ArticleCognitive processing2021
Tool acceptance and acceptability: insights from a real tool use activity.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A framework for identifying fertility gene targets for mammalian pest control.Molecular ecology resources · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The issue of tool adoption has been the subject of many investigations, which focus either on acceptability (evaluating intention to use, a priori) or acceptance (evaluating real tool use, a posteriori). There are many criteria in the literature explaining why a tool is accepted or rejected by users, but behavioral observations are rare. This work aims to study the relationship between acceptability and acceptance and to find out if there is a hierarchy between the criteria that lead a user to use a particular tool. We exposed participants to eight xylophones varying according to three criteria: Ease of use, Utility, and Aesthetics. We assessed acceptability and judgment of participants about xylophones with questionnaires, based on tool use observation in a video session, and after a short-term use (Experiment 1); we also measured acceptance after long-term use of five sessions during which participants learned to play xylophone (Experiment 2). The results suggested that previous exposure to the tool influenced the judgment of the user, indicating a difference between acceptability and acceptance and between observation and use of a tool. The results also indicate differences in the hierarchy of criteria. In the acceptability phase, user judgments are guided by Ease of use. However, during the acceptance phase, the Utility criterion has the greatest influence, whether in terms of tool preference, or time spent using tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34170438What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.