An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (UMEGA)

TLDR: A unified model of e-government adoption (UMEGA) is developed and validated using data gathered from 377 respondents from seven selected cities in India, indicating that the proposed unified model outperforms all other theoretical models, explaining the highest variance on behavioral intention, acceptable levels of fit indices, and significant relationships for each of the seven hypotheses.

About: This article is published in Government Information Quarterly.The article was published on 2017-01-01 and is currently open access. It has received 376 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Context (language use).

Figures

Table 8 Model Fit Summary for the Research Model

Table 4 Respondents’ Demographic Profile

Table 1 Theories, Models, and Constructs of Individual Acceptance

Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations (SD) of Items (N=377)

Table 7 Factor Correlation Matrix

Fig. 1. Proposed UMEGA (adapted from Venkatesh et al., 2003; Rana et al. 2016; 2015a)

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (umega)" ?

In this research, nine well-known theoretical models of information technology adoption are evaluated and 29 different constructs are identified. 

Q2. What have the authors stated for future works in "An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (umega)" ?

As further research, the authors recommend a meta-synthesis of existing models to analyze the constructs. 

Q3. What are the independent constructs that positively and significantly influenced attitude?

The independent constructs performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence positively and significantly influenced attitude (H1, H2, and H3), whereas perceived risk negatively and significantly influenced attitude (H6). 

Q4. Why did the authors examine the validity of the UTAUT model without using moderators?

Due to the lack of variation in the moderator for the adoption and use context, the authors examined the validity of the model without using moderators in it. 

Q5. What is the impact of facilitating conditions on effort expectancy?

The significant impact of facilitating conditions on effort expectancy indicates that the technical support and infrastructure provided by the government to its users led to easy access to the system. 

Q6. What is the significance of perceived risk in the proposed model?

The relevance of perceived risk as an external construct and its relationship with attitude indicates the relevance of risk as an important e-government-specific variable in the proposed unified model. 

Q7. Why did Venkatesh et al. drop moderators from the proposed model?

The other reason for dropping moderators from the proposed model was primarily to present a parsimonious model that could be tested for any e-government situation, rather than depending too much on any specific context (such as age, gender, education, income, etc.), asmodels like the UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and the UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al., 2012) do. 

Q8. What was the original argument for removing attitude from the TAM in an organizational setting?

The authors made this argument for removing attitude from the TAM in an organizational setting, which was originally proposed by Davis (1989) with attitude as a mediating variable for the model. 

Q9. How many of the questionnaires were partially completed?

Further scrutiny of the questionnaires revealed that 97 of them were either partially completed or filled in a biased manner (i.e. only one option ticked throughout the questionnaire), so they were rejected from subsequent analysis.