Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Acceptance of electronic tax filing:

A study of taxpayer intentions
Jen-Ruei Fu a,*, Cheng-Kiang Farn a,1, Wen-Pin Chao b,2
a
Department of Information Management, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences,
415 Chien Kung Road, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan, ROC
b
National Tax Administration of Northern Taiwan Province, Ministry of Finance,
No. 186 Fushing Road, Tau-Yuan City, Tao-Yuan County, Taiwan 330, ROC
Received 2 April 2004; received in revised form 6 February 2005; accepted 1 April 2005
Available online 29 August 2005

Abstract

Government today has benefited from information technology in many ways. The importance of understanding and
influencing citizens acceptance of e-government services is critical, given the investment in technology and the potential for
cost saving. Using the filing of personal income tax in Taiwan as an example of e-government services, this study integrated two
important theories (TAM and TPB), and discussed the factors affecting the taxpayers intention to adopt a particular tax-filing
method (from manual, two-dimensional barcode, or Internet) based on empirical data gathered from a large-scale nationwide
survey. The demographic characteristics and perceptions of the taxpayers were also explored in order to identify potential
determinants. Results indicated that taxpayers tend to concentrate on the usefulness of a tax-filing method and may be fairly
pragmatic in developing general attitudes towards using the method. Interestingly, the effects of perceived ease of use, subjective
norms, and self-efficacy on behavioral intention were different for manual and electronic tax-filers. Understanding these factors
can extend our knowledge of taxpayers decision making and lead to better planning and implementation of e-government
services.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Electronic tax filing; e-Government acceptance; Technology acceptance mode; Theory of planned behavior

1. Introduction

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 3 4515811x793; According to the annual Global e-Government
fax: +886 3 462 1348. Study of Brown University in the United States,
E-mail addresses: fred@msa.vnu.edu.tw (J.-R. Fu), Taiwans ranking rose from the worlds number 2
ckfarn@mgt.ncu.edu.tw (C.-K. Farn),
samchao@im.ntx.gov.tw (W.-P. Chao).
position in 2001 to first in 2002, among the 198
1
Tel.: +886 3 4267250. countries surveyed [10]; e-government in Taiwan
2
Tel.: +886 3 3396789x1115. provides its citizens and organizations with convenient

0378-7206/$ see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.04.001
110 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126
access to government information and services.
Electronic Filing of Personal Income Tax (eTax) is
an important application that automates tax related
processes in an attempt to improve efficiency in
assessing and collecting tax information. It has the
potential to improve tax-filing service while at the
same time reducing costs to both taxpayers and tax
collecting agencies. However, despite the readily
available tax preparation software and its promotion
by the government, only forty percent of all taxpayers
switched to eTax and most taxpayers were unwilling to
give up their paper forms. Thus, the problem of under-
utilization still remained and plagued governments.
Understanding why people accept or reject an IS has
proven to be a challenging issues. The growing interest
in e-government thus raises the question of how
governments can increase citizens adoption of eTax.
User acceptance was defined by Swanson [30] to be
a potential users predisposition toward personally
using a specific system. A review of previous
research suggests that many studies were anchored in
behavioral intention and reported a strong causal link
between behavioral intention and targeted behavior
[8]. Agarwal and Prasad [2] also argued that, in a
survey-based research design, analysis of intention is
more appropriate than actual usage.
Building on a study of technology acceptance, we
attempted to develop further understanding of tax-
payers behavioral intention in the Taiwanese context.
Specifically, a nation-wide survey of taxpayers sup-
ported by the National Tax Administration (NTA) of
Northern Taiwan Province was conducted to examine
the actions that participants were likely to take.
2. Personal tax filing in Taiwan
Starting in 1998, citizens in Taiwan were able to
choose among three tax-filing methods: manual,
Internet-based, and two-dimensional (2D) barcode.
Manual filing is the traditional method either by hand
or typewriter. Taxpayers usually perform complex
calculations using mental arithmetic or calculator, and
then the return is delivered to the tax agency through
the postal service or in person. After receiving a
return, the agency uses a data entry service to input the
data. This process is cumbersome, time-consuming,
and paper-intensive for both taxpayers and the tax
agency. Error checking on paper is fault-intensive and
was traditionally done by the tax agency staff.
The explosive growth in computing and use of the
Internet provided a way for the tax agency to improve
service quality while reducing cost. After a 2-year
small-scale pilot study, in 1998 the agency introduced
Internet-based and 2D barcode tax-filing methods in
an attempt to reduce the costs of tax collection. Both of
these electronic tax-filing methods use tax preparation
software provided by the agency; the forms can be
downloaded through the Internet or obtained from
widely distributed compact disks (CD-ROM) free of
charge. Calculation, error checking and suggestion for
best return option for the taxpayer are carried out
automatically by the software. Taxpayers can decide
to either directly transmit the data to the tax agency
through the Internet, or print a two- to three-page
paper income tax return with a 2D barcode in the lower
left-hand corner of the return and deliver it to the tax
agency through the postal service. For the former, a
taxpayer who possesses public key certification issued
by a government agency can download his or her
personal income tax withholding records via the
Internet. Generally, a taxpayer only has to confirm the
validity of these records without bothering to enter
them. Thus, the Internet filing method may simplify
and expedite the tax-filing process.
The primary purpose of a 2D barcode filing was to
facilitate a smooth transition from pen-and-paper to
Internet tax filing. Since most taxpayers had not
obtained a government issued public key certificate,
the 2D barcode provided taxpayers who had a
computer a sound alternative to filing electronically.
2D barcode tax filing was similar to 1040 filing offered
by the IRS in the U.S. A taxpayer used the tax
preparation software to key in data and print a 2D
barcode which encoded all the needed information in
the return. The 2D barcode worked like a paper disk
(see Fig. 1 for an example) which contained machine-
readable information to help the agency quickly feed
Fig. 1. An example of 2D barcode for tax returns.
 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126
Fig. 2. Number of returns filed electronically in fiscal years 1998
2003.
tax information forms into the agencys IS through a
scanner. The advantages to the government were
significant. Elimination of manual entry errors by
taxpayers provided the tax agency with a cleaner
stream of income tax returns, requiring less error
correction computations and adjustment notices.
The tax agency saw electronic tax filing as an
opportunity to reengineer the process, making it
simpler, faster, and error free. Experience showed that
the error rate for electronically filed income tax returns
was less than 1% versus 20% for paper returns [14].
Electronic tax filing was fully launched in 1998 and
has grown steadily since then. As shown in Figs. 2 and
3, the number of electronic returns increased from
about eighteen thousand in 1998, when electronic tax
filing became available nationwide, to over 2.1 million
representing 43.5% of all taxpayers in 2003. For
electronic tax filing, it was noted that the number of
2D barcode returns was twice as many as that of
Internet returns in 2003, Nevertheless, Internet tax
filing has experienced higher growth rates than did the
2D barcode method in the past 2 years (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Number of returns filed (in thousands) for three methods in
fiscal years 19982003.
111
While it is desirable to increase the percentage of
taxpayers filing electronically, any further increase is a
challenge. It was therefore important to understand the
differences among the groups so that effective
promotional schemes could be designed.
3. Theoretical background and research model
Technology acceptance is important. We define this
as an individuals psychological state with regard to
his or her voluntary, intended use of a technology [16].
A fundamental intention-based theory is the Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA) [13]. According to this,
external stimuli influence a persons attitude toward a
behavior indirectly by influencing his or her salient
beliefs about the consequences of performing the
behavior. Adapted from this, both the technology
acceptance model (TAM) and the theory of planned
behavior (TPB) are well established in the IT arena and
appear to be widely accepted [23,26,31].
3.1. The technology acceptance model (TAM)
TAM theorizes that an individuals intention
towards using a system is jointly determined by
perceived usefulness (PU), the users subjective
probability that using a specific application system
will increase his or her job performance [11], and
perceived ease of use (PEOU), the degree to which
the . . . user expects the target system to be free of
effort. The effects of external variables (e.g., system
design characteristics) on behavioral intention (BI) are
mediated by these beliefs. According the Davis et al.
[12], PEOU also has a direct effect on PU [35].
In predicting usage, TAM models might be useful
within and across organizations for evaluating
applications or technologies, or to make comparisons
between user groups or applications, as suggested by
Adams et al. [1] and Subramanian [29]. However,
TAM has limitations in being applied beyond the
workplace because its fundamental constructs do not
fully reflect the variety of user task environment and
constraints. Paul and John [25] suggested that TAM is
a useful model but has to be integrated into a broader
one which would include variables related to both
human and social factors. The theory of planned
behavior (TPB) takes these factors into account.
112 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126
3.2. Theory of planned behavior (TPB)
TPB incorporates subjective norms (SN) and
perceived behaviors control (PBC) as direct determi-
nants of BI. Together with TAM, TPB was selected to
provide a necessary theoretical premise for the
research model examined in our study.
TPB asserts that BI is jointly determined by ones
attitude, which reflects positive feelings towards
performing a behavior, SN, which reflects percep-
tions that other people desire the individual to
perform a particular way; PBC, which reflects
internal and external constraints on the performing
of the action. In our context, TPB suggests that a
taxpayer is more willing to file electronically if she
or he has positive attitude towards using eTax, wants
to comply with other important peoples opinions on
the use of eTax, and has the requisite resources,
skills, or opportunities.
Fig. 4. Research model.
3.3. Research model
Neither TAM nor TPB have been found to provide
consistently superior explanations or predictions of
behavior. A growing body of research has been
focused on integrating them to predict usage intention
from different viewpoints: SN has been included as an
additional predictor of intention for mandatory
settings [36], while Venkatesh and Davis proposed a
theoretical framework that integrated TPB as the
determinant of PEOU [33,34] and PU; also Rie-
menschneider et al. developed a series of models
which involved various loose to tight combinations
and employed a combine and conquer strategy to
examine their overall fit and relative explanatory
power. Finally, the decomposed theory of planned
behavior, which decomposes attitude using core
constructs of TAM, was proposed by Mathieson and
has been further validated by Taylor and Todd and
 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126
Chau et al. The decomposed model allows researchers
to pay attention to key antecedents to intention and has
provided a richer understanding of how each of these
antecedents explains variance across users. Given the
focus on behavioral intention, we used the decom-
posed model in our research model.
Using TPB as a basic structure, attitude is
decomposed by incorporating PU and PEOU. The
approach provides several advantages. First, it seems
unlikely that belief structures will be consistently
related to intention; the relationships should become
clearer and more readily understood. Second, by
focusing on specific beliefs, the model becomes more
managerially relevant, pointing to specific factors that
may influence adoption and usage. The model is
shown in Fig. 4.
Several studies have examined the role of attitude
on IT usage behavior. The attitude variable was
considered as a mediating variable that influences the
BI and is affected by PU and PEOU. However, weak
support of the relationship was found between the
attitudes toward a specific IS and BI. Kay [21]
suggested that it would be better to be as specific as
possible about the content of the attitude object with
respect to measuring attitudes toward IS usage. The
omission of attitude allows researchers to investigate
the influence of PEOU and PU on BI. Thus, the
attitudes factor is removed to simplify the model.
Additionally, a link between PEOU and BI is included
because empirical studies have found a significant
relationship between them [22].
The PBC construct refers to an individuals
perceptions of the presence or absence of resources
or opportunities necessary for performing an action. It
is decomposed into both the internal notion of
individual self-efficacy (SE) [4] and to external
resource constraints, similar to Triandiss [32] facil-
itating conditions. SE is related to perceived ability.
With respect to eTax usage, we anticipated that higher
levels of SE would lead to higher levels of BI toward
eTax. The facilitating conditions consist of two sub-
dimensions: resource factors (RFC), such as computer
equipment, and technology issues (TFC), that may
restrict usage. The absence of facilitating resources
results in barriers to usage which may inhibit usage.
Thus, a taxpayer might be unwilling to accept eTax if
little or no computer equipment is available, and if
technical support is low.
113
As the literature in consumer behavior suggests,
when engaging in an online transaction process,
concerns of inherent risk have surfaced as salient to
many potential adopters [18]. However, actual risk is
difficult to measure objectively, literature has there-
fore primarily addressed the notion of perceived risk
(PR), defined here as the taxpayers perception of the
uncertainty and adverse consequence of a desired
outcome. Perceived risk of online shopping has been
shown to influence attitude towards online purchasing
[17]. Taxpayers may hesitate to file their tax return
electronically if they perceive a lack of security in the
process.
Also included in our model is compatibility (CMP),
which serves as an antecedent of both PU and PEOU.
Compatibility, defined as the degree to which the
technology fits the potential adopters previous
experience, work practice, and needs, has been
identified as an essential factor for innovation
adoption [27]. Considerable prior research has
reported significant effect of CMP on the user
technology acceptance decision. More recently, Chau
et al. examined the importance of CMP in physicians
technology acceptance and found that CMP is a
significant determinant of PU but not PEOU.
4. Research method and results
4.1. Data collection
Data to test the model were drawn from a cross-
sectional field study of Taiwanese taxpayers in 2003.
A nation-wide questionnaire-based survey, supported
by the tax agency, was conducted. Since taxpayers
were able to adopt any one of the three filing methods
(manual, 2D barcode, or Internet tax filing) at will,
subjects were classified into one of three groups
according to the method they adopted. Three
variations of a questionnaire were developed and
different data collection methods were employed to
target the different groups.
Questionnaires were distributed via an online
website, offline CD-ROM, and traditional mail for
the convenience of respondents. First, the online
survey was set up on the website of the tax agency
(http://www.ntx.gov.tw). After completing the filing
of an income tax return, the tax preparation program
114 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126
invited the taxpayer to participate in the survey. The
respondent could choose to participate or not with a
mouse click. The completed response was stored
directly into a database. In order to access offline
users, the survey program was bundled with the tax
preparation software on the CD-ROM. To solicit
responses, subjects were invited to fill out the
questionnaire soon after completing their filing. The
completed response was encoded and saved together
with the income tax return in the 2D barcode for
researchers. It should be noted that data collected
using electronic means (e.g., WWW, offline program)
have similar psychometric qualities to data collected
through physical procedures [28], thus the methods
used here can be justified. Finally, it was not easy for
researchers to approach pen-and-paper taxpayers who
did not use or have computer equipment, thus 1000
random respondents were selected from manual tax-
filing taxpayers and questionnaires were sent by
traditional mail to them with a stamped return
envelope addressed to the tax agency.
The period of the data collection lasted from May
to July of 2003 filing season. To stimulate responses,
reminder letters were sent out after two weeks by mail
or email and respondents were told that respondent
names would be entered into a lottery for a gift. All
respondents were guaranteed confidentiality. Com-
pleted questionnaires were received from 59,166
taxpayers (out of a population of 755,541 for Internet
and 1,427,046 for 2D-barcode taxpayers) with 26,989
using Internet tax filing (a 3.51% response rate),
31,596 using 2D barcode tax filing (2.21%), and 582
using manual tax-filing method (58.2%). Table 1
summarizes the demographic characteristics of the
respondents.
4.2. Measurement of constructs
Constructs were measured using multiple-item
scales, drawn from pre-validated measures in previous
studies. Items for PU, PEOU, and BI were adapted
from Davis and Chau et al.; items for SN, SE, PBC,
and CMP were from Taylor and Todd; PR was
modified from Cases [7]. All items were measured
using a seven-point Likert-type scale with anchors on
strongly agree and strongly disagree. Since
taxpayers are divided into three groups, appropriate
modifications to make questionnaire items specifically
relevant to the target populations were needed. For
example, a sample item to assess Internet taxpayers
behavioral intention: I intend to use Internet filing
method for my income tax return next year was
slightly modified for manual taxpayers to: I intend to
use manual filing method for my income tax return
next year. Since it is meaningless to assess manual
taxpayers SE, TFC, and RFC for pen-and-paper
technology, items for these constructs were consistent
across the three groups in assessing taxpayers PBC
for electronic tax-filing methods. Appendix A lists a
final Internet-based version of questionnaire items
used to measure each construct and its source.
A pretest was conducted to ensure that the
instrument possessed acceptable reliability and valid-
ity. The subjects in the pretest sample were working
students who had tax-filing experience in prior years.
One hundred and seventy-eight subjects voluntarily
completed the survey. All of the scales had reliabilities
of 0.8 or more. The final questionnaire contained 31
questions to measure the constructs of interest, as well
as some demographic and other related questions.
In analyzing the collected data, our study followed
the two-step procedure recommended by Anderson
and Gerbing [3]. We estimated and re-specified the
measurement model prior to incorporating the
structural restrictions. Convergent and discriminant
validity of the remaining items and scales were tested
with confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) using the
EQS program [6]. Each item was modeled as a
reflective indicator of its hypothesized latent con-
struct. The nine constructs were allowed to covary in
the CFA model. The measurement models were
evaluated using maximum likelihood estimation.
James et al. [20] recommended having three or four
indicators for each latent construct to avoid model
identification problems. Three constructs failed to
meet this criterion. To avoid the problems associated
with having only two indicators of three constructs
(SN, TFC and RFC), we constrained the measurement
errors of two items to be equal as suggested by James
et al. Appendix B presents the results of the CFA
analysis.
Since the x2 test is sensitive to sample size and the
probability of rejecting any model increases as the
sample size increases, even when the model is
minimally false [5], it is suggested that other model
fit indices should be used, and scores of 0.9 or higher
 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126 115

Table 1
Sample demographics
Manual 2D barcode Internet
Count % Count % Count %
Computer experience (years)
None 89 15.3 174 0.6 98 0.4
13 years 132 22.7 2309 7.3 1736 6.4
46 years 114 19.6 6646 21 4926 18.2
79 years 84 14.4 7459 23.6 6218 23
10 years or above 163 28.0 15009 47.5 14011 51.9
Years on Internet
None 123 21.1 426 1.3 223 0.8
13 years 197 33.8 6473 20.5 4921 18.2
46 years 138 23.7 13006 41.2 10335 38.3
79 years 68 11.7 7489 23.7 7250 26.9
10 years or above 56 9.6 4202 13.3 4260 15.8
Gender
Female 323 55.5 14875 47.1 9721 36
Male 259 44.5 16720 52.9 17265 64
Education
Elementary school or under 30 5.2 124 0.4 78 0.3
Junior high school 24 4.1 209 0.7 154 0.6
High school 161 27.7 3960 12.5 2727 10.1
College/university 320 55 22226 70.3 17850 66.1
Graduate school 47 8.1 5072 16.1 6177 22.9
Age
Under 19 years of age 7 1.2 6 0 6 0
2024 years 30 5.2 938 3 224 0.8
2529 years 105 18 7200 22.8 852 3.2
3034 years 103 17.7 8574 27.1 6342 23.5
3539 years 111 19.1 6278 19.9 7187 26.6
4044 years 66 11.3 3969 12.6 5086 18.8
4549 years 54 9.3 2384 7.5 3341 12.4
5054 years 42 7.2 1544 4.9 2200 8.1
5559 years 19 3.3 464 1.5 1330 4.9
60 or over 45 7.7 236 0.7 420 1.6
Computer and network facilities at home
Have no computer 85 14.6 1366 4.3 690 2.6
Have computer(s) but cannot connect to Internet 64 11 1876 5.9 860 3.2
Dial up 125 21.5 8550 27.1 5893 21.8
Broadband (ADSL, cable modem) 308 52.9 19805 62.7 19545 72.4
Computer and network facilities at work
Have no computer 84 14.4 486 1.5 497 1.8
Have computer(s) but cannot connect to Internet 55 9.5 1211 3.8 1016 3.8
Dial up 31 5.3 592 1.9 536 2
LAN 100 17.2 10331 32.7 10055 37.2
Broadband (ADSL, cable modem) 312 53.6 18976 60.1 14882 55.1
Frequency of Internet use
Never 92 15.8 206 0.7 76 0.3
Less than one time per month 33 5.7 276 0.9 118 0.4
Once a month 22 3.8 212 0.7 100 0.4
Once a week 48 8.2 853 2.7 513 1.9
116 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126

Table 1 (Continued )
Manual 2D barcode Internet
Count % Count % Count %
Once per 45 days 33 5.7 918 2.9 603 2.2
Once per 23 days 57 9.8 2951 9.3 2212 8.2
Everyday 297 51 26178 82.8 23367 86.6

Table 2
Fit statistics of the confirmatory factor analysis
x2 d.f. p-Value NFI NNFI CFI RMSEA
Manual 1056 314 <0.01 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.066
2D barcode 37102 314 <0.01 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.061
Internet 28431 314 <0.01 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.057

on Bentler Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI), Non-
Normed Fit Index (NNFI) and Comparative Fit Index
(CFI) should be considered evidence of good fit. For
the current CFA models, NFI, NNFI, and CFI were
over 0.9 (see Table 2), suggesting adequate model fit.
Convergent validity was assessed based on the
criteria that the indicators estimated pattern coeffi-
cient was significant on its posited underlying
construct factor. We evaluated for the measurement
scales using the three criteria suggested by Fornell and
Larcker [15]:
(1) All indicator factor loadings (l) should be
significant and exceed 0.7.
(2) Construct reliabilities should exceed 0.8.
(3) Average variance extracted (AVE) by each
construct should exceed the variance due to
measurement error for that construct (i.e., AVE
should exceed 0.5).
All l values in the CFA model exceeded 0.7 and
were significant at p = .001 (see the t-values in
Appendix B). Composite reliabilities (rc) of con-

Fig. 5. SEM analysis for manual filers (N = 582). x2 = 1150 (d.f. = 332, p < .001), NFI = 0.93, NNFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.067,
**
p-value < .001.
 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126 117

Fig. 6. SEM analysis for 2D barcode filers (N = 32,845). x2 = 45400 (d.f. = 332, p < .001), NFI = 0.95, NNFI = =0.94, CFI = 0.95,
RMSEA = 0.066, **p-value < .001.

structs ranged between 0.80 and 0.97 (see
Appendix D). AVE, ranging from 0.67 to 0.92, was
greater than the variance due to measurement error.
Hence, all three conditions for convergent validity
were met.
Finally, discriminant validity was assessed using a
series of x2 difference tests by constraining the
correlation parameters between factors to 1.0. Each
time only one correlation parameter was fixed. A
significant x2 difference between the constrained and
unconstrained CFA model indicated discriminant
validity between the constrained pair of constructs.
As shown in Appendix C, such x2 differences were all
above 4, demonstrating adequate discriminant validity

Fig. 7. SEM analysis for Internet filers (N = 27,208). x2 = 34800 (d.f. = 332, p < .001), NFI = 0.95, NNFI = =0.95, CFI = 0.95,
RMSEA = 0.062, **p-value < .001.
118 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126

for all scales. Fornell and Larcker recommend a Table 3

Effect on behavior intention
stronger test of discriminant validity, where the AVE
for each construct should exceed the squared Manual 2D barcode Internet
correlation between that and any other construct. Direct effect
The factor correlation matrix in Appendix D indicates PU 0.63 0.76 0.81
PEOU 0.11 0.00 0.04
that the largest squared correlation between any pair of
PR 0.05 0.03 0.04
constructs was 0.64 while the smallest AVE was 0.67. SN 0.16 0.02 0.01
Hence, the latter test of discriminant validity was also SE 0.12 0.07 0.08
met. RFC 0.04 0.02 0.04
TFC 0.00 0.03 0.06
4.3. Data analysis and results Indirect effect
PEOU 0.25 0.33 0.33
The research model presented earlier was tested CMP 0.52 0.56 0.60
using the structural equation modeling (SEM) Total effect
approach. We estimated the model for all three PU 0.63 0.76 0.81
PEOU 0.36 0.32 0.37
groups. Overall, the goodness-of-fit of the structural
PR 0.05 0.03 0.04
model was comparable to that of the previous CFA SN 0.16 0.02 0.01
models and provided evidence of adequate fit in the SE 0.12 0.07 0.08
three groups. RFC 0.04 0.02 0.04
Figs. 57 illustrate the path coefficients for the TFC 0.00 0.03 0.06
CMP 0.52 0.56 0.60
three groups, together with their significance. Two
observations are worth noting. First, the path
significance is not consistent across the three groups.
This suggests that usage intentions of different tax- found to be significant, but to have a negative impact,
filing methods are associated with different ante- suggesting that taxpayers with higher level of
cedents. Second, several coefficient of significant computer self-efficacy will tend to give up manual
paths are relatively small, especially for electronic tax-filing method. Finally, PR, TFC, and RFC have
taxpayers. The possible explanation for this is the little or no effect on BI.
statistical power of the test; the greater the power, the
more often the path will be found to be significant.
With a larger sample population of the 2D barcode and 5. Exploratory study
Internet groups, non-significant will be found less
often. Thus, the paths reported statistically significant In our exploratory study we tried to identify
may not necessarily have real meaning. potential differences among the three kinds of
Overall, PU was the strongest determinant and taxpayers. Both uni- and multivariate analysis of
explained most of the variance of BI in all three variance were used to assess the difference among the
groups, as shown in Table 3. For the TAM model, three groups. With these steps we were trying to
PEOU explained a significant amount of the variance provide a picture of the taxpayers in each group and
in PU. This is consistent with most previous research. give insight into the reasons for adoption of tax-filing
CMP was found to be a significant determinant of PU methods.
and PEOU.
The path coefficients of the other independent 5.1. Dependent and independent variables
variables in TPB model (SN, SE, TFC, and RFC) were
less than 0.1 for electronic taxpayers, which suggested The independent variable was derived by assigning
that the four variables were not important predictors of a value of 1 to Internet taxpayers, 2 to 2D barcode
BI for them. For manual taxpayers, the effects of taxpayers, and 3 to manual taxpayers. For the
PEOU, SN, and SE on BI were significant and stronger dependent variables, respondents were asked to give
than the other two types of taxpayer. SE was also their demographics (age, gender, education, prior
 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126
experience with computers and Internet, and computer
and Internet resource conditions). These attributes
were selected from a review of the literature [19], as
well as discussion with staff of the tax agency. Table 1
shows the eight variables. Since the continuous and
interval levels for dependent variables are required for
MANOVA, gender was not included in the analysis.
Finally, the perceptual variables were included to
make all possible comparisons.
5.2. Sample selection and analysis
MANOVA and ANOVA were performed in an
attempt to understand how the three kinds of taxpayers
varied. MANOVA was employed to test if the
centroids or the mean vectors of the three groups
were significantly different, then a pairwise, uni-
variate analysis was performed to determine which
variables contributed to the difference between them.
Since the sample sizes of three groups varied
substantially, we randomly sampled from the larger
groups, thereby reducing their size to a level
comparable to the smallest group and thus worked
with 582 samples in each group.
5.3. Results of exploratory study
The assumption of homoscedasticity was tested
using Boxs M. Results indicated that M is significant
(M = 3570; F = 10.30; sig. = .000) which suggested
that the assumption was violated. Research has shown
that for equal cell sizes, the significance level is not
appreciably affected by unequal covariance matrices
[24]. The three groups in this study are of the same
size, thus a violation of this assumption has minimal
impact. The F test and Wilks l show that the centroid
of means of the dependent variables were not the same
for the three groups which established that there were
significant differences among them.
Along with the overall results, a post hoc, uni-
variate test of group differences was conducted to
determine which group means differed significantly
from others. This helped specify the exact nature of
the overall effect determined by the F test. Pairwise
multiple comparison tests were employed to test each
pair of groups to identify similarities and differences.
Results, as shown in Table 4, indicated that 2D
barcode and Internet taxpayers were quite similar
119
across six demographic variables and five perceptual
variables; significant differences between electronic
and manual taxpayers were found in all variables in
the study.
6. Discussion
Through the confirmatory and exploratory ana-
lyses, this study can help practitioners and researchers
better understand taxpayers acceptance decision of
eTax; this may shed light on interesting and subtle
difference between different kinds of taxpayers. The
study has the merits of conducting a technology
acceptance investigation in a real-world tax-filing
setting involving individual taxpayers and various tax-
filing methods. Such a setting should increase the
generalizability of the results.
While the exploratory study did not advance
specific hypotheses, several interesting relationships
were observed. First, Table 4 suggests that manual
taxpayers, in comparison with electronic ones, had a
lower education and were older, had less computer and
Internet experience, had less IS resources, and were
online less frequently. Also, all the responses of
perceptions for manual taxpayers were significantly
lower than those of their counterparts. Finally,
inspection of the mean and standard deviation
revealed the fact that the electronic taxpayers intended
to continue using the method. However, manual
taxpayers usage intentions were relatively diverse.
The confirmatory study represented a conceptual
replication by re-examining theoretical models in tax-
filing settings. Overall, we saw major differences in
the path coefficients between manual and electronic
taxpayers, and little differences between electronic
taxpayers. The same observation can also be found in
the exploratory study.
Across the three kinds of taxpayers it is important
to recognize that BI was largely driven by PU, which,
on its own explained, almost 40% of the variance in BI
for manual taxpayers and 64% for the other two kinds
of taxpayer. Furthermore, CMP represented the
second largest determinant of behavioral intention.
Thus, it seems that taxpayers tend to concentrate on
the usefulness of a tax-filing method and may be fairly
pragmatic in developing general attitudes towards
using it, and the compatibility of a tax-filing method
120 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126

Table 4
Multi- and uni-variate analysis of taxpayers demographic and perceptual variables
Manual 2D barcode Internet F Multiple comparison
Uni-variate analysis
Computer experience
M 3.19 4.13 4.22 135.0** Int. = 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.47 1.00 1.01
Internet experience
M 2.56 3.37 3.45 121.0** Int. = 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.24 .97 1.02
Frequency of Internet use
M 5.16 6.66 6.76 204.0** Int. = 2D. > Man.
S.D. 2.32 .99 .71
Computer and network facilitation at home
M 3.15 3.49 3.66 48.10** Int. = 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.12 .85 .69
Computer and network facilitation at work
M 3.97 4.61 4.49 45.30** Int. = 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.61 .92 .99
Age
M 5.29 4.68 4.79 17.90** Man. > Int. = 2D.
S.D. 2.25 1.60 1.66
Education
M 3.57 3.98 4.11 92.60** Int. > 2D. > Man.
S.D. .89 .59 .60
Behavioral intention
M 4.15 6.19 6.43 662.0** Int. > 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.61 0.92 0.84
Perceived usefulness
M 4.09 6.10 6.22 616.0** Int. = 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.55 0.91 0.92
Perceived risk
M 3.47 4.48 5.28 252.0** Int. > 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.21 1.21 1.08
Perceived ease of use
M 4.43 5.93 5.48 350.0** Int. = 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.36 0.92 0.91
Compatibility
M 4.32 5.98 6.19 447.0** Int. > 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.56 0.96 0.87
Subjective norms
M 3.90 5.11 4.92 101.0** Int. = 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.53 1.55 1.61
Technology facilitating conditions
M 3.89 5.27 5.31 167.0** Int. = 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.73 1.40 1.38
Self-efficacy
M 4.28 6.05 6.01 403.0** Int. = 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.64 0.91 0.95
Resource facilitating conditions
M 4.33 5.40 5.53 83.20** Int. > 2D. > Man.
S.D. 1.58 1.47 1.42
Multivariate analysis Wilks l = 0.34**, F = 69.70**, h2 = .126, power = 1.0
Man.: manual, 2D.: 2D barcode, Int.: Internet.
**
p-value < .001.
 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126
with taxpayers practice is a crucial antecedent to their
behavioral intention. Given the dominant effect of PU
and compatibility, our findings suggested that it is
important for the agency to incorporate useful and
valuable functions into the eTax software for the
targeted taxpayers practices and service needs and
also to demonstrate the value of eTax to taxpayers.
It is interesting to note that the effects of PEOU,
SN, and SE on BI were inconsistent between manual
and electronic taxpayers. Examining the minor role of
PEOU for the electronic tax-filing systems shows that
our results contradicted the findings reported by some
prior research. Furthermore, insignificant effect of SN
was also found for electronic taxpayers but not for
manual taxpayers. The exploratory study might
provide an explanation in that manual taxpayers
may be less adaptable to new technologies, and have
less mental and cognitive capacity. As a consequence,
electronic taxpayers may not consider PEOU or SN an
issue of particular importance. Moreover, they might
be more confident about their own point of view and
place less weight on other persons opinions [9].
Conversely, a manual taxpayers decision to adopt tax-
filing methods could be more likely to be influenced
by PEOU and social pressures.
Also interesting was the role of SE, which had
significant but negative effect on BI for manual
taxpayers. In contrast, the effect of SE on electronic
taxpayers BI was negligible. Table 4 indicates that
self-efficacy perception of electronic taxpayers was
significantly higher than that for manual taxpayers. It
seems likely that individuals with higher self-efficacy
in IT have more options available and feel free to
choose whatever they want.
Another two sub-constructs of PBC (TFC and
RFC) do not seem to contribute to taxpayers future
choice. However, manual taxpayers perceived much
less technology and resource support than the other
two groups, and thus facilitating conditions did
constrain manual taxpayers behavior. It seems likely
that TFC and RFC play the role of threshold for
taxpayers real behavior in choosing filing methods.
This suggests that the electronic tax-filing method
may not reach the entire population, and a digital
divide may exist.
Finally, in spite of electronic taxpayers having
perceived higher risk than manual taxpayers, contrary
to our prediction, PR may not be an important factor
121
that directly influences taxpayers choice of tax-filing
method.
7. Conclusion
The study provided some preliminary evidence
about the criteria that taxpayers used to evaluate their
adoption of a taxation IS. This could be valuable for
governments in designing and implementing their e-
government services. However, this study has a
number of limitations. First, the effects of PBC may
depend on the taxpayers past usage experience. In our
study, instruments for PBC were consistent across
taxpayers but electronic taxpayers had experience
with eTax while manual might not have had.
Venkatesh et al. suggested that perceptions become
more specific after direct experience. Manual tax-
payers may base their PBC perception on their general
beliefs about computers and computer use while
electronic taxpayers may adjust their system-specific
perceptions to reflect their interaction with eTax.
Second, this study used a cross-sectional design and
correlational data which did not provide irrefutable
evidence of causation. Also, all data are self-reported,
giving rise to problems associated with common-
method variance. Third, our model accounted for
about 67.1%, 63.6% and 67.1% of the variance across
three groups indicating that variables other than those
examined in this study are needed to explain
additional variance.
The findings might have policy implications for
the implementation of electronic tax-filing and e-
government services. Understanding adoption fac-
tors can extend their knowledge of taxpayers
decision making and lead to better strategies. Our
research provides a starting point for government
seeking ways to improve citizens acceptance of
eTax services. Additional research is also needed to
determine whether the results of this study can be
replicated in other populations and e-government
services.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge support from the
National Tax Administration of Northern Taiwan
122 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126
Province, Ministry of Finance in the 2003 research
program for time and data collection efforts. We also
thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their
valuable suggestions on this article.
Appendix A. Questionnaire items
 Behavioral intention (Source: Davis [11])
1. I intend to use Internet filing method for my
income tax return next year.
2. In choose filing methods for my income tax
return, Internet tax-filing method is my first
priority.
3. I would like to recommend Internet tax-filing
method to my relatives and friends.
 Perceived usefulness (Source: Davis [11])
1. Internet tax filing will be of no benefit to me (R).
2. Using Internet tax filing will speed the tax-filing
process.
3. The advantages of Internet tax filing will
outweigh the disadvantages.
4. Overall, using Internet tax filing will be
advantageous.
 Perceived ease of use (Source: Davis[11]; Chau and
Hu [8])
1. Learning to use Internet tax-filing method would
be easy for me.
2. I find Internet tax-filing method easy to use.
3. It is not easy for me to be skillful in using
Internet tax-filing method (R).
4. It is easy for me to input and modify data when I
use Internet tax-filing method.
5. Instructions for using Internet tax-filing method
will be easy to follow.
6. My interaction with Internet tax filing is clear
and understandable.
 Compatibility (Source: Taylor and Todd [31])
1. Using the Internet tax-filing method will fit well
with the way I work.
2. Using the Internet tax-filing method will fit into
my work style.
3. Using the Internet tax-filing method will fit well
with the way I live.
 Subjective norms (Source: Taylor and Todd [31])
1. People who influence my behavior would think
that I should use the Internet tax-filing method.
2. People who are important to me would think that
I should use the Internet tax-filing method.
 Perceived risk (Source: Cases [7])
1. Use of Internet tax-filing method may cause my
personal income tax information to be stolen.
2. I will feel uneasy psychologically if I use
Internet tax-filing methods.
3. I do not think it is safe to use Internet tax-filing
methods because of the privacy and security
concerns.
 Self-efficacy (Source: Taylor and Todd [31])
1. I would feel comfortable using the Internet/2D
barcode tax-filing method on my own.
2. If I wanted to, I could easily operate any of the
equipment to use the Internet/2D barcode tax-
filing method on my own.
3. I would be able to use the Internet/2D barcode
tax-filing method even if there was no one
around to show me how to use it.
 Resource facilitating conditions (Source: Taylor
and Todd [31])
1. There will not be enough computers and network
equipment for me to use the Internet/2D barcode
tax-filing method.
2. Using the Internet/2D barcode tax-filing method
will be too expensive for me.
3. I cannot find appropriate computer equipment
when I want to use Internet/2D barcode filing
method for my tax return.
 Technology facilitating conditions (Source: Taylor
and Todd [31])
1. It is easy for me to get support if I need help
when I have problems using computers or
Internet at work.
2. It is easy for me to get support if I need help
when I have problems using computers or
Internet at home.
 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126 123

Appendix B. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

Construct Item Manual 2D Barcode Internet
Mean S.D. Loading t-Statistic Mean S.D. Loading t-Statistic Mean S.D. Loading t-Statistic
BI BI1 4.70 1.60 0.89 6.19 0.93 0.97 6.47 0.86 0.96
BI2 3.99 1.59 0.82 25.5 6.13 0.96 0.89 295 6.29 0.97 0.86 238
BI3 4.29 1.75 0.92 31.1 6.18 0.96 0.95 406 6.47 0.87 0.95 328
PU USE1 4.17 1.57 0.89 6.03 0.95 0.88 6.16 1.00 0.86
USE2 4.26 1.63 0.89 31.6 6.10 0.95 0.93 260 6.29 0.98 0.87 194
USE3 4.28 1.56 0.93 34.9 6.05 0.98 0.95 277 6.18 1.02 0.93 222
USE4 4.23 1.57 0.93 34.9 6.08 0.95 0.95 275 6.21 0.98 0.93 222
PR PR1 3.56 1.55 0.80 4.25 1.65 0.90 5.29 1.50 0.90
PR2 3.44 1.53 0.95 25.8 3.94 1.57 0.95 294 4.92 1.51 0.93 250
PR3 3.63 1.57 0.91 25.2 4.11 1.62 0.96 303 5.16 1.50 0.95 264
PEOU PEOU1 4.63 1.55 0.84 6.13 0.88 0.80 6.02 1.08 0.79
PEOU2 4.58 1.52 0.88 27.3 5.99 1.02 0.83 170 6.01 1.07 0.85 157
PEOU3 4.45 1.61 0.83 24.6 5.89 1.11 0.80 161 5.95 1.10 0.83 152
PEOU4 4.45 1.47 0.83 24.6 5.60 1.21 0.78 157 5.49 1.32 0.78 141
PEOU5 4.69 1.31 0.87 26.4 5.71 1.11 0.85 175 5.65 1.22 0.75 134
PEOU6 4.67 1.33 0.85 25.3 5.74 1.06 0.84 174 5.60 1.30 0.70 123
CMP CMP1 4.58 1.52 0.97 5.94 0.97 0.97 6.19 0.91 0.97
CMP2 4.56 1.53 0.95 53.0 5.93 0.98 0.97 465 6.19 0.91 0.95 357
CMP3 4.32 1.54 0.92 45.3 5.84 1.06 0.91 336 6.05 1.04 0.87 250
SN SN1 3.98 1.51 0.96 5.07 1.52 0.96 5.02 1.57 0.96
SN2 3.99 1.51 0.96 36.9 5.00 1.55 0.95 172 4.96 1.58 0.96 161
TFC TFC1 3.72 1.83 0.87 4.97 1.54 0.82 5.10 1.55 0.88
TFC2 4.08 1.82 0.92 20.7 5.38 1.35 0.90 116 5.42 1.41 0.88 140

SE SE1 4.16 1.78 0.84 6.12 0.88 0.89 6.07 1.01 0.88
SE2 4.26 1.73 0.90 26.7 5.90 1.03 0.86 194 5.84 1.16 0.88 189
SE3 4.31 1.76 0.91 26.9 5.97 1.06 0.77 163 6.00 1.10 0.84 176
RFC RFC1 4.32 1.66 0.74 5.31 1.55 0.88 5.45 1.56 0.87
RFC2 4.35 1.83 0.89 9.20 5.49 1.54 0.83 92.8 5.61 1.55 0.84 75.6

Appendix C. Chi-square (x2) Tests of discriminant validity

Variables constrained Degrees of freedom Manual 2D barcode Internet
x2 Dx2 x2 Dx2 x2 Dx2
None 314 1058 37102 28431
BI + PU 315 1096 38 39612 2510 31035 2604
BI + PR 315 1138 80 46849 9747 38367 9936
BI + PEOU 315 1066 8 43542 6440 33412 4981
BI + CMP 315 1070 12 40326 3224 33027 4596
BI + SN 315 1063 5 40455 3353 32392 3961
BI + TFC 315 1190 132 40873 3771 31780 3349
BI + SE 315 1202 144 43957 6855 34140 5709
BI + RFC 315 1082 24 50130 13028 41411 12980
PU + PR 315 1156 98 48581 11479 38562 10131
124 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126

Appendix C (Continued )
Variables constrained Degrees of freedom Manual 2D barcode Internet
2 2 2 2
x Dx x Dx x2 Dx2
PU + PEOU 315 1080 22 42354 5252 31273 2842
PU + CMP 315 1078 20 39773 2671 31428 2997
PU + SN 315 1062 4 40206 3104 31001 2570
PU + TFC 315 1190 132 40324 3222 30266 1835
PU + SE 315 1175 117 43433 6331 32510 4079
PU + RFC 315 1087 29 51669 14567 40744 12313
PR + PEOU 315 1175 117 49736 12634 37636 9205
PR + CMP 315 1173 115 47461 10359 38067 9636
PR + SN 315 1139 81 40626 3524 33001 4570
PR + TFC 315 1140 82 43483 6381 34443 6012
PR + SE 315 1138 80 50779 13677 38254 9823
PR + RFC 315 1114 56 37406 304 29829 1398
PEOU + CMP 315 1083 25 41033 3931 31475 3044
PEOU + SN 315 1063 5 41232 4130 30730 2299
PEOU + TFC 315 1154 96 40603 3501 29362 931
PEOU + SE 315 1141 83 44544 7442 31472 3041
PEOU + RFC 315 1091 33 52387 15285 39049 10618
CMP + SN 315 1064 6 39200 2098 31326 2895
CMP + TFC 315 1174 116 39051 1949 29918 1487
CMP + SE 315 1176 118 41786 4684 31536 3105
CMP + RFC 315 1072 14 50444 13342 41576 13145
SN + TFC 315 1137 79 38567 1465 29192 761
SN + SE 315 1155 97 42436 5334 32008 3577
SN + RFC 315 1074 16 40210 3108 30908 2477
TFC + SE 315 1075 17 39319 2217 28874 443
TFC + RFC 315 1170 112 44424 7322 34563 6132
SE + RFC 315 1173 115 54250 17148 41173 12742

Appendix D. Scale properties and correlations

Tables D1D3 show the scale properties and correlations.

Table D1
Scale properties and correlations for manual tax filing
AVE Composite reliability Factor correlations
BI PU Risk PEOU CMP SN TFC SE RFC
BI 0.77 0.91 1.00
PU 0.83 0.95 0.81 1.00
PR 0.79 0.92 0.05 0.00 1.00
PEOU 0.72 0.94 0.68 0.79 0.03 1.00
CMP 0.89 0.96 0.64 0.70 0.06 0.76 1.00
SN 0.92 0.97 0.59 0.59 0.05 0.57 0.57 1.00
TFC 0.80 0.89 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.06 0.14 0.05 1.00
SE 0.78 0.91 0.19 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.07 0.63 1.00
RFC 0.67 0.80 0.26 0.23 0.13 0.23 0.31 0.30 0.20 0.20 1.00
P 2 P 2 P
Reliability computed as: rc = ( l) /[( l) + var(e)]; AVE is average variance extracted (i.e., proportion of variance in construct that is not
P P P
due to measurement error) = ( l2)/[( l2) + var(e)].
 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126 125

Table D2
Scale properties and correlations for 2D barcode tax filing
AVE Composite Factor correlations
reliability BI PU Risk PEOU CMP SN TFC SE RFC
BI 0.88 0.96 1.00
PU 0.86 0.96 0.80 1.00
PR 0.88 0.96 0.05 0.09 1.00
PEOU 0.67 0.92 0.61 0.75 0.08 1.00
CMP 0.90 0.97 0.64 0.74 0.09 0.77 1.00
SN 0.91 0.97 0.30 0.35 0.05 0.37 0.37 1.00
TFC 0.74 0.85 0.32 0.40 0.09 0.49 0.45 0.24 1.00
SE 0.71 0.88 0.50 0.59 0.16 0.65 0.62 0.23 0.55 1.00
RFC 0.73 0.84 0.17 0.20 0.37 0.17 0.20 0.09 0.15 0.29 1.00

Table D3
Scale properties and correlations for Internet tax filing
AVE Composite Factor correlations
reliability BI PU Risk PEOU CMP SN TFC SE RFC
BI 0.85 0.95 1.00
PU 0.81 0.94 0.81 1.00
PR 0.86 0.95 0.03 0.08 1.00
PEOU 0.72 0.91 0.56 0.70 0.05 1.00
CMP 0.86 0.95 0.62 0.70 0.05 0.68 1.00
SN 0.92 0.97 0.25 0.33 0.03 0.34 0.29 1.00
TFC 0.77 0.87 0.34 0.45 0.09 0.56 0.48 0.27 1.00
SE 0.75 0.90 0.49 0.56 0.09 0.65 0.66 0.22 0.63 1.00
RFC 0.73 0.84 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.16 0.24 0.09 0.14 0.27 1.00

References [8] Y.K. Chau, J.H. Hu, Information technology acceptance by

[1] D.A. Adams, R.R. Nelson, P.A. Todd, Perceived usefulness,
ease of use and usage of information technology: a replication,
MIS Quarterly 16(2), 1992, pp. 227247.
[2] R. Agarwal, J. Prasad, Are individual differences germane to
the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision
Science 30(2), 1999, pp. 361391.
[3] J.C. Anderson, D.W. Gerbing, Structural equation modeling in
practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psy-
chological Bulletin 49, 1988, pp. 411423.
[4] A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of beha-
vioral change, Psychological Review 84(2), 1977, pp. 191
215.
[5] P.M. Bentler, Comparative fit indexes in structural models,
Psychological Bulletin 107, 1990, pp. 238246.
[6] P.M. Bentler, C.P. Chou, Practical issues in structural model-
ing, Sociological Methods and Research 16, 1987, pp. 78117.
[7] A.S. Cases, Perceived risk and risk-reduction strategies
in Internet shopping, The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research 12(4), 2002, pp. 375
394.
individual professionals: a model comparison approach, Deci-
sion Sciences 32(4), 2001, pp. 699718.
[9] Y.K. Chau, J.H. Hu, Investigating healthcare professionals
decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test
of competing theories, Information and Management 39, 2002,
pp. 297311.
[10] M.W. Darrell, Global e-Government, 2002. Available:http://
www.insidepolitics.org/egovt02int.htm (accessed April 01,
2003).
[11] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly
13(3), 1989, pp. 319339.
[12] F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, P.R. Warshaw, User acceptance of
computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models,
Management Science 35(8), 1989, pp. 9821003.
[13] M. Fishbein, I. Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior:
An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addision-Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1975.
[14] P.D. Fletcher, E-file: Electronic Tax Administration in the
United States (Projet CEFRIO Nouve aux mode`les Mode`les
de collaborationCollaboration, realise par Center for Tech-
126 J.-R. Fu et al. / Information & Management 43 (2006) 109126
nology in Government, 2002. Available: http://www.cefrio.
qc.ca/../../projets/Documents/NMC_ETA.pdf (accessed Febru-
ary 23, 2005).
[15] C.R. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of
Marketing Research 18, 1981, pp. 3951.
[16] U.E. Gattiker, Technology Management in Organization,
Sage, Newbury Partk, CA, 1990.
[17] H. van der Heijden, T. Verhagen, M. Creemers, Predicting
online purchase behavior: replications and test of competing
models, in: Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International
Conference System Science, Maui, Hi, 2001.
[18] D. Hoffman, T. Novak, M. Peralta, Building consumer trust
online, Communications of the ACM 14(2), 1999, pp. 8085.
[19] C.S. Hwang, A comparative study of tax-filing methods:
manual, Internet, and two-dimensional bar code, Journal of
Government Information 27, 2000, pp. 113127.
[20] L.R. James, S.S. Mulaik, J.M. Brett, Causal analysis: Assump-
tions, Models, and Data, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1982.
[21] R.H. Kay, An exploration of theoretical and practical founda-
tions for assessing tttitudes toward computers: the computer
attitude measure (CAM), Computers in Human Behavior 9(4),
1993, pp. 371386.
[22] H.P. Lu, D.H. Gustafson, An empirical study of perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use on computerized support
system use over time, International Journal of Information
Management 14(5), 1994, pp. 317329.
[23] K. Mathieson, Predicting user intentions: comparing the tech-
nology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior,
Information Systems Research 2(3), 1991, pp. 173191.
[24] C.L. Olson, Comparative robustness of six tests in multivariate
analysis of variance, Journal of the American Statistical Asso-
ciation 69(348), 1974, pp. 894907.
[25] L. Paul, I. John, Why do people use information technology? A
critical review of the technology acceptance model Informa-
tion and Management 40(3), 2003, pp. 191204.
[26] C.K. Riemenschneider, D.A. Harrison, P.P. Mykytyn, Under-
standing it adoption decisions in small business: integrating
current theories, Information and Management 40, 2003, pp.
269285.
[27] E.M. Rogers, The Diffusion of Innovation, 4th ed., Free Press,
New York, 1985.
[28] J.M. Stanton, An empirical assessment of data collection using
the Internet, Personnel Psychology 51, 1998, pp. 709725.
[29] G.H. Subramanian, A replication of perceived usefulness and
perceived ease-of-use measurement, Decision Science 25(5/6),
1994, pp. 863874.
[30] E.B. Swanson, Information System Implementation: Bridging
the Gap Between Design and Utilization, Homewood, Irwin,
IL, 1988.
[31] S. Taylor, P.A. Todd, Understanding information technology
usage: a test of competing models, Information Systems
Research 6(2), 1995, pp. 144176.
[32] H.C. Triandis, Interpersonal Behavior, Brooks/Cole, Mon-
terey, CA, 1977.
[33] V. Venkatesh, Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrat-
ing control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technol-
ogy acceptance model, Information Systems Research 11(4),
2000, pp. 342365.
[34] V. Venkatesh, F.D. Davis, A model of the antecedents of
perceived ease of use: development and test, Decision Sciences
27(3), 1996, pp. 451481.
[35] V. Venkatesh, F.D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the
technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies,
Management Science 46(2), 2000, pp. 186204.
[36] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. David, User acceptance of
information technology: toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly
27(3), 2003, pp. 425478.
Jen-Ruei Fu is a assistant professor in the
Department of Information Management
at the National Kaohsiung University of
Applied Sciences in Taiwan, ROC. He
received his MBA and PhD degrees in
information management from National
Central University in Taiwan. His current
research interests includes government
information systems and knowledge man-
agement.
Cheng-Kiang Farn is a professor in the
Department of Information Management
at the National Central University in Tai-
wan, ROC. His teaching and research inter-
ests focus on electronic business, SCM and
knowledge management. His major pub-
lications have been in the areas of electro-
nic business and management of IS.
Cheng-Kiang is also consultant to many
government agencies and enterprises.
Wen-Pin Chao is an IS analyst at the
National Tax Administration of Northern
Taiwan Province, Ministry of Finance in
Taiwan, ROC. He received his MBA
degree in information management from
the National Central University. His cur-
rent job focuses on tax information sys-
tem, including management and
development. He is one of the electronic
tax-filing project initiators in Taiwan.