Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34170438›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2021

Tool acceptance and acceptability: insights from a real tool use activity.

Boris Alexandre, François Osiurak, Jordan Navarro, Emanuelle Reynaud

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Boris AlexandreLaboratoire D'Etude Des Mécanismes Cognitifs (EA 3082), Université de Lyon, Bron, France.
François OsiurakLaboratoire D'Etude Des Mécanismes Cognitifs (EA 3082), Université de Lyon, Bron, France.
Jordan NavarroLaboratoire D'Etude Des Mécanismes Cognitifs (EA 3082), Université de Lyon, Bron, France.
Emanuelle ReynaudLaboratoire D'Etude Des Mécanismes Cognitifs (EA 3082), Université de Lyon, Bron, France. emanuelle.reynaud@univ-lyon2.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5433-0975

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR-14-CE30-0015-01
6 · The paper itself

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

Tool Use BehaviorHumansIntentionLearningSurveys and QuestionnairesAcceptabilityAcceptanceTechnologyTool behavior

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.