Workers’ Acceptance of Digital Procedures: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model

References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alper, S. J., Holden, R. J., Scanlon, M. C., Kaushal, R., Shalaby, T. M., & Karsh, B. T. (2007). Using the technology acceptance model to predict violations in the medication use process. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 51(11), 745–749. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120705101130
   Google Scholar
• Alper, S. J., & Karsh, B. T. (2009). A systematic review of safety violations in industry. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 41(4), 739–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amyotte, P. R., Goraya, A. U., Hendershot, D. C., & Khan, F. I. (2007). Incorporation of inherent safety principles in process safety management. Process Safety Progress, 26(4), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.10217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashraf, A. M., Son, C., Peres, S. C., & Sasangohar, F. (2021, September). Navigating operating procedures in everyday work in a petrochemical facility: A comparative analysis of WAI and WAD. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 623–627). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Ashraf, A. M., Peres, S. C., & Sasangohar, F. (2022, September). Investigating a new classification to describe the differences between Work-As-Imagined and Work-As-Done. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 1805–1808). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Bullemer, P., & Laberge, J. C. (2010). Common operations failure modes in the process industries. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 23(6), 928–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2010.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carim, G. C., Jr, Saurin, T. A., Havinga, J., Rae, A., Dekker, S. W., & Henriqson, É. (2016). Using a procedure doesn’t mean following it: A cognitive systems approach to how a cockpit manages emergencies. Safety Science, 89, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. (2017). ExxonMobil Torrance Refinery Electrostatic Precipitator Explosion, 1–73. https://www.csb.gov/exxonmobil-refinery-explosion-/
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• CSB. (2016). Investigation report: Explosion and fire at the Macondo well. Volume 2, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [Doctoral Thesis]. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dekker, S. (2003). Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures and safety. Applied Ergonomics, 34(3), 233–238.
   Google Scholar
• Dou, K., Yu, P., Deng, N., Liu, F., Guan, Y., Li, Z., Ji, Y., Du, N., Lu, X., & Duan, H. (2017). Patients’ acceptance of smartphone health technology for chronic disease management: A theoretical model and empirical test. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 5(12), e7886. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.7886
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Hale, A., & Borys, D. (2013). Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: A state of the art review. Safety Science, 55, 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendricks, J. W., & Peres, S. C. (2021). Beyond human error: An empirical study of the safety Model 1 and Model 2 approaches for predicting workers’ behaviors and outcomes with procedures. Safety Science, 134, 105016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollnagel, E. (2018). Safety-I and safety-II: The past and future of safety management. CRC press.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, X., Casey, T., & Griffin, M. (2020). You can have your cake and eat it too: Embracing paradox of safety as source of progress in safety science. Safety Science, 130, 104824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulp, L., Sarcevic, A., Farneth, R., Ahmed, O., Mai, D., Marsic, I., & Burd, R. S. (2017). Exploring design opportunities for a context-adaptive medical checklist through technology probe approach. 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064715
   Google Scholar
• Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendoza, A. M., Liu, S. N. C., Dumlao, S. V., Hendricks, J. W., Son, C., Sasangohar, F., & Peres, S. C. (2020). Where two ends meet: Operator and stakeholder perceptions of procedures. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 64(1), 1350–1354. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641322
   Google Scholar
• Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001
   Google Scholar
• Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Structural equation models with observed variables: Path analysis. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanations and Prediction, 3rd ed. Belmont, Calif, Wadsworth, 765–840.
   Google Scholar
• Van Der Laan, J. D., Heino, A., & De Waard, D. (1997). A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-090X(96)00025-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar