Research Report: Better Theory Through Measurement—Developing a Scale to Capture Consensus on Appropriation

References

• Arbuckle J.AMOS 4.0 User's Guide (1999) (SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago, IL) Google Scholar
• Asch S. E., Swanson G. E., Newcomb T. M., Hartley E. L. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Readings in Social Psychology (1952) (Holt, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bagozzi R. P., Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. (1988) 16:74–94Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bentler P. M. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psych Bull. (1990) 107:238–246Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bentler P. M., Bonnet D. G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psych. Bull. (1980) 88:588–606Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berger P. L., Luckmann T.The Social Construction of Reality (1967) (Doubleday, New York) Google Scholar
• Blalock H. M. The presidential address: Measurement and conceptualization problems-The major obstacle to integrating theory and research. Amer. Soc. Rev. (1979) 44:881–894Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bollen K. A. Sample size and Bentler and Bonnet's nonnormed fit index. Psychometrika (1986) 51:375–377Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bollen K. A.Structural Equations with Latent Variables (1989) (Wiley, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlson J. R., Zmud R. W. Channel expansion theory and the experiental nature of media richness perceptions. Acad. Management J. (1999) 42(2):153–170Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chin W. W., Marcoulides George A. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research (1998) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ) 295–336Google Scholar
• Chin W. W., Gopal A. Adoption intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs. Database for Adv. Inform. Systems (1995) 26(2 & 3):42–64Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chin W. W., Marcolin B. The holistic approach to construct validation in research: Examples of the interplay between theory and measurement. D. Compeau, ed. Inform. Systems Proc., Admin. Sci. Assoc. of Canada (1995) 16(4):33–43Google Scholar
• Chin W. W., Gopal A., Salisbury W. D. Advancing the theory of adaptive structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropriation. Inform. Systems Res. (1997) 8(4):342–367Link, Google Scholar
• Collins R.Sociological Insight: An Introduction to Non-Obvious Sociology (1992) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Davenport T. H.Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems (2000) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Davis F. D. Perceived usefulness perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Management Inform. Systems Quart. (1989) 13(3):319–339Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dennis A. R., George J. F., Jessup L. M., Nunamaker J. F., Vogel D. R. Information technology to support electronic meetings. Management Inform. Systems Quart. (1988) 12(4):591–624Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeSanctis G., Poole M. S. Capturing the complexity of advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organ. Sci. (1994) 5(2):121–147Link, Google Scholar
• Fishbein M., Ajzen I.Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research (1975) (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA) Google Scholar
• Fulk J., Schmitz J., Steinfield C. W., Fulk J., Steinfield C. A social influence model of technology use. Organizations and Communication Technology (1990) (Sage, Newbury Park, CA) 117–140Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gopal A., Bostrom R. P., Chin W. W. Applying adaptive struc-turation theory to investigate the process of group support systems use. J. Management Inform. Systems (1993) 9(3):45–69Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green S. G., Taber T. D. The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process. Organ. Behavior and Human Performance (1980) 25:97–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hu L-T., Bentler P. M., Hoyle R. H. Evaluating model fit. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications (1995) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) 76–99Google Scholar
• Huang W., Wei K. K., Watson R. T., Lim L. H., Bostrom R. Transforming a lean CMC medium into a richone: An empirical investigation in small groups. (1996) Proc. 17th Annual Internat. Conf. Inform. SystemsCleveland, OH:265–277Google Scholar
• Jasperson J., Sambamurthy V., Zmud R. W., De P., DeGross J. I. Social influence and individual IT use: Unraveling the pathways of appropriation moves. Proc. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems (1999) (Charlotte, NC)113–118Google Scholar
• Joreskog K. G., Sorbom D.LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications (1988) (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) Google Scholar
• Kanter R. M. Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. Amer. J. Sociology (1977) 82(5):965–990Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee A. S. Electronic mail as a medium for richcommunication: An empirical investigation using hermeneutic interpretation. Management Inform. Systems Quart. (1994) 18(2):143–157Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markus M. L., Benjamin R. I. The magic bullet theory in IT-enabled transformation. Sloan Management Rev. (1997) 38(2):55–68Google Scholar
• McDonald R. P., Marsh H. W. Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psych. Bull. (1990) 107(2):247–255Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer J. W., Rowan B., Powell W. W., DiMaggio P. J. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as mythand ceremony. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) 41–62Google Scholar
• Poole M. S., DeSanctis G., Fulk J., Steinfield C. Understanding the use of group decision support systems: The theory of adaptive structuration. Organizations and Communication Technology (1990) (Sage, Newbury Park, CA) 173–193Crossref, Google Scholar
• Poole M. S., DeSanctis G. Microlevel structuration in computer-supported group decision making. Human Commun. Res. (1992) 19(1):5–49Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sambamurthy V., Chin W. W. The effects of group attitudes toward GDSS designs on the decision-making performance of computer-supported groups. Decision Sci. (1994) 25(2):215–241Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sambamurthy V., Poole M. S. The effects of variations in capabilities of GDSS designs on management of cognitive conflict in groups. Inform. Systems Res. (1992) 3(3):224–251Link, Google Scholar
• Sarker S., Lee A. S. Using a case study to test the role of three key social enablers in ERP implementation. (2000) Proc. 21st Internat. Conf. Inform. SystemsBrisbane, Australia:414–425Google Scholar
• Silver M. S. Decision support systems: Directed and nondi-rected change. Inform. Systems Res. (1990) 1(1):47–70Link, Google Scholar
• Stasser G., Worchel S., Wood W., Simpson J. A. Pooling of unshared information during group discussions. Group Process and Productivity (1992) (Sage, Newbury Park, CA) 48–67Google Scholar
• Tucker L. R., Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika (1973) 38:1–10Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick K. E., Sproull L. S. Technology as equivoque: Sensemaking in new technologies. Technology and Organization (1990) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) 1–44and AssociatesGoogle Scholar
• Werts C. E., Linn R. L., Joreskog K. G. Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Ed. Psych. Measurement (1974) 34:25–33Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wheaton B., Muthen B., Alwin D., Summers G., Heise D. Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology (1977) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA) 84–136Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wheeler B. C., Mennecke B. M. The school of business policy task manual. (1992) . Working paper #92-524, Indiana UniversityGoogle Scholar
• Wheeler B. C., Valacich J. S. Facilitation, GSS, and training as sources of process restrictiveness and guidance for structured group decision making: An empirical assessment. Inform. Systems Res. (1996) 7(4):429–450Link, Google Scholar
• Wheeler B. C., Mennecke B. M., Scudder J. N. Restrictive group support systems as a source of process structure for high and low procedural order groups. Small Group Res. (1993) 24(4):504–522Crossref, Google Scholar