See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280495354

Meta-analysis of the DeLone and McLean information systems success model

at individual level: An examination of the heterogeneity of the studies

Article  in  Espacios · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 536

1 author:

Patricio E Ramírez-Correa
Universidad Católica del Norte (Chile)
136 PUBLICATIONS   549 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue on Complexity to Understanding Consumer Behavior from the Marketing Perspective View project

Elderly and ICT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patricio E Ramírez-Correa on 21 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Meta-analysis of the DeLone and McLean
information systems success model at individual
level: An examination of the heterogeneity of the
studies
Meta-análisis del modelo de éxito de sistemas de información de Delone y
McLean a nivel individual: Un examen de la heterogeneidad de los
estudios
Patricio RAMÍREZ-CORREA 1, Jorge ALFARO-PERÉZ 2, Linda CANCINO-FLORES 3
Recibido: 19/03/15 • Aprobado: 26/04/2015

Contenido
1. Introduction
2. Literature review
3. Methodology
4. Results
5. Conclusions
References
Appendix: List of Included Studies

ABSTRACT:
The aim of this study is the analysis of
heterogeneity in a meta-analysis of Delone and
McLean's model of information systems success
at the individual level. A meta-analysis was run
for each of the fourteen relations of the model,
based on 79 articles published between 1992 and
2014. The results indicate a high heterogeneity in
all relationships of the model.
Keywords: Meta-analysis, Delone and McLean
model, Heterogeneity
RESUMEN:
Este estudio tiene por propósito el análisis de la
heterogeneidad en un meta-análisis del modelo de
éxito de sistemas de información de Delone y
McLean a nivel individual. Se ejecutó un
meta-análisis para cada una de las catorce
relaciones del modelo en base a 79 artículos
publicados entre los años 1992 y 2014. Los
resultados indican una alta heterogeneidad en
todas las relaciones del modelo.
Palabras clave: Meta-análisis, Modelo de Delone
y McLean, Heterogeneidad

1. Introduction
The successful implementation of information technology is considered a key issue in the
discipline of information systems (IS). However, perhaps because of the imprecision and
broadness of the concept, several authors have operationalized this success in dissimilar manners
within their studies. As a way to integrate all these piecemeal, two decades ago the IS success
model of DeLone and McLean (D&M) (DeLone & McLean, 1992) arises.
Since its proposal the D&M model has been extensively validated in diverse technological
contexts (DeLone & McLean, 2003), becoming recognized as one of the foundations of the body
of knowledge of the discipline (Petter et al., 2013). In fact, both the original version of D&M of
1992 and its extension in 2003, appear among the most cited articles of the discipline in the past
decade (Stein et al., 2014).
Because of its clear importance in IS, and to identify patterns among multiple studies where the
model D&M has been applied, several meta-analysis (MA) have been conducted (Hwang &
Windsor, 1996; Mahmood et al. 2001; Bokhari, 2005; Petter & McLean, 2009).
Despite the fact that the literature emphasizes the importance of analyzing the heterogeneity in
studies MA, in general, the authors of the MA on the D&M model do not include or omit the
relevance of this analysis, minimizing the consequences of this in their conclusions. Specifically,
if there is heterogeneity between studies of a MA, it cannot determine the generalizability of their
results, and therefore, this MA study does not provide information relevant to the discipline
(Higgins et al., 2003).
In this context, this study aims the analysis of heterogeneity in a MA of D&M model at the
individual level. This paper is structured in the following way. Firstly, a literature review is
presented. Secondly, the methodology of the study is explained. Finally, the results are described
and conclusions are presented.

2. Literature review
2.1. D&M model
The original D&M model was proposed in 1992 as a causal-explanatory model for a dependent
variable that its authors named the IS success (DeLone & McLean, 1992). This model is the result
of detailed research to determine possible constructs that affect the IS success and is based on
exploration, categorization and synthesis of dependent variables that were used in 180 studies
between 1981 and 1987 . The original D&M model is a multidimensional proposal for the IS
success and includes six interrelated dimensions: System Quality, Information Quality,
Use/Intention of Use, User Satisfaction, Individual Impact, and Organizational Impacts. In
particular, the model suggests that the dimensions of quality are positively related to the use and
satisfaction dimensions, and these latter with the dimensions of impact.
Due to the characteristics of the model, a careful definition and measurement of each dimension
of this variable is required. In fact, the selection of dimensions and measures of success should be
contingent on the objectives and context of empirical research where it is evaluated. However, and
as indicated by the authors, it is important to measure the possible interactions between each of
these dimensions to isolate the effect of several independent variables with one or more of these
dependent dimensions of the success (DeLone & McLean, 1992).
After its proposal, the D&M model has been used by many authors, and diverse studies have
validated empirical relationships between their dimensions (Ramírez-Correa, 2004).
In 2003 the authors of the D&M model presented a review of it, in which, firstly, it joins the
dimensions of impacts on the dimension Net Benefits, and secondly, added the dimension Service
Quality (DeLone & McLean, 2003).
Next, the dimensions of the D&M model are described.
1. SYSTEM QUALITY (SQ): Refers to the quality and overall performance of the IS
itself, and can be determined by the quality of its technical (hardware / software), and
components that are essential for the capture, processing, storage and retrieval of data.
2. INFORMATION QUALITY (IQ): These are the desirable characteristics of the outputs
of a IS, and reflect, inter alia, the accuracy, completeness, currency, and the format of
this information.
3. SERVICE QUALITY (SerQ): Quality of support received by users of an information
system by a support department.
4. USE (U)/INTENTION OF USE (IU): Degree and manner in which individuals (staff,
 customers, etc.) use the capabilities of an IS (use), and how they consciously formulate
plans to continue using these in the future (intention).
5. USER SATISFACTION (US): The level of user satisfaction with the system globally.
6. NET BENEFITS (NB): Represents the degree to which the IS contributes to the success
of individuals, groups, organizations and/or nations.

2.2. MA about D&M model

From the recommendations of one of the authors of the D&M model (Hwang & McLean, 1996),
there are several MA about the model. Below some elements of these studies are given.
Hwang and Windsor were based on 82 empirical studies selected from 180 studies that were used
to develop the D&M model, determined the size effect on the relationships between the
dimensions of the model. The results of this MA validated all dimensions of the model, except for
IQ, and although only some relationships between these dimensions were tested, it is concluded
that, mostly, the dimensions do not show a large effect (Hwang & Windsor, 1996). In this paper
the analysis of the heterogeneity of the studies were omitted.
Subsequently, using the same studies of a previous work, Hwang, Windsor, and Pryor correlate
some dimensions of the D&M model (valued through of a MA) to five independent variables of
IS success (Hwang et al., 2000).
One of the results of the MA of Mahmood, Hall, and Swanberg indicates a strong effect between
SerQ and U in the D&M model (Mahmood et al., 2001). This MA was based on nine studies and
their result rejects the hypothesis of heterogeneity between them.
Moreover, Bokhari in a MA based on a total of 55 empirical studies identifies a medium effect
size between U and US (Bokhari, 2005). The result of this meta-analysis could not reject the
hypothesis of heterogeneity between studies.
The MA of Sabherwal, Jeyaraj, and Chowa based on a total of 71 studies supports the existence of
effects both between SQ and U, and between QS and US (Sabherwal et al., 2006). In this MA was
not analyzed the heterogeneity of the studies.
Finally, Petter and McLean through a MA based on 52 empirical studies at the individual level
found support most of the relationships in the D&M model (Petter & McLean, 2009). Specifically,
their findings indicate that there are strong relationships between the dimensions US-IU, NB-IU,
QS-US, US-NB, IQ-US, IQ-IU, and SQ-IU.
In addition there is moderate relationships between the dimensions IQ-U, U-NB, and SQ-U. And
finally, there is a weak relationship between the dimensions U-US. However, although this MA
does not explicitly measures the heterogeneity between the studies, the authors suggest that these
studies are probably not truly homogeneous.

3. Methodology
3.1. Study Approach
The MA is a quantitative approach that integrates research findings from empirical studies
considering the error inherent in any quantitative study (Glass, 1976). In this study, a MA for each
relationship proposed in the literature for the D&M model was conducted. In total, 14 MA were
carried out. These MA were used to estimate the effect size of the relations between the
dimensions of the D&M model. This estimation was performed using the method of Hedges and
Olkin (2014), and based on the correlation coefficient. The list of meta-analyzed relationships is
as follows:
R1: Between dimensions SQ and IU.
 R2: Between dimensions SQ and US.

R3: Between dimensions IQ and IU.

R4: Between dimensions IQ and US.

R5: Between dimensions SerQ and IU.

R6: Between dimensions SerQ and US.

R7: Between dimensions U and US.

R8: Between dimensions US and IU.

R9: Between dimensions U and NB.

R10: Between dimensions US and NB.

R11: Between dimensions NB and IU

R12: Between dimensions SQ and U.

R13: Between dimensions IQ and U.

R14: Between dimensions SerQ and U.

Furthermore, in each MA the heterogeneity of studies through the I2 statistic was assessed. The I2
statistic expresses the percentage of variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather
than chance (Higgins et al., 2003). StatsDirect software (http://www.statsdirect.com) was used to
perform the analyses.

3.2. Collection of Studies

This analysis is based on quantitative empirical studies. These studies analyze the relations
contained in the D&M model at the individual level. As a starting point for collecting these
studies the MA of Peter and McLean (Petter and McLean, 2009) was used. This database consists
of 52 studies published between 1992 and mid 2007. In addition, and through databases Scopus
and Web of Knowledge, 27 studies published since mid-2007 to 2014 were identified. In total, this
MA collected 79 quantitative empirical studies published between 1992 and 2014.

4. Results
A total of 83 studies contained in the collected studies were analyzed, the appendix shows the
tabulation of them. Table 1 shows the results of the MA of each studied relationship (R1 to R14).

SQ IQ SerQ U US NB

IU US U IU US U IU US U US NB IU NB IU

R1 R2 R12 R3 R4 R13 R5 R6 R14 R7 R9 R8 R10 R11

r 0.44 0.56 0.44 0.50 0.55 0.43 0.47 0.55 0.35 0.45 0.26 0.51 0.55 0.61

K 34 47 42 25 37 31 15 23 15 40 7 26 11 6

N 7506 16364 7925 5817 14538 7107 3492 11653 3153 7394 1560 4995 3184 1867

I2 91.5 97.9 94.6 96.5 94.1 96.2 95.8 95.5 92.3 94.6 94.3 95.3 97.4 98.1

r: pooled correlation; K: studies number included in meta-analysis;

 N: total sample size for meta-analysis; I2: heterogeneity index in percentage
Table 1. Results of the meta-analyses.
Using heuristics to judge the magnitude of the effect given by Cohen et al. (Cohen et al., 2013), it
is possible to indicate that the majority D&M model relationships are strong or moderate.
Specifically, these results indicate that there are seven strong relationships (R2, R3, R4, R6, R8,
R10, and R11), six moderate relationships (R1, R5, R7, R12, R13, and R14) and a weak
relationship (R9).
However, in all meta-analyses the I2 far exceeds to 75%, which indicates a high heterogeneity in
the studies analyzed (Higgins et al., 2003). Therefore, the results of this MA cannot be
generalized.

5. Conclusions
This study confirms the potential usefulness of MA to observe the convergence of the
investigation of phenomena in the discipline of IS.
Nevertheless, MA requires following a rigorous process. In this pathway, an essential point, which
enables the generalization of the results, is to assess the degree of heterogeneity between
meta-analyzed studies. The findings of this study indicate that, due to the high heterogeneity
found in empirical studies between 1992 and 2014, it is not possible to generalize the results of
the meta-analysis of the D&M model at the individual level.
Given the results of this study and the important of IS success for discipline, we appeal to
carefully consider all sorts of generalizations arising from previous meta-analyses of the D&M
model, which do not expose explicitly the degree of heterogeneity of the studies collected.
One of the limitations of this study is that it does not consider the statistical corrections associated
to the reliability of scales measuring the dimensions of the D&M model; in future studies we hope
to resolve this limitation. Additionally, future research should look for moderating variables in the
relations contained on the model, allowing to establish subsets of homogeneous studies.

References
ABDULGADER, A. (1997); "Determinants of computer-mediated communication success among
knowledge workers in Saudi Arabia"; Journal of Computer Information Systems, 38(1), 55-66.
AGARWAL, R., Prasad, J. (1997); "The role of innovation characteristics and perceived
voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies"; Decision sciences, 28(3), 557-582.
AGARWAL, R., Prasad, J. (1999); "Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new
information technologies?"; Decision sciences, 30(2), 361-391.
AININ, S., Bahri, S., Ahmad, A. (2012); "Evaluating portal performance: A study of the National
Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) portal"; Telematics and Informatics, 29(3),
314-323.
ALADWANI, A. M. (2002); "Organizational Actions, Computer Attitudes, and End-User
Satisfaction in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study"; Journal of Organizational and End
User Computing, 14(1), 42-49.
AL-DEBEI, D., Mutaz, M. (2013); "The quality and acceptance of websites: an empirical
investigation in the context of higher education"; International Journal of Business Information
Systems, 15(2), 170-188.
AL-DEBEI, M. M., Jalal, D., Al-Lozi, E. (2013); "Measuring web portals success: a
respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean information systems success model";
International Journal of Business Information Systems, 14(1), 96-133.
ALMUTAIRI, H., Subramanian, G. H. (2005); "An empirical application of the DeLone and
McLean model in the kuwaiti private sector"; Journal of Computer Information Systems,
45(3);113+.
ANANDARAJAN, M., Igbaria, M., Anakwe, U. P. (2002); "IT acceptance in a less-developed
country: a motivational factor perspective"; International Journal of Information Management,
22(1), 47-65.
ARENAS-GAITAN, J., Ramirez-Correa, P. E., Rondan-Cataluna, F. J. (2011); "Cross cultural
analysis of the use and perceptions of web Based learning systems"; Computers & Education,
57(2), 1762-1774.
AYYASH, M. M., Ahmad, K., Singh, D. (2013); "Investigating the Effect of Information Systems
Factors on Trust in E-Government Initiative Adoption in Palestinian Public Sector". Research
Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 5(15), 3865-3875.
BERGERON, F., Raymond, L., Rivard, S., Gara, M.-F. (1995); "Determinants of EIS use: Testing
a behavioral model"; Decision Support Systems, 14(2), 131-146.
BIN MASREK, M. N. (2007); "Measuring campus portal effectiveness and the contributing
factors"; Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24(5), 342-354.
BOKHARI, R. H. (2005); "The relationship between system usage and user satisfaction: a
meta-analysis"; Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(2), 211-234.
CARSWELL, A. D., Venkatesh, V. (2002); "Learner outcomes in an asynchronous distance
education environment"; International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56(5), 475-494.
CHEN, C.-W., Cheng, C.-Y. (2013); "How online and offline behavior processes affect each
other: customer behavior in a cyber-enhanced bookstore"; Quality Quantity, 47(5), 2539-2555.
CHEN, C.-W., Cheng, C.-Y. J. (2009); "Understanding consumer intention in online shopping: a
respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model"; Behaviour Information
Technology, 28(4), 335-345.
CHEN, C.-Y., Shih, B.-Y., Yu, S.-H. (2012); "Disaster prevention and reduction for exploring
teachers' technology acceptance using a virtual reality system and partial least squares
techniques"; Natural hazards, 62(3), 1217-1231.
CHEN, I. Y. (2007); "The factors influencing members' continuance intentions in professional
virtual communities- a longitudinal study"; Journal of Information Science, 33(4), 451-467.
CHEN, I. Y. (2009); "Social Capital, IT Capability, and the Success of Knowledge Management
Systems"; Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 1(1), 36-50.
CHEN, J. V., Rungruengsamrit, D., Rajkumar, T., Yen, D. C. (2013); "Success of electronic
commerce Web sites: A comparative study in two countries"; Information Management, 50(6),
344-355.
COHEN, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., Aiken, L. S. (2013); "Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences"; Routledge.
DELONE, W. H., McLean, E. R. (1992); "Information systems success: the quest for the
dependent variable"; Information systems research, 3(1), 60-95.
DELONE, W. H., McLean, E. R. (2003); "The DeLone and McLean model of information
systems success: a ten-year update"; Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
DONG, T. P., Cheng, N. C., Wu, Y. C. J. (2014); "A study of the social networking website
service in digital content industries: The Facebook case in Taiwan"; Computers in Human
Behavior, 30, 708-714.
FLOROPOULOS, J., Spathis, C., Halvatzis, D., Tsipouridou, M. (2010); "Measuring the success
of the Greek taxation information system"; International Journal of Information Management,
30(1), 47-56.
GARRITY, E. J., Glassberg, B., Kim, Y. J., Sanders, G. L., Shin, S. K. (2005); "An experimental
investigation of web-based information systems success in the context of electronic commerce";
Decision Support Systems, 39(3), 485-503.
GATIAN, A. W. (1994); "Is user satisfaction a valid measure of system effectiveness?";
Information Management, 26(3), 119-131.
GLASS, G. V. (1976); "Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research"; Educational
researcher, 5, 3-8.
HEDGES, L. V., Olkin, I. (2014); "Statistical method for meta-analysis"; Academic press.
HIGGINS, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G. (2003); "Measuring inconsistency
in meta-analyses"; BMJ: British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557-560.
HSU, M. H., Chiu, C. M., Ju, T. L. (2004); "Determinants of continued use of the WWW: an
integration of two theoretical models"; Industrial management data systems, 104(9), 766-775.
HUNG, W.-H., Chang, L.-M., Yen, D. C., Ho, C.-T., Chiang, M.-C. (2011); "ERP Success in the
SMEs: The Perspectives of Service Quality and Social Cognitive Theory"; Asia Pacific
Management Review, 16(4), 503-519.
HUSSEIN, R., Karim, N. S. A., Selamat, M. H. (2007); "The impact of technological factors on
information systems success in the electronic-government context"; Business Process
Management Journal, 13(5), 613-627.
HWANG, M. I., Windsor, J. C. (1996); "Validating the DeLone and McLean information systems
success model: A meta-analysis"; Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Decision
Sciences Institute.
HWANG, M. I., Windsor, J. C., Pryor, A. (2000); "Building a knowledge base for MIS research:
A meta-analysis of a systems success model"; Information Resources Management Journal, 13(2),
26-32.
HWANG, M., McLean, E. R. (1996); "The use of meta-analysis in validating the DeLone and
McLean information systems success model"; Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.
IGBARIA, M., Guimaraes, T. (1994); "Empirically testing the outcomes of user involvement in
DSS development"; Omega, 22(2), 157-172.
IGBARIA, M., Tan, M. (1997); "The consequences of information technology acceptance on
subsequent individual performance"; Information Management, 32(3), 113-121.
JEN, W.-Y., Chao, C.-C. (2008); "Measuring mobile patient safety information system success:
an empirical study"; International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77(10), 689-697.
JONES, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., Griffiths, A. (2005); "The impact of organizational culture and
reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: The mediating role of readiness for
change"; Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 361-386.
JUNGLAS, I., Goel, L., Abraham, C., Ives, B. (2013); "The Social Component of Information
Systems—How Sociability Contributes to Technology Acceptance"; Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, 14(10), 585-616.
KHALIL, O. E., Elkordy, M. M. (1999); "The relationship between user satisfaction and systems
usage: empirical evidence from Egypt"; Journal of Organizational and End User Computing,
11(2), 21-28.
KIM, C., Suh, K., Lee, J. (1998); "Utilization and User Satisfaction in End-User Computing: A
Task Contingent Model"; Information Resources Management Journal, 11(4), 11-24.
KIM, H. W., Chan, H. C., Gupta, S. (2007); "Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An
empirical investigation"; Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 111-126.
KONRADT, U., Christophersen, T., Schaeffer-Kuelz, U. (2006); "Predicting user satisfaction,
strain and system usage of employee self-services"; International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 64(11), 1141-1153.
KULKARNI, U. R., Ravindran, S., Freeze, R. (2007); "A knowledge management success
model: theoretical development and empirical validation"; Journal of Management Information
Systems, 23(3), 309-347.
LAI, J.-Y., Yang, C.-C. (2009); "Effects of employees' perceived dependability on success of
enterprise applications in e-business"; Industrial Marketing Management, 38(3), 263-274.
LAI, J.-Y., Wang, C.-T., Chou, C.-Y. (2009); "How knowledge map fit and personalization affect
success of KMS in high-tech firms"; Technovation, 29(4), 313-324.
LEE, K. C., Chung, N. (2009); "Understanding factors affecting trust in and satisfaction with
mobile banking in Korea: A modified DeLone and McLean's model perspective"; Interacting with
computers, 21(5), 385-392.
LEE, S.-K., Yu, J.-H. (2012); "Success model of project management information system in
construction"; Automation in Construction, 25, 82-93.
LIAO, C., Palvia, P., Lin, H.-N. (2006); "The roles of habit and web site quality in e-commerce";
International Journal of Information Management, 26(6), 469-483.
LIAW, S.-S., Huang, H.-M. (2003); "An investigation of user attitudes toward search engines as
an information retrieval tool"; Computers in human behavior, 19(6), 751-765.
LIGHTNER, N. J. (2003); "What users want in e-commerce design: effects of age, education and
income"; Ergonomics, 46(1-3), 153-168.
LIN, H.-F. (2007); "Measuring online learning systems success: applying the updated DeLone and
McLean model"; Cyberpsychology Behavior, 10(6), 817-820.
LIN, H.-F. (2008); "Determinants of successful virtual communities: Contributions from system
characteristics and social factors"; Information Management, 45(8), 522-527.
LIN, J., Lu, H. (2000); "Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web site";
International journal of information management, 20(3), 197-208.
LIU, C., Arnett, K. P. (2000); "Exploring the factors associated with Web site success in the
context of electronic commerce"; Information Management, 38(1), 23-33.
LU, H.-P., Yu, H.-J., Lu, S. S. (2001); "The effects of cognitive style and model type on DSS
acceptance: An empirical study"; European Journal of Operational Research, 131(3), 649-663.
LWOGA, E. T. (2013); "Measuring the success of library 2.0 technologies in the African context:
The suitability of the DeLone and McLean's model"; Campus-Wide Information Systems, 30(4),
288-307.
MAES, A., Poels, G. (2007); "Evaluating quality of conceptual modelling scripts based on user
perceptions"; Data Knowledge Engineering, 63(3), 701-724.
MAHMOOD, M. A., Hall, L., Swanberg, D. L. (2001); "Factors affecting information technology
usage: A meta-analysis of the empirical literatura"; Journal of Organizational Computing and
Electronic Commerce, 11(2), 107-130.
MARBLE, R. P. (2003); "A system implementation study: management commitment to project
management"; Information Management, 41(1), 111-123.
MUN, H. J., Yun, H., Kim, E. A., Hong, J. Y., Lee, C. C. (2010); "Research on factors
influencing intention to use DMB using extended IS success model"; Information Technology and
Management, 11(3), 143-155.
PAI, F.-Y., Huang, K.-I. (2011); "Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to the introduction
of healthcare information systems"; Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(4),
650-660.
PARK, S., Zo, H., Ciganek, A. P., Lim, G. G. (2011); "Examining success factors in the adoption
of digital object identifier systems"; Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10(6),
626-636.
PETTER, S., Fruhling, A. (2011); "Evaluating the success of an emergency response medical
information system"; International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80(7), 480-489.
PETTER, S., McLean, E. R. (2009); "A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean IS
success model: An examination of IS success at the individual level"; Information Management,
46(3), 159-166.
PETTER, S., DeLone, W., McLean, E. R. (2013); "Information Systems Success: The Quest for
the Independent Variables"; Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 7-61.
POELMANS, S., Reijers, H. A., Recker, J. (2013); "Investigating the success of operational
business process management systems. Information Technology and Management", 14(4),
295-314.
RAI, A., Lang, S. S., Welker, R. B. (2002); "Assessing the validity of IS success models: An
empirical test and theoretical analysis"; Information Systems Research, 13(1), 50-69.
RAMAYAH, T., Ahmad, N. H., Hong, T. S. (2012); "An Assessment of E-training Effectiveness
in Multinational Companies in Malaysia"; Journal of Educational Technology Society, 15(2),
125-137.
RAMÍREZ-CORREA, P. (2004); "Rol y Contribución de los Sistemas de Planificación de los
Recursos de la Empresa (ERP)"; Tesis doctoral, Sevilla.
RAMIREZ-CORREA, P., Rondán-Cataluña, F. J., Arenas-Gaitán, J. (2013); "Exploration of the
factors that affect the adoption of social networking services by generation y in
Chile"; Interciencia, 38(9), 628-633.
ROCA, J. C., Chiu, C.-M., Martínez, F. J. (2006); "Understanding e-learning continuance
intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model"; International Journal of human-
computer studies, 64(8), 683-696.
SABHERWAL, R., Jeyaraj, A., Chowa, C. (2006); "Information system success: individual and
organizational determinants"; Management Science, 52(12), 1849-1864.
SAMBASIVAN, M., Wemyss, G. P., Rose, R. C. (2010); "User acceptance of a G2B system: a
case of electronic procurement system in Malaysia"; Internet Research, 20(2), 169-187.
SEDDON, P. B., & Kiew, M.-Y. (1996); "A partial test and development of DeLone and McLean's
model of IS success", Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 4(1). 90-109.
SØRUM, H., Medaglia, R., Andersen, K. N., Scott, M., & DeLone, W. (2012); "Perceptions of
information system success in the public sector: Webmasters at the steering wheel?";
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(3), 239-257.
STEIN, M.-K., Galliers, R. D., & Whitley, E. A. (2014); "Twenty years of the European
information systems academy at ECIS: emergent trends and research topics"; European Journal of
Information Systems. Advance online publication 26 August 2014; doi: 10.1057/ejis.2014.25.
SUN, J., & Teng, J. T. (2012); "Information Systems Use: Construct conceptualization and scale
development"; Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1564-1574.
TEO, H.-H., Chan, H.-C., Wei, K.-K., & Zhang, Z. (2003); "Evaluating information accessibility
and community adaptivity features for sustaining virtual learning communities"; International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(5), 671-697.
TEO, T. S., Srivastava, S. C., & Jiang, L. (2008); "Trust and electronic government success: an
empirical study"; Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(3), 99-132.
TORKZADEH, G., & Doll, W. J. (1999); "The development of a tool for measuring the perceived
impact of information technology on work"; Omega, 27(3), 327-339.
URBACH, N., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2010); "An empirical investigation of employee portal
success"; The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(3), 184-206.
WANG, W.-T., & Lu, C.-C. (2014); "Determinants of Success for Online Insurance Web Sites:
The Contributions from System Characteristics, Product Complexity, and Trust"; Journal of
Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 24(1), 1-35.
WANG, W.-T., & Wang, C.-C. (2009); "An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based
learning systems"; Computers & Education, 53(3), 761-774.
WANG, Y.-S., Wang, H.-Y., Shee, D. Y. (2007); "Measuring e-learning systems success in an
organizational context: Scale development and validation"; Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4),
1792-1808.
WILKINS, M. (1996); "Determinants of microcomputer usage in the Republic of Ireland";
Journal of End User Computing, 8(4), 3-9.
WINTER, S. J., M Chudoba, K., Gutek, B. A. (1998); "Attitudes toward computers: when do they
predict computer use?"; Information & Management, 34(5), 275-284.
WIXOM, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005); "A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and
technology acceptance"; Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85-102.
YANG, H.-d., & Yoo, Y. (2004); "It's all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance
model"; Decision Support Systems, 38(1), 19-31.
YOON, Y., & Guimaraes, T. (1995); "Assessing expert systems impact on users' jobs"; Journal of
Management Information Systems, 12(1), 225-249.
ZHENG, Y., Zhao, K., Stylianou, A. (2013); "The impacts of information quality and system
quality on users' continuance intention in information-exchange virtual communities: An
empirical investigation"; Decision Support Systems, 56, 513-524.

Appendix: List of Included Studies

Sample SQ IQ SerQ U US NB

Article size IU US U IU US U IU US U US NB IU NB IU

R1 R2 R12 R3 R4 R13 R5 R6 R14 R7 R9 R8 R10 R11

AbdulGader(1997) 102 0.66 0.61 0.83

Agarwal &
73 0.36 0.49
Prasad(1997)

Agarwal &
230 0.36 0.74
Prasad(1999)

Ainin et al.(2012) 248 0.66 0.64 0.66 0.81

Aladwani(2002) 143 0.05

Al-Debei &
311 0.99 0.57 0.19 0.22
Mutaz(2013)

Al-Debei et
110 0.76 0.77 0.83 0.70 0.73 0.71 0.72 0.7 0.63 0.71 0.73
al.(2013)

Almutairi &
250 0.56 0.63 0.07
Subramanian(2005)

Anandarajan et
143 0.10 0.31 0.12 0.17 0.61
al.(2002)

Arenas-Gaitan et
183 0.41 0.31 0.15 0.34
al.(2011)

Arenas-Gaitan et
159 0.47 0.22 0.44 0.11
al.(2011)

Ayyash et al.(2013) 364 0.49 0.47 0.43 0.50 0.48 0.52

Bergeron et al.
38 0.37
(1995)

bin Masrek(2007) 405 0.60 0.69

Carswell &
540 0.48
Venkatesh(2002)

Chen &
334 0.38 0.42 0.02 0.36 0.38 0.02 0.29 0.34 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.58 0.24 0.27
Cheng(2009)

Chen &
371 0.58 0.49 0.47
Cheng(2013)

Chen(2007) 360 0.30 0.38 0.67

Chen(2009) 208 0.54 0.60 0.55 0.59

Chen et al. (2012) 87 0.66 0.67 0.75 0.78 0.62 0.8 0.71 0.7 0.74 0.71 0.77

Chen et al.(2013) 250 0.16 0.64 0.20

Chen et al.(2013) 285 0.11 0.48 0.31

Dong et al.(2014) 346 0.52 0.41 0.52 0.68 0.52 0.66

Floropoulos et al.
340 0.2 0.45 0.5 0.45 0.36 0.45 0.34
(2010)

Garrity et al.(2005) 163 0.48 0.70

Gatian(1994) 108 0.68

Hsu et al.(2004) 235 0.19 0.15 0.64

Hung et al. (2011) 205 0.66

Hussein et al.
199 0.62 0.75 0.67 0.79 0.71
(2007)

Igbaria &
185 0.46 0.45 0.37
Guimaraes(1994)

Igbaria &
371 0.39
Tan(1997)

Jen & Chao(2008) 72 0.50 0.49 0.86 0.74 0.89

Jones et al.(2005) 156 0.35

Junglas et al.
263 0.67 0.71 0.84 0.63 0.67 0.86 0.66 0.64
(2013)

Khalil &
120 0.29 0.36
Elkordy(1999)

Kim et al.(1998) 134 0.01

Kim et al.(2007) 161 0.50 0.36

Konradt et al.
517 0.33 0.45 0.27
(2006)

Kulkarni et
150 0.28 0.02 0.19
al.(2007)

Lai & Yang(2009) 170 0.36 0.42 0.32 0.35 0.39 0.24 0.42 0.49

Lai et al.(2009) 133 0.69 0.48 0.59

Lee &
276 0.60 0.63 0.48
Chung(2009)

Lee & Yu(2012) 253 0.55 0.61 0.61 0.69 0.56 0.68

Liao et al.(2006) 446 0.61

Liaw &
114 0.78 0.73 0.78 0.71 0.75
Huang(2003)

Lightner(2003) 485 0.15 0.03 0.23

Lin & Lu(2000) 145 0.59 0.57 0.57 0.51 0.52 0.62 0.71 0.72

Lin(2007) 232 0.13 0.18 0.33 0.42 0.26 0.19 0.36 0.44

Lin(2008) 203 0.40 0.59

Lin(2008) 198 0.29 0.53 0.61

Liu & Arnett(2000) 119 0.30 0.69 0.37 0.50 0.39 0.53 0.21

Lu et al.(2001) 37 0.34 0.33 0.45 0.66 0.51

Lu et al.(2001) 35 0.39 0.39 0.59 0.54 0.78

Lu et al.(2001) 36 0.36 0.40 0.34 0.38 0.61

Lwoga(2013) 293 0.72 0.78 0.77 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.86

Maes &
124 0.21 0.20 0.52
Poels(2007)

Marble(2003) 138 0.68 0.67

Mun et al. (2010) 161 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.10

Pai & Huang(2011) 366 0.44 0.26 0.46 0.24 0.25 0.25

Park et al. (2011) 120 0.43 0.44 0.62 0.69 0.69

Petter &
64 0.49 0.69 0.47 0.51 0.71 0.23 0.36 0.41 0.14 0.43 0.57
Fruhling(2011)

Poelmans et al.
324 0.79 0.73 0.68 0.65 0.8
(2013)

Rai et al.(2002) 274 0.30 0.23 0.45 0.36 0.37

Ramayah et
192 0.42 0.28 0.43 0.28 0.52
al.(2012)
View publication stats

Ramírez-Correa et
173 0.23
al.(2013)

Roca et al.(2006) 172 0.23 0.41 0.62 0.65 0.52 0.18 0.55 0.22 0.26 0.65 0.29

Sambasivan et
358 0.40 0.17 0.41 0.19 0.40 0.16
al.(2010)

Seddon &
94 0.71 0.64 0.75 0.55 0.71
Kiew(1996)

Sørum et al.(2012) 541 0.46 0.54 0.73 0.48

Sun & Teng(2012) 231 0.72

Teo et al.(2003) 84 0.56 0.61 0.28 0.33 0.55 0.67

Teo et al.(2008) 214 0.36 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.45 0.60 0.57

Torkzadeh &
409 0.30 0.26 0.29 0.47 0.52
Doll(1999)

Urbach et al.(2010) 6210 0.70 0.58 0.58

Wang & Lu(2014) 270 0.37 0.25 0.36 0.18 0.22

Wang &
268 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.14 0.21 0.38
Wang(2009)

Wang et al.(2007) 206 0.32 0.43 0.43 0.63

Wilkins(1996) 74 0.42 0.10

Winter et al. (1998) 100 0.28

Wixom &
465 0.57 0.67 0.89 0.69
Todd(2005)

Yang & Yoo(2004) 211 0.45

Yoon &
69 0.54
Guimaraes(1995)

Zheng et al.(2013) 281 0.76

1. Doctor de la Universidad de Sevilla, Profesor Asociado, Escuela de Ciencias Empresariales, Universidad Católica del
Norte (Chile), patricio.ramirez@ucn.cl
2. Doctor de la Universidad de Politécnica de Madrid, Profesor Asociado, Escuela de Ingeniería, Universidad Católica del
Norte (Chile), jalfaro@ucn.cl
3. Ingeniero Comercial, Ayudante de Investigación, Escuela de Ciencias Empresariales, Universidad Católica del Norte
(Chile), ldcancino@gmail.com

Vol. 36 (Nº 13) Año 2015

[Índice]

[En caso de encontrar algún error en este website favor enviar email a webmaster]