Evaluating TAM validity and reliability in mobile learning for students with disabilities in South African distance education

Kelly Young; Adam Louw

doi:10.24059/olj.v30i3.5095

Authors

Kelly Young University of South Africa
Adam Louw University of South Africa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v30i3.5095

Keywords:

Technology acceptance, students with disabilities, inclusive education, mobile learning, distance education, South Africa

Abstract

This study examined the psychometric properties of two primary domains: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) in the technology acceptance model (TAM), and their value in determining mobile learning (m-learning) usage among a sample of 220 students with disabilities (SwD) enrolled in a distance education (DE) institution in South Africa. This appears to be one of the first studies in the country to establish internal consistency of the domains among SwD and confirm the two-factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; χ²/df = 2.26, CFI = .982, NFI = .969, IFI = .983; TLI = .971, SRMR = .039). These two constructs exhibited factor loadings (λ) ranging from .79 to .95 and produced a structure consistent with the original TAM (Davis, 1989). From a theoretical perspective, the CFA findings reinforce the construct validity of the TAM across various student populations while supporting its cross-cultural applicability in diverse educational settings. However, regression analyses suggested that PU and PEOU were not significant predictors of m-learning usage among SwD (β = .026, t = .300; p = .764; β = -.010, t = -.113, p = .910, respectively), warranting a critical review of the TAM among SwD in DE settings and giving credence to the notion that m-learning usage is deeply embedded in the structural realities of living with a disability and studying at a distance in South Africa. Nonetheless, this study contributes to the limited psychometric research on the TAM in the South African DE sector and establishes a foundation for understanding m-learning usage among SwD in developing contexts.

References

Adams, D. A., Nelson, R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 227–247.

Almaiah, M. A., & Alismaiel, O. A. (2019). Examination of factors influencing the use of mobile learning system: An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 885–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9810-7

Althunibat, A., Almaiah, M. A., & Altarawneh, F. (2021). Examining the factors influencing the mobile learning applications usage in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronics (Switzerland), 10(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10212676

Alyoussef, I. Y. (2021). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning in higher education: An application and extension of the UTAUT model. Electronics (Switzerland), 10(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10243171

Ameri Shahrabi, M., Ahaninjan, A., Nourbakhsh, H., Amani Ashlubolagh, M., Abdolmaleki, J., & Mohamadi, M. (2013). Assessing psychometric reliability and validity of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) among faculty members at Shahid Beheshti University. Management Science Letters, 2295–2300. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2013.07.014

Ayoola, O. L., & Mangina, E. (2012). The construction of a personalised and social u-learning environment for third level education. International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education, 2(3), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcee.2012070103

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. General Learning Press.

Bere, A., & Rambe, P. (2016). An empirical analysis of the determinants of mobile instant messaging appropriation in university learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(2), 172–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9112-2

Bozalek, V., & Boughey, C. (2012). (Mis)framing higher education in South Africa. Social Policy and Administration, 46(6), 688–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2012.00863.x

Brown, M. (2015). Review: Research involving people with a learning disability – methodological challenges and ethical considerations. Journal of Research in Nursing, 20(6), 447–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987115592084

Chau, P. Y. K. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185–204.

Ciampa, K. (2014). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12036

Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2022). Understanding the intention-behavior gap: The role of intention strength. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(August), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923464

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

Drwish, A. M., Al-Dokhny, A. A., Al-Abdullatif, A. M., & Aladsani, H. K. (2023). A sustainable quality model for mobile learning in post-pandemic higher education: A structural equation modeling-based investigation. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097420

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

Gupta, Y., Khan, F. M., & Agarwal, S. (2021). Exploring factors influencing mobile learning in higher education - A systematic review. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(12), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i12.22503

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Humida, T., Al Mamun, M. H., & Keikhosrokiani, P. (2022). Predicting behavioral intention to use e-learning system: A case-study in Begum Rokeya University, Rangpur, Bangladesh. Education and Information Technologies, 27(2), 2241–2265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10707-9

Kabir, M. R., Mahmud, H., & Hasan, M. K. (2023). Acceptability of a head-mounted assistive mouse controller for people with upper limb disability: An empirical study using the technology acceptance model. PLoS ONE, 18(10 October). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293608

Kampa, R. K. (2023). Combining technology readiness and acceptance model for investigating the acceptance of m-learning in higher education in India. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 18(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-10-2022-0149

Kim, H. J., Yi, P., & Hong, J. I. (2020). Students’ academic use of mobile technology and higher-order thinking skills: The role of active engagement. Education Sciences, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030047

Lall, P., Rees, R., Yi Law, G. C., Dunleavy, G., Cotič, Ž., & Car, J. (2019). Influences on the implementation of mobile learning for medical and nursing education: Qualitative systematic review by the digital health education collaboration. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.2196/12895

Lutfi, A., Saad, M., Almaiah, M. A., Alsaad, A., Al-Khasawneh, A., Alrawad, M., Alsyouf, A., & Al-Khasawneh, A. L. (2022). Actual use of mobile learning technologies during social distancing circumstances: Case study of King Faisal university students. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(12), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127323

Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1

Masrom, M. (2007). Technology Acceptance Model and E-learning. 12th International Conference on Education.

McDonald, K. E., & Kidney, C. A. (2012). What is right? Ethics in intellectual disabilities research. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2011.00319.x

Milheim, K. L., Fraenza, C., & Palermo-Kielb, K. (2021). Supporting student-initiated mobile device use in online learning. Online Learning Journal, 25(3), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i3.2438

Murphy, A., Farley, H., Lane, M., Hafeez-Baig, A., & Carter, B. (2014). Mobile learning anytime, anywhere: What are our students doing? Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 18(3), 53–74.

Mustaffa, M. R., & Mansor, E. I. (2015). Facilitating students’ learning through m-LMS for tablet device. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, 7(3), 236–240. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijcte.2015.v7.963

Nichter, S. (2021). Does mode of access make a difference? Mobile learning and online student engagement. Online Learning Journal, 25(3), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i3.2848

Oladejo, M. A., Adetoro, J. A., Adebanjo Oyebade, S., Omowunmi, A., & Adedoyin, F. (2018). ‘Learning on the move’: The behavioural intentions of Nigerian students with disabilities. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(1), 1–10. www.moj-es.net

Pamela, K. S., & Rahman, M. M. (2021). Exploring learners’ behavioural intention towards mobile learning: A case of certificate program of Bangladesh Open University. Open Higher Education in the 21st Century, June 2021, 221–253.

Qashou, A. (2021). Influencing factors in m-learning adoption in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 1755–1785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10323-z

Rafique, H., Almagrabi, A. O., Shamim, A., Anwar, F., & Bashir, A. K. (2020). Investigating the acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers and Education, 145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103732

Şahin, F., Doğan, E., Yıldız, G., & Okur, M. R. (2022). University students with special needs: Investigating factors influencing e-learning adoption. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7454

Şahin, F., Kızılaslan, A., & Şimşek, Ö. (2023). Factors influencing the acceptance of assistive technology by teacher candidates in the context of inclusive education and special needs students. Education and Information Technologies, 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12383-3

Şahin, F., & Yıldız, G. (2024). Understanding mobile learning acceptance among university students with special needs: An exploration through the lens of self-determination theory. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(4), 1838–1851. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12986

Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 517–525. https://doi.org/10.2307/249590

Šumak, B., Heričko, M., Pušnik, M., & Polančič, G. (2011). Factors affecting acceptance and use of Moodle: An empirical study based on TAM. Informatica, 35, 91–100.

Suner, A., Yilmaz, Y., & Pişkin, B. (2019). Mobile learning in dentistry: Usage habits, attitudes and perceptions of undergraduate students. PeerJ, 2019(7). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7391

Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2013). Extending the TAM model to empirically investigate the students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning in developing Countries. Science and Information Conference. www.conference.thesai.org

Tawafak, R. M., Al-Rahmi, W. M., Almogren, A. S., Al Adwan, M. N., Safori, A., Attar, R. W., & Habes, M. (2023). Analysis of e-learning system use using combined TAM and ECT factors. Sustainability, 15(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411100

van Rooyen, C., & Marais, I. E. (2018). A socially just pedagogy in the use of mobile devices in higher education? The case of humanities first-year students at a South African university. SOTL in the South, 2(2), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.36615/sotls.v2i2.66

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Wong, K.-T., Osman, R., Goh, P. S. C., & Rahmat, M. K. (2013). Understanding student teachers’ behavioural intention to use technology: Technology acceptance model (TAM) validation and testing. International Journal of Instruction, 6(1). www.e-iji.net

Wu, H., Que, X., & Pan, L. (2025). Analysing students’ aspiration factors that impact actual use of mobile learning systems: a two-stage SEM-ANN approach. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04717-y

Young-Pelton, C. A., & Dotson, T. D. (2017). Ethical issues in rural programs for behavior analysis for students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 36(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870517703407

Zhou, L., Xue, S., & Li, R. (2022). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore students’ intention to use an online education platform at a university in China. SAGE Open, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221085259