps for older group before training (session 1) and after
training (session 2).
42
Chart of Sum( PEU )
600
500
400
Sum of PEU
300
200
100
0
Session 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
App 1 2 3 4
Figure 5-8 Bar Charts of PEU by apps for older group before training (session 1) and
43
Table 5-7 Paired t-tests of PU/PEU for older group

PU_1 68 27.44 9.76 1.18
PU_2 68 32.97 8.08 0.98

68 -5.53 8.54 1.04
95% upper bound

-3.80
for Mean Difference
PEU_1 68 28.12 8.49 1.03
PEU_2 68 32.46 7.74 0.94

68 -4.338 7.887 0.956
95% upper bound

-2.743
for Mean Difference
The results show that there is significant increase of TAM measures after training
overall, both younger group and older group. This indicates that even a small amount of
training created an improvement in perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.
5.3. Hypothesis 2: Age and type of application are factors of TAM measures and
usability.
To test this hypothesis, a two-way GLM (General Linear Model) was used.
During the experiment, four mobile applications in different categories (e.g.,
shopping, travel, weather) were chosen. Each mobile application has different usability
44
characteristics, and different usability characteristics are hypothesized to differently
influence PU and PEU. For different age groups, participants had different response for
the same mobile application. To analyze the different response between age groups and
mobile applications, the general linear model and interaction plots were done for
usability, PU, and PEU for session 2 (before and after training). Residual plots for TAM
measures and usability were done, and results indicated that the residual appeared to be
normally distributed.
5.3.1. ANOVA of mobile application usability
An Analysis of variance for mobile application usability was done after training.
Table 5-8 shows the results for this analysis.
Table 5-8 ANOVA for usability of four mobile applications
Sum of Mean
Source DF F P
Square (adj) Square
Application 3 7350.8 2450.3 18.50 0.000
Age 1 1260.4 1260.4 9.52 0.002
Application*Age 3 2583.6 861.2 6.50 0.000
Error 140 18542.3 132.4
Total 147
R-Sq (adj) 36.18%

45
Results from Table 5-8 indicated that there were significant main effects as well
as interaction effects (at p<0.05 for age, application, and age * application). Post-Hoc
Tukey tests indicated at 95% confidence that mean scores of usability characteristics
were significantly different between age groups. For four mobile applications, application
1 (Kroger) and 2 (KAYAK) were not different, but they were different from application 3
(Frugal Flyer) and 4 (FOX2 Weather). Application 3 and 4 were different from each
other. An interaction plot of usability scores for different applications by age groups is
shown in Figure 5-9.
Interaction Plot for Usability

Data Means
75 App2
1
2
70 3
4
65
Mean
60
55
50
45
1 2
AGE
Figure 5-9 Interaction Plot of Usability for four applications by age groups.
46
From the interaction plot of usability in Figure 5-9, younger and older participants
had different response of usability on each application. Younger participants had
evaluated Application 1(Kroger), 2 (KAYAK), and 4 (FOX2 Weather) with a higher
level on usability scores than older participants. For Application 3 (Frugal Flyer), older
participants gave a higher score on mobile application usability. For all the mobile
applications, younger and older participants had ranked Application 3 and 4 on usability
scores in the same way; even both of Application 1 and 2 had higher level of usability
than Application 3 and 4, younger and older participants had evaluated them in different
way: younger participants rated Application 2 a higher score on usability than
Application 2, but older participants rated them contrary.
5.3.2. ANOVA of PU
Analysis of variance was run for perceived usefulness both before and after
training. Table 5-9 and 5-10 show the analysis of PU for four mobile applications before
and after training.

47
Table 5-9 ANOVA for PU of four mobile applications before training
Sum of Mean
Source DF F P
Square (adj) Square
Application 3 3185.20 1061.73 12.18 0.000
Age 1 11.78 11.78 0.14 0.714
Application*Age 3 604.99 201.66 2.31 0.079
Error 140 12200.69 87.15
Total 147
R-Sq (adj) 24.45%
Table 5-10 ANOVA for PU of four mobile applications after training
Sum of Mean
Source DF F P
Square (adj) Square
Application 3 2299.08 766.36 13.36 0.000
Age 1 1.07 1.07 0.02 0.892
Application*Age 3 500.38 166.79 2.91 0.037
Error 140 8029.74 57.36
Total 147
R-Sq (adj) 23.48%
From Table 5-9 and 5-10, results for PU scores indicated although age was not a
significant factor, application was a significant factor both before and after training, and
the age * application was marginally significant before training and was a significant
48
interaction factor after training. Post-Hoc Tukey tests indicated at 95% confidence that
mean scores of usability characteristics were not significantly different between age
groups. For four mobile applications, only application 3 (Frugal Flyer) had different
results of PU from other applications at both time points. An interaction plot of PU scores
after training for different applications by age groups is shown in Figure 5-10.
Interaction Plot for PU

Data Means
40 App2
1
2
3
4
35
Mean
30
25
1 2
AGE
Figure 5-10 Interaction Plot of PU for four applications by age groups.
From the interaction plot of PU in Figure 5-10, younger and older participants had
different response of PU on each application. Younger participants had evaluated
Application 1(Kroger), 2 (KAYAK), and 4 (FOX2 Weather) with a higher level on PU
scores than older participant, as same as usability interaction plot. For Application 3
49
(Frugal Flyer), older participants gave a higher score on PU. For all the mobile
applications, younger and older participants had ranked Application 2 and 3 on PU scores
in the same order; but for Application 1 and 4, younger and older participants ranked
them in different orders: younger participants rated Application 1 a higher score on PU
than Application 4, but older participants rated them contrary.
5.3.3. ANOVA of PEU
Analysis of variance was run for Perceived Ease of Use both before and after
training. Table 5-11 and 5-12 shows the ANOVA of PEU for four mobile applications
before and after training.
Table 5-10 ANOVA for PEU of four mobile applications before training
Sum of Mean
Source DF F P
Square (adj) Square
Application 3 3587.49 1195.83 16.53 0.000
Age 1 197.81 197.81 2.73 0.100
Application*Age 3 1248.46 416.15 5.75 0.001
Error 140 10127.61 72.34
Total 147
R-Sq (adj) 34.48%

50
Table 5-11 ANOVA for PEU of four mobile applications after training
Sum of Mean
Source DF F P
Square (adj) Square
Application 3 3177.74 1059.25 22.16 0.000
Age 1 208.49 208.49 4.36 0.039
Application*Age 3 1084.36 361.45 7.56 0.000
Error 140 6691.26 47.79
Total 147
R-Sq (adj) 38.78%
From Table 5-11 and 5-12, results for PEU scores indicated although age was not
significant, application and the interaction factor (age * application) were significant
before training, and all main factors and the interaction factor were significant after
training (at p<0.05 level). Post-Hoc Tukey tests indicated at 95% confidence that mean
scores of usability characteristics were significant different between age groups. For four
mobile applications, only application 3 (Frugal Flyer) had different results of PU from
other applications at both time points. An interaction plot of PEU scores after training for
different applications by age groups is shown in Figure 5-11.

51
Interaction Plot for PEU

Data Means
App2
40
1
2
3
4
35
Mean
30
25
20
1 2
AGE
Figure 5-11 Interaction Plot of PEU for four applications by age groups.
From the interaction plot of PEU in Figure 5-11, younger and older participants
had a different response for PEU on each application. Younger participants had evaluated
Application 1(Kroger), 2 (KAYAK), and 4 (FOX2 Weather) with a higher level on PEU
scores than older participants, and as the same for usability and PU in the interaction
plots. For Application 3 (Frugal Flyer), older participants gave a higher score on PEU.
Even both of younger and older groups evaluated Application 1, 2, and 4 with a higher
level on PEU, they ranked their PEU in different ways: younger participants rated
Application 2 a highest score on PEU, and Application 1 was obtained a very close PEU
score; but older participants rated Application 4 a highest score on PEU.

52
From the results, we found that age, application, and age * application were
significant factors of TAM measures and usability.
5.4. Hypothesis 3: Usability characteristics will enhance user preference for mobile
applications.
To test this hypothesis, we conducted a stepwise regression with all the usability
characteristics as independent variables and user preference as the dependent variable.
The different mobile applications had different usability characteristics (e.g., font
size, function keys, scrolling menu). All characteristics reflected one or more aspects of
system usability (e.g., understandability, learnability, operability, and attractiveness), and
these aspects of usability can affect users’ preference on each application. In the usability
characteristics checklist (see Appendix 3), there are 11 questions which related to four
aspects of system usability. All participants were required to evaluate them in a score
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Stepwise regression analyses were
done for all usability characteristics for each mobile application that was tested during the
experiment. Analyses were done separately for each age group.
5.4.1. Regression Analysis for Usability Characteristics for Younger Group
Results of the stepwise regression analysis of usability characteristics for younger
group are shown in Equation (1). The Minitab default levels of significance were used for
these analyses. The analysis is shown in Equation (1) below:
Regression Analysis Equation (1):

Preference = – 0.392 + 0.400 (3) + 0.335 (2) + 0.206 (1) + 0.110 (10)
R-Sq = 65.3%
53
R-Sq (adj) = 63.5%
P-Value = 0.000
Where:
(3) – logical menu choices and function keys;
(2) – prevent user to make errors;
(1) – font size is large enough;
(10) – less steps to accomplish task, complexity.
For the younger group, the most significant usability characteristics were 3
(logical menu choices and function keys), 2 (prevent user to make errors), 1 (font size is
large enough), and 10 (less steps to accomplish task, complexity). Regression analysis
results usability characteristics for the younger group are shown in Table 5-13 and 5-14.
Table 5-12 ANOVA of Regression Analysis of Usability Characteristics for Younger

Group
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 4 202.158 50.539 35.30 0.000
Residual Error 75 107.392 1.432
Total 79 309.550
54
Table 5-13 Coefficients Table of Regression Analysis for Younger Group
Predictor Coefficient SE Coefficient T-Value P-Value
Constant – 0.3915 0.6077 – 0.64 0.521
3 0.3997 0.1301 3.07 0.003
2 0.3553 0.1214 2.93 0.005
1 0.2061 0.1225 1.68 0.097
10 0.1096 0.0743 1.47 0.145
5.4.2. Regression Analysis for Usability Characteristics for Older Group
Result of stepwise regression analysis of usability characteristics for younger
group is shown in Equation (2).
Preference = – 0.383 + 0.483 (9) – 0.346 (1) + 0.522 (7) + 0.349 (4)
R-Sq = 58.4%
R-Sq (adj) = 55.8%
P-Value = 0.000
Where:
(9) – appropriate number of function keys;
(1) – font size is large enough;
(7) – prompts and cues;
(4) – scrolling menu is easy to use.

55
For the older group, the most significant usability characteristics were 9
(appropriate number of function keys), 1 (font size is large enough), 7 (prompts and
cues), and 4 (scrolling menu). Results for this regression analysis are shown in Table 5-
15 and 5-16.
Table 5-14 ANOVA of Regression Analysis for Usability Characteristics of Older Group
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 4 120.907 30.227 22.13 0.000
Total 67 206.941
Table 5-15 Coefficients Table of Regression Analysis for Older Group
Predictor Coefficient SE Coefficient T-Value P-Value
Constant – 0.3832 0.8102 – 0.47 0.638
9 0.4831 0.1423 3.40 0.001
1 – 0.3465 0.0731 – 4.74 0.000
7 0.5220 0.1554 3.36 0.001
4 0.3494 0.1610 2.17 0.034
From the results of regression analysis of usability characteristics, usability
characteristics that have a significant effect on users’ preference and TAM measures
(PU/PEU) can be determined. According to regression analysis shown in Equation (1),

56
there were five usability characteristics that significantly predicted overall users’
preference: scrolling menu is easy to use; appropriate number of function keys; prevent
user to make errors; font size is large enough; prompts and cues.
For the younger group, from regression analysis Equation (2), there are four
usability characteristics that significantly predicted users’ preference: logical menu
choices and function keys; prevent user to make errors; font size is large enough; and less
steps to accomplish task, complexity. For the older group, from regression analysis
Equation (2), there are four usability characteristics that significantly predicted users’
preference: appropriate number of function keys; font size is large enough; prompts and
cues; scrolling menu is easy to use.
5.5. Hypothesis 4: Participants will prefer to use mobile applications which have
higher level of PU, PEU, and usability.
To test this hypothesis, we summed the usability score (overall and by category)
and used a stepwise regression analysis to determine the relation between usability
characteristics and user preference. These usability characteristics are listed in Appendix
3.
At the end of the experiment, all participants chose their preference for each
mobile application in the usability checklist, on a scale with scores from 1(strongly
dislike) to 7 (strongly like). To determine the relationship between preference and
different TAM measures or usability characteristics, stepwise regression analyses were
done for each age group and each application. To verify the correctness of the equation,
57
we split the overall data (both younger and older groups) into two samples, and applied
regression analysis for each data sample.
5.5.1. Overall Regression Analysis
The regression equation for the combined dataset is shown in Equation (3) below:
Preference = -1.000 + 0.109 PU + 0.0450 Usability
R-Sq = 59.33%
R-Sq(adj) = 58.76%
P-Value = 0.000
Table 5-17 shows the results of ANOVA for overall regression analysis.
Table 5-167 ANOVA of Overall Regression Analysis
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 308.31 154.16 105.74 0.000
Total 147 519.70
For split sample 1, Regression Analysis Equation (4):
Preference = -0.1547 + 0.0489 Usability + 0.079 PU
R-Sq = 55.63%
R-Sq(adj) = 54.41%
P-Value = 0.000
For split sample 2, Regression Analysis Equation (5):

58
Preference = -2.0368 + 0.143 PU + 0.043 Usability
R-Sq = 65.89%
R-Sq(adj) = 64.90%
P-Value = 0.002
The equation was validated through the splitting technique. Based on the results
from the regression analysis for all participants on four mobile applications, users’
preferences on these applications are related to PU and usability, which means that users
prefer to use certain mobile applications with higher level of usefulness and usability
characteristics.
5.5.2. Regression Analysis for Younger Group
In addition to the analysis on the complete data set, stepwise regression was run
for the younger and older groups. These analyses are shown below in Equation (6):
Preference = -1.720 + 0.0771 Usability + 0.062 PU
R-Sq = 71.29%
R-Sq(adj) = 70.54%
P-Value = 0.002
Table 5-18 shows the results of ANOVA for younger group regression analysis.
59
Table 5-17 ANOVA of Regression Analysis for Younger Group
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 220.67 110.33 95.58 0.000
Total 79 309.55
5.5.3. Regression Analysis for Older Group
We also ran this analysis just for the older group. This regression equation is
shown below in Equation (7):
Preference = -0.2395 + 0.119 PU + 0.055 PEU
R-Sq = 53.62%
R-Sq(adj) = 52.19%
P-Value = 0.036
Table 5-19 shows the results of ANOVA for older group regression analysis.
60
Table 5-18 ANOVA of Regression Analysis for Older Group
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 110.958 55.479 37.57 0.000
Total 67 206.941
For the younger group, users’ preferences were related to both usability
characteristics and TAM measures. For the older group, users’ preferences were related
to TAM measures (PEU/PU). The usefulness and ease of use for mobile applications
have an important influence on users’ preference for older customers.
From the regression analysis equations (3), (6), (7), participants preferred to use
mobile applications that have higher level of PU and usability and the equations were
validated for the entire group. There is a same conclusion with younger group; for the
older group, higher levels of PU and PEU led to higher scores for customer preference.
61
CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
6.1. Conclusion
This research has utilized a modified Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to
evaluate mobile applications. According to the experimental results, training has
significant effect on the increase of TAM measures; mobile applications that have higher
sum usability scores have higher level of TAM measures (PEU/PU). Also, customers
prefer to use mobile applications which have higher TAM measures. This conclusion
indicates that even highly intuitive applications can still benefit from usability research.
For different age groups, different usability characteristics influence on
customers’ preference. When designing mobile applications to satisfy customers’ needs,
designers should consider these usability characteristics for different age groups.
Younger people prefer to use mobile applications with logical menu choices and function
keys, simple design that they can complete task with fewer steps. Older people prefer the
applications with appropriate number of function keys, and scrolling menu which is easy
to use. For both of the two age groups, they think that font size should be large enough,
and appropriate prompts and cues should be included to prevent users making errors.
Also, TAM measures (PU/PEU) should be considered when designing mobile
applications. Younger people considered usability and usefulness of mobile applications
when they were using new mobile applications. Older people considered both usefulness
and ease of use when they were learning how to use new mobile applications.
62
6.2. Recommendations for Improvement for Applications Used in This Study
In this research, four mobile applications for iPhone/iPod were tested. They are in
different categories: shopping (Kroger), travel (KAYAK, Frugal Flyer), and weather
(FOX2 Weather). Each kind of mobile application has its unique function and usability
features. To satisfy customers’ need for different age groups, designers could make
several changes on these mobile applications.
For Kroger, it is a simple shopping application, and has got high level of TAM
measures (PU/PEU). If the data entry room is bigger when users typing in store address,
it is better for older people to use it.
For KAYAK, it is a travel application, and also has high level of TAM measures.
Two functions could be changed to make it easier to use. First, scrolling button could be
bigger when users choosing car pick-up time and price range. Second, certain prompts or
cues should pop out if users make a mistake which will lead a non-results search.
For Frugal Flyer, it is also an application for travel, but it got the lowest level of
TAM measures and usability scores. Several crucial disadvantages should be noticed.
Font size of this application is extreme small for both older and younger people. Too
much data should be typed in during searching. Users should choose search engine
themselves after they typed in all necessary data. It takes too many steps and is not easy
for users to get appropriate results, even if it supplies much comparative information
from companies.
For FOX2 Weather, it is a simple weather application. The background contrast is
designed nicely. But its font size is too small to be recognized. It has a long scrolling
63
menu which should make it easy to use, but there is no distinct sign to help users to find
it, which make it worse to use.
6.3. Recommendation and Future Work
In this research, all participants were recruited from local community, and only
two age groups were tested. Most of them were highly educated and had a bachelors or
above. Future work could recruit more participants from different areas with different
education background, and larger age range is necessary. More data points will enhance
the results, and age could be set as a factor of user preference on mobile applications for
future study.
This lab experiment only included one session, which had a forty minutes of
training and practice. Future work could extend experiment by adding one or two more
field sessions in one or two months after the original lab session. This would allow
participants to spend more time learning new mobile applications and having field
experience on using these applications.
Many new mobile applications are designed and published every day. The
original research only chose four applications in shopping, travel, and weather. Future
studies could choose more applications in different categories, like entertainment, health
and medical, business, education, game, navigation, social networking, and productivity.
TAM was used as a theoretical construct, and eleven items of usability
characteristics in four aspects were tested in this research. Future work could test more
usability characteristics, and use other model or testing tools to study usage of mobile
applications. Different versions and products of same mobile applications could be

64
studied and compared, for example, applications between different kinds of smart phones,
operating systems, or web vs. mobile based systems.

65
REFERENCES
[1] Mobile Application. Mobile Marketing Association, 2008, pp. 1.
[2] E. Folmer, and J. Bosch, "Architecting for usability: A survey," Journal of
Systems and Software, vol. 70, pp. 61-78, 2004.
[3] J. Heo, D-H. Hamb, S. Park, C. Song, and W.C. Yoon, "A framework for
evaluating the usability of mobile phones based on multi-level, hierarchical model
of usability factors," Interacting with Computers, vol. 21, pp. 263-275, 2009.
[4] A. Chadwick-Dias, M. McNulty, and T. Tullis, "Web usability and age: how
design changes can improve performance," ACM SIGCAPH Computers and the
Physically Handicapped, pp. 30-31-37, 2002.
[5] U.S. Administration on Aging and U.S. Bureau of the Census, A Profile of Older
Americans: 2010.
[6] G. M. Jay, and S. L. Willis, "Influence of direct computer experience on older
adults' attitudes toward computers." J. Gerontol. : Psychol. Sci., vol. 47, pp. 250-
257, 1992.
[7] K. L. Norman, "Better design of menu selection systems through cognitive
psychology and human factors," Hum. Factors, vol. 50, pp. 556-559, 2008.
[8] T. A. Salthouse, and S. J. Czaja, "Structural constraints on process explanations in
cognitive aging," Psychol. Aging, vol. 15, pp. 44-55, 2000.

66
[9] K. Sarmiento, F. A. Langlois, and J. Mitchko, ""Help seniors live better, longer:
prevent brain injury": An overview of CDC's education initiative to prevent fall-
related TBI among older adults," J. Head Trauma Rehabil., vol. 23, pp. 164-167,
2008.
[10] R. Pak, and M. M. Price, "Designing an information search interface for younger
and older adults," Hum. Factors, vol. 50, pp. 614-628, 2008.
[11] A. Holzinger, G. Searle, and A. Nischelwitzer, "On some aspects of improving
mobile applications for the elderly," Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.
4554, pp. 923-932, 2007.
[12] D. Zhang, and B. Adipat, "Challenges, methodologies, and issues in the usability
testing of mobile applications," International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, vol. 18, pp. 293-308, 2005.
[13] F. D. Davis, "Technology Acceptance Model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems theory and results," Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1986.
[14] K. Mathieson, "Predicting user intentions comparing the Technology Acceptance
Model with the theory of planned behavior," Information Systems Research, vol.
2, pp. 173-191, 1991.
[15] B. Szajna, "Empirical evaluation of the revised Technology Acceptance Model,"
Management Science, vol. 42, pp. 85-92, 1996.

67
[16] D. Straub, "Measuring system usage implications for is theory testing,"
Management Science, vol. 41, pp. 1328-1342, 1995.
[17] P. J. Hu, "Examining the Technology Acceptance Model using physician
acceptance of telemedicine technology," Journal of Management Information
Systems, vol. 16, pp. 91-112, 1999.
[18] J. v. Biljon, P. Kotze, and K. Renaud, " Modelling the Factors that Influence
Mobile Phone Adoption," the 2007 annual research conference of the South
African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT
research in developing countries, p.152-161, 2007.
[19] K. Renaud, and J. v. Biljon, "Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by
the elderly: A qualitative study," in SAICSIT '08: Proceedings of the 2008 Annual
Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and
Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries (2008), 2008,
pp. 210-219.
[20] K. Renaud, and J. Ramsay, "Now what was that password again? A more flexible
way of identifying and authenticating our seniors," Behaviour & Information
Technology, vol. 26, pp. 309-322, 2007.
[21] H. B. Duh , G. Tan , and V. H.Chen, "Usability evaluation for mobile device: a
comparison of laboratory and field tests, " the 8th conference on Human-
computer interaction with mobile devices and services, 2006, pp. 181-186.
68
[22] K. A. Siek, "Mobile Design for Older Adults, " User interface design and
evaluation for mobile technology, 2008, pp. 624-634.
[23] A. Olwal, D. Lachanas, and E. Zacharouli, " OldGen: Mobile Phone
Personalization for Older Adults, " the 2011 annual conference on Human factors
in computing systems, 2011, pp. 3393-3396.
[24] R. Gafni, "Usability issues in mobile-wireless information systems, " The Journal
of Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, vol 6.(2), 2009, pp.
755-769.
[25] D. Pierotti, "Heuristic Evaluation - A System Checklist, " Xerox Corporation,
2007, pp. 1-21.
[26] "PopCap Mobile Phone Games Presentation," Information Solutions Group, 2011.
[27] R. Longoria, " Designing mobile applications: Challenges, methodologies, and
lessons learned, " Usability evaluation and interface design: Cognitive
engineering, intelligent agents and virtual reality, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc., 2001, pp. 91-95.

69
APPENDIX 1: DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND QUESTIONNAIRE
Demographic Survey
1. What is your gender? ___ Male ___ Female
2. What is your age? ___ years
3. Highest degree you have earned
__Associate degree, some college or no college
__Bachelor
__Masters/Ph.D.,Ed.D., J.D. or equivalent
__Other
Questionnaire
1. How long do you own your smart phone?
2. How many mobile applications are downloaded on your smart phone?
3. How many hours per week you spend on your smart phone on the mobile applications?
4. List the name of the applications you used most frequently on your smart phone (up to four).
1) __________
__ Everyday __ A few times a week __A few times a month __Hardly Ever
2) ___________
3) ___________
4) ___________
5. List the amount of time spent on the following applications:

1) Kroger Co.
__ Everyday __ A few times a week __A few times a month __Never
2) KAYAK
3) Frugal Flyer
4) FOX2Weather
70
APPENDIX 2 MODIFIED PU AND PEU SCALES
Perceived Usefulness
1. Using this application in my job and/or daily required tasks would enable me to accomplish
tasks more quickly.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
2. Using this application would improve my job and/or daily required tasks performance.
3. Using this application in my job and/or daily required tasks would increase my productivity.
4. Using this application would enhance my effectiveness on the job.

5. Using this application would make it easier to do my job and/or daily required tasks.
6. I would find this application useful in my job and/or daily required tasks.
Perceived Ease of Use

1. Learning to operate this application would be easy for me.
2. I would find it easy to get this application to do what I want it to do.

3. My interaction with this application would be clear and understandable.

4. I would find this application to be flexible to interact with.

5. It would be easy for me to become skillful at using this application.

6. I would find this application easy to use.

71
APPENDIX 3 USABILITY CHARACTERISTICS CHECKLIST
For each mobile application, please check the answer which you feel best describes the
mobile application's characteristics.
1. The font size was large enough for me to use the application easily.
2. The application prevented me from making errors whenever possible.

3. Menu choices and function keys are logical.

4. The scrolling menu made it easy to use for the long menu lists.
5. On data entry screen, the application gave me enough room and unambiguous prompts to
input data.
6. The font size and background had enough contrast that it was easy for me to use.
7. The prompts, cues, and messages were brief and unambiguous.

8. The help function was visible and helpful for me to complete tasks.
9. There were enough function keys (menu and icons) to support functionality, but not so many
that scanning and finding are difficult.
10. There were too many steps to accomplish my task.

11. This application required too much working memory load to remember how to work on it.
12. I would like to use this application in the future.

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Thesis and Dissertation Services

Oh I Ou 1339700970

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Oh I Ou 1339700970

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Technology Acceptance Model for Determining the Effects of

Age, Usability, and Content on Mobile Application Usage

the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University

of the requirements for the degree

© 2012 Shijing Liu. All Rights Reserved.

This thesis titled

Technology Acceptance Model for Determining the Effects of

Age, Usability, and Content on Mobile Application Usage

has been approved for

the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering

and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by

Assistant Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering

Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

LIU, SHIJING, M.S., August 2012, Industrial and Systems Engineering

Content on Mobile Application Usage

Director of Thesis: Diana J. Schwerha

targeted design considerations for mobile applications are given.

Assistant Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering

study in Ohio University.

First and foremost, I am heartily thankful to my advisor Dr. Diana Schwerha,

like to show my gratitude to Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering for

suggestions and contributions.

Especially, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my parents for their

have always encouraged me towards excellence.

Table 4-1 Experimental Session Schedule ........................................................................ 23

Figure 2-1 Smart phone users in the United States. .......................................................... 13

With market competition and consumer need, the development of multi-function

help them preserve their life quality [22].

techniques. An appropriate usability evaluation method for mobile applications is

Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEU).

The second objective is to evaluate different usability characteristics of each application

PU/PEU. The long-term goal for this research is to provide recommendations on

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Mobile Applications Usability

2.1.1. Mobile applications

With technological development and market competition, today’s mobile phones

can be placed in several categories: calculate, entertainment, games, news, productivity,

search tools, social networking, sports, travel, utilities, and weather.

suitable for mobile applications [3].

ISO/IEC 9126-1 specifies usability by the following measurable attributes [2]:

• Understandability: The capability of the software product to enable the user to

particular tasks and conditions of use.

• Operability: The capability of the software product to enable the user to

operate and control it.

• Attractiveness: The capability of the software product to be attractive to the

user. For instance the use of colors or nature of graphical design.

2.2. Older Adults

and designers meet the needs of older customers.

2.2.1. Smart phone users

older adult market.

Figure 2-1 Smart phone users in the United States.

entertainment and daily life use.

2.2.2. Limitations of older users

can be related to cognition, physical capability, and perceptual ability.

tasks due to more detours and lost time [10].

(1) Learning time (=time to perform task)

(2) Speed of performance

(3) Error rate

(4) Retention over time

(5) Subjective satisfaction

During usability testing, these different factors should be considered. Qualitative

questionnaire or heuristic evaluation.

vision (ability to discriminate/perceive shorter wavelengths), contrast detection (ability to