Product adoption · Empirical TAM survey/model.

The adoption of software measures: A technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective

Information & Management · 2014

Wallace, L. G., Sheetz, S. D.

Summary

Perceived usefulness and ease of use explain adoption of software measures, with organizational/contextual influences also relevant.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

For developer tools, demonstrate measurable engineering outcomes and minimize measurement setup burden.

Reported result

What the study found

Perceived usefulness and ease of use explain adoption of software measures, with organizational/contextual influences also relevant.

Research question

What the authors investigated

What explains professionals’ adoption of software measurement tools?

Design

Empirical TAM survey/model.

Sample and setting

Software professionals evaluating software measurement practices.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Specialized professional practice and cross-sectional self-report.

Research sources

Publisher abstract/metadata retrieved from the DOI landing page; design and finding summarized from that abstract.

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.