| Literature DB >> 32288164 |
I-Chiu Chang1, Yi-Chang Li1, Won-Fu Hung1, Hisn-Ginn Hwang1.
Abstract
This study used the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine taxpayers' acceptance of the Internet tax-filing system. Based on data collected from 141 experienced taxpayers in Taiwan, the acceptance and the impact of quality antecedents on taxpayers' perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) of the system were assessed and evaluated. The results indicated that the model of Internet tax-filing system was accepted with a reasonable goodness-of-fit. Three important findings include the following items. First, TAM proves to be a valid model to explain the taxpayers' acceptance of the Internet tax-filers' system. Meanwhile, PU has created more impact than PEOU on taxpayers' intention to use the system. Second, PU is positively influenced by such factors as information system quality (ISQ), information quality (IQ), as well as perceived credibility (PC). Third, IQ has a positive impact on PEOU. Based on the research findings, implications and limitations are then discussed for future possible research.Entities:
Keywords: DeLone and McLean model (D&M model); Internet tax-filing acceptance; Technology acceptance model (TAM)
Year: 2005 PMID: 32288164 PMCID: PMC7125980 DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2005.05.002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gov Inf Q ISSN: 0740-624X
The number of income taxpayers of three tax-filing methods
| Year | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manual filing | 3,965,277 (78.89%) | 3,282,077 (71.24%) | 2,688,716 (57.66%) |
| 2D bar code filing | 1,023,429 (20.36%) | 976,557 (21.20%) | 1,218,899 (26.14%) |
| Internet filing | 37,621 (0.75%) | 348,156 (7.56%) | 755,508 (16.20%) |
Source: National Tax Authority, Taiwan.
Fig. 1Technology Acceptance Mode (Davis et al.).
Fig. 2Research model.
Operational definition of questionnaire constructs
| Construct | Operational definition | Number of item | Source of items |
|---|---|---|---|
| BI | The taxpayer's likelihood to use the Internet tax-filing system | 3 | Taylor and Todd |
| ATT | Individual preferences and interests via feelings and evaluations regarding the Internet tax-filing system | 3 | Davis |
| PU | The degree of taxpayers' perceived benefits of filing tax by Internet tax filing | 4 | Davis; |
| PEOU | The degree of a user's belief that the use of the Internet tax-filing system to be free of effort | 4 | Davis |
| ISQ | Usefulness of functions, process reliability, response time, and ease of navigation | 4 | Bailey and Pearson; |
| IQ | Information reliability, relevance, adequacy, and understandability | 4 | King and Epstein; |
| PC | The extent of user confidence on the Internet tax-filing system with the ability of protecting the user's personal information and security | 2 | Wang |
Demographic data
| Measure | Items | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 61 | 43.3 |
| Male | 80 | 56.7 | |
| Education | Under graduate | 78 | 55.3 |
| Graduate | 63 | 44.7 | |
| Age | 20–30 | 45 | 31.9 |
| 30–40 | 72 | 51.1 | |
| 40–50 | 16 | 11.3 | |
| 50–60 | 5(3 N/A) | 5.7 | |
| Job | Public section | 81 | 57.4 |
| Private section | 57 (3 N/A) | 42.6 | |
| Time of using computer per week | < 14 hours | 31 | 22.0 |
| 14–28 hours | 22 | 15.6 | |
| > 28 hours | 88 | 62.4 |
Reliability results
| Items | Mean | SD | Factor loading in each item | Composite construct reliabilities | Average variance extracted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BI1, BI2, BI3 | 5.722 | 0.877 | 0.97, 0.94, 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.85 |
| ATT1, ATT2, ATT3 | 5.731 | 0.964 | 0.95, 0.94, 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.85 |
| PU1, PU2, PU3, PU4 | 5.758 | 0.934 | 0.95, 0.94, 0.99, 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.94 |
| PEOU1, PEOU2, PEOU3, PEOU4 | 5.762 | 0.941 | 0.94, 0.98, 0.95, 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.90 |
| ISQ1, ISQ2, ISQ3, ISQ4 | 5.838 | 1.019 | 0.85, 0.91, 0.88, 0.82 | 0.92 | 0.78 |
| IQ1, IQ2, IQ3, IQ4 | 5.410 | 1.260 | 0.92, 0.95, 0.97, 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.88 |
| PC1, PC2 | 4.448 | 1.451 | 0.72, 0.78 | 0.70 | 0.54 |
Discriminant validity test
| BI | ATT | PU | PEOU | ISQ | IQ | PC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BI | 0.85 | ||||||
| ATT | 0.43 | 0.85 | |||||
| PU | 0.38 | 0.80 | 0.94 | ||||
| PEOU | 0.28 | 0.71 | 0.76 | 0.90 | |||
| ISQ | 0.14 | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.78 | ||
| IQ | 0.08 | 0.24 | 0.27 | 0.26 | 0.35 | 0.88 | |
| PC | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 054 |
LISREL standardized correlation matrix
| BI | ATT | PU | PEOU | ISQ | IQ | PC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BI | 1 | ||||||
| ATT | 0.655985 | 1 | |||||
| PU | 0.616562 | 0.892429 | 1 | ||||
| PEOU | 0.532257 | 0.842758 | 0.870534 | 1 | |||
| ISQ | 0.369037 | 0.557516 | 0.520101 | 0.516682 | 1 | ||
| IQ | 0.281095 | 0.490438 | 0.517366 | 0.512386 | 0.589147 | 1 | |
| PC | 0.116324 | 0.132675 | 0.151188 | 0.144887 | 0.061438 | 0.12032 | 1 |
Fig. 3LISREL model.
Hypotheses testing result
| Ha | Relationships | Results | Prior Studies |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATT→BI | Supported ( | Davis; | |
| PU→BI | Not supported | Davis; | |
| PU→ATT | Supported ( | Davis; | |
| PEOU→ATT | Supported ( | Davis; | |
| PEOU→PU | Supported ( | Davis et al.; | |
| ISQ→PU | Supported ( | Shih | |
| IQ→PU | Supported ( | Seddon and Kiew; | |
| PC→PU | Marginally supported ( | Wang; | |
| ISQ→PEOU | Not supported | Lucas and Spitler; | |
| IQ→PEOU | Marginally supported ( | Vessey | |
| Not supported (NS): | |||
Tolerance value for each dependent variable (dv) vs. independent variables (idv)
| dv | idv |
| PU | ISQ: 0.353 |
| IQ: 0.359 | |
| PC: 0.958 | |
| PEOU: 0.680 | |
| PEOU | ISQ: 0.383 |
| IQ: 0.384 | |
| ATT | PU: 0.5 |
| PEOU: 0.5 | |
| BI | ATT: 0.493 |