Notes from CROW 4/19

  CROW 4/19/18 Notes

    Start Up:  Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989; 13(3):319-40

·         Seminal paper in technology acceptance model (TAM)

  o     Purpose: Create a valid measurement for acceptance of computers

  o   Perceived usefulness/ease of use associated with anticipated usage?   

   ·         Cited over 38,000 times.

   ·         Definitions

   ·         Usefulness

  o   Does the technology benefit your work?

   ·         Ease of use 

  o   “…free of effort”

·          Validity

  o   Does the instrument reflect the construct

§  In this case the constructs are usefulness & ease of use

   ·          Discussion/review on precision, accuracy, validity: visualized on the white board

  o   Measures can be

§  Not precise or accurate (valid)

§  Precise but not accurate (or valid)

§  Valid but suffering from lack of precision (still accurate)

·         Perhaps increase sample size or improve measurement

§  Valid with good precision and accuracy

   ·         Discussion on types of validity with the group

  o   Face validity

§  The degree to which a procedure appears effective in …

·         Astrology: Not so much.

  o   Construct validity

§  Does the instrument what we want it to measure?

·         Does BMI measure obesity? Decently.

  o   Convergent validity

§  Measuring same thing with different devices/tools and you get the same/more precise answer

·         Measure height with yardstick, then laser then … All going to converge to my height

·         If they don’t converge then at least one device/tool is wrong

  o   Divergent validity

§  Tests that the measurements that are not supposed to be related are actually unrelated.

  o   Factorial validity

§  Factor analysis on all items/questions

·         A question asked 5 different ways will all be grouped by factor analysis

·         A way to shorten survey

o   Gain: time, less annoying, increase response/decrease missingness

o   Lose: precision within subject (power in study)

  o          Criterion validity

§  Gold standard, benchmark

§  But what if there is no criterion validity? What if there is no prior measurement of usefulness and ease of use of technology?

·         You create it! Become the gold standard

·         The meter

·         Temperature

·         PIP example-> how well do primary care offices get behavioral health delivered?

·         Kairn auditory -> auditory processing disorder.

o   No agreed upon definition -> no construct or criterion validity.

                Next Workshop Meeting(s): Thursdays @ 11AM at Given Courtyard South Level 4.

                April 26: Kairn Kelley

     May 3: Hendrika Maltby, Qualitative methods