Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Medical Sociology and Rehabilitation Science, Berlin, Germany.
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 25;16(3):e0248107. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248107. eCollection 2021.
Acceptance intuitively is a precondition for the adaptation and use of technology. In this systematic review, we examine academic literature on the "simple scale for acceptance measurement" provided by Van der Laan, Heino, and de Waard (1997). This measure is increasingly applied in research on mobility systems without having been thoroughly analysed. This article aims to provide such a critical analysis. We identified 437 unique references in three aggregated databases and included 128 articles (N = 6,058 participants) that empirically applied the scale in this review. The typical study focused on a mobility system using a within-subjects design in a driving simulator in Europe. Based on quality indicators of transparent study aim, group allocation procedure, variable definitions, sample characteristics, (statistical) control of confounders, reproducibility, and reporting of incomplete data and test performance, many of the 128 articles exhibited room for improvements (44% below.50; range 0 to 1). Twenty-eight studies (22%) reported reliability coefficients providing evidence that the scale and its sub-scales produce reliable results (median Cronbach's α >.83). Missing data from the majority of studies limits this conclusion. Only 2 out of 10 factor analyses replicated the proposed two-dimensional structure questioning the use of these sub-scales. Correlation results provide evidence for convergent validity of acceptance, usefulness, and satisfying with limited confidence, since only 14 studies with a median sample size of N = 40 reported correlation coefficients. With these results, the scale might be a valuable addition for technology attitude research. Firstly, we recommend thorough testing for a better understanding of acceptance, usefulness, and satisfying. Secondly, we suggest to report scale results more transparently and rigorously to enable meta-analyses in the future. The study protocol is available at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/j782c/).
接受度是技术适应和使用的前提。在本次系统回顾中，我们研究了 Van der Laan、Heino 和 de Waard（1997）提出的“简易接受度测量量表”的学术文献。该量表在移动系统研究中应用越来越广泛，但尚未经过深入分析。本文旨在对此进行批判性分析。我们在三个汇总数据库中确定了 437 个独特的参考文献，并纳入了 128 篇（N=6058 名参与者）在本综述中实际应用该量表的文章。典型的研究聚焦于使用驾驶模拟器在欧洲进行的移动系统，采用了被试内设计。基于透明研究目的、分组程序、变量定义、样本特征、（统计）混杂因素控制、可重复性和未完成数据以及测试性能的质量指标，许多 128 篇文章显示出需要改进的空间（44%低于.50；范围为 0 至 1）。28 项研究（22%）报告了可靠性系数，证明该量表及其子量表可产生可靠的结果（中位数 Cronbach's α>.83）。由于大多数研究都存在缺失数据，因此这一结论受到限制。仅有 2 项因子分析复制了所提出的二维结构，对使用这些子量表提出了质疑。相关结果为接受度、有用性和满意度的收敛有效性提供了证据，但可信度有限，因为只有 14 项研究报告了中位数样本量为 N=40 的相关系数。基于这些结果，该量表可能是技术态度研究的有益补充。首先，我们建议进行彻底的测试，以更好地理解接受度、有用性和满意度。其次，我们建议更透明和严格地报告量表结果，以便未来进行元分析。研究方案可在开放科学框架（https://osf.io/j782c/）中获取。
