Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2006; 45(05): 528-535
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634114
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Modeling End-users’ Acceptance of a Knowledge Authoring Tool

N. C. Hulse
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
2   Medical Informatics, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
,
G. Del Fiol
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
2   Medical Informatics, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
,
R. A. Rocha
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
2   Medical Informatics, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 02 April 2005

accepted: 23 January 2006

Publication Date:
07 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: Knowledge bases comprise a vital component in the classic medical expert system model, yet the knowledge acquisition process by which they are created has been characterized as highly iterative and labor-intensive. The difficulty of this process underscores the importance of knowledge authoring tools that satisfy the demands of end-users. The authors hypothesize that the acceptability of a knowledge authoring tool for the creation of medical knowledge base content can be predicted by an accepted model in the information technology (IT) field, specifically the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).

Methods: An online survey was conducted amongst knowledge base authors who had previously established experience with the authoring tool software. The Likert-based questions in the survey were patterned directly after accepted TAM constructs with minor modifications to particularize them to the software being used. The results were analyzed using structural equation modeling.

Results: The TAM performed well in predicting end-users’ behavioral intentions to use the knowledge authoring tool. Five out of seven goodness-of-fit statistics indicate that the model represents the behavioral intentions of the authors well. All but one of the hypothesized relationships specified by the TAM were significant with p values less than 0.05.

Conclusions: The TAM provides an adequate means by which development teams can anticipate and better understand what aspects of a knowledge authoring tool are most important to their target audience. Further research involving other behavioral models and an expanded user base will be necessary to better understand the scope of issues that factor into acceptability.

Keywords

Knowledge acquisition - knowledge bases - software acceptance - clinical information systems - Technology Acceptance Model
 

  • References

  • 1 Shortliffe EH. et al An artificial intelligence program to advise physicians regarding antimicrobial therapy. Comput Biomed Res 1973; 6 (06) 544-60.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Barnett GO. et al DXplain. An evolving diagnostic decision-support system. Jama 1987; 258 (01) 67-74.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Miller R, Masarie FE, Myers JD. Quick medical reference (QMR) for diagnostic assistance. MD Comput 1986; 3 (05) 34-48.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Warner Jr HR. Iliad: moving medical decisionmaking into new frontiers. Methods Inf Med 1989; 28 (04) 370-2.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Berner ES. et al Performance of Four Computer- Based Diagnostic Systems. N Engl J Med 1994; 330 (025) 1792-6.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Berner E, Jackson J, Algina J. Relationships among performance scores of four diagnostic decision support systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; 3 (03) 208-15.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Perry CA. Knowledge bases in medicine: A review. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 1990; 78 (03) 271-82.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Smirnov A. et al Knowledge logistics as an intelligent service for healthcare. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44 (02) 262-4.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Degoulet P, Fieschi M, Chatellier G. Decision support systems from the standpoint of knowledge representation. Methods Inf Med 1995; 34 1-2. 202-8.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Barreiro A. et al A modular knowledge base for the follow-up of clinical protocols. Methods Inf Med 1993; 32 (05) 373-81.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Giuse DA, Giuse NB, Miller RA. Evaluation of long-term maintenance of a large medical knowledge base. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1995; 2 (05) 297-306.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Compton P. et al Maintaining an expert system. In Quinlan JR. (ed.) Applications of Expert Systems. Turing Institute Press in association with Addison-Wesley 1989; pp 366-84.
    PubMed
  • 13 Warner HR, Sorenson DK, Bouhaddou O. Knowledge engineering in health informatics. NewYork: Springer; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Lincoln M. Medical Education Applications. In Berner E. (ed.) Clinical Decision Support Systems.. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1999. p 110
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Yu VL. Conceptual obstacles in computerized medical diagnosis. J Med Philos 1983; 8 (01) 67-75.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Miller R, Geissbuhler A.. Clinical Diagnostic Decision Support Systems - An Overview. In Berner E.. Clinical Decision Support Systems.. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1999. pp 19-21.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Balas EA, Boran SA. Managing clinical knowledge for healthcare improvement. In: Yearbook of Medical Informatics.. Bethesda, MD: NLM; 2000. pp 65-70.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Johansson B. et al Database and knowledge base integration - a data mapping method for Arden Syntax knowledge modules. Methods Inf Med 1996; 35 4-5. 302-8.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Spreckelsen C, Spitzer K. Formalising and acquiring model-based hypertext in medicine: an integrative approach. Methods Inf Med 1998; 37 (03) 239-46.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Alberdi E, Taylor P, Lee R. Elicitation and representation of expert knowledge for computer aided diagnosis in mammography. Methods Inf Med 2004; 43 (03) 239-46.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Grutter R, Fierz W. An electronic study form to support collaborating agents in the management of clinical knowledge. Methods Inf Med 1999; 38 (03) 154-7.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Giuse DA, Giuse NB, Miller RA. Consistency enforcement in medical knowledge base construction. Artif Intell Med 1993; 5 (03) 245-52.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Giuse DA, Giuse NB, Miller RA. A tool for the computer-assisted creation of QMR medical knowledge base disease profiles. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1991; pp 978-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Walton JD. et al Graphical access to medical expert systems: III. Design of a knowledge acquisition environment. Methods Inf Med 1987; 26 (03) 78-88.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jenders RA, Dasgupta B.. Assessment of a knowledge- acquisition tool for writing Medical Logic Modules in the Arden Syntax. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1996; pp 567-71.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Shiffman RN. et al Bridging the guideline implementation gap: a systematic, document-centered approach to guideline implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11 (05) 418-26.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Musen MF, RW Grosso WE, Noy NF, Grubezy M, Gennari JH. Component-based support for building knowledge acquisition systems. In: Conference on Intelligent Information Processing of the International Federation for Processing World Computer Congress. Beijing 2000
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 The Protégé Ontology Editor and Knowledge Acquisition System. Available at http://protege. stanford.edu/index.html AccessedAug 28 2004
    PubMed
  • 29 Hulse NC. et al. Application of an XML-based Document Framework to Knowledge Content Authoring and Clinical Information System Development. Proc AMIA Symp 2003; p 870.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Intermountain Healthcare. Available at http://www.intermountainhealthcare.org Accessed May 1 2006
    PubMed
  • 31 Intermountain Healthcare Clinical Programs Available at http://www.intermountainhealthcare.org/xp/ihc/physician/clinicalprograms Accessed May 1 2006
    PubMed
  • 32 Hougaard J. Developing evidence-based interdisciplinary care standards and implications for improving patient safety. Int J Med Inf 2004; 73 7-8. 615-24.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Hulse NC. et al The Knowledge Authoring Tool: A Flexible XML-based Knowledge Authoring Environment. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12 (04) 418-30.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Davis FD. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 1989; 13 (03) 319-40.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bagozzi RP, Davis FD, Warshaw PR. Development and Test of a Theory of Technological Learning and Usage. Human Relations 1992; 45 (07) 659-86.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall 1980
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hu PJ. et al Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology. Journal of Management of Information Systems 1999; 16 (02) 91-112.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Chismar WG, Wiley-Patton S.. Test of the technology acceptance model for the internet in pediatrics. Proc AMIA Symp 2002; pp 155-9.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wilson EV, Lankton NK. Modeling patients’ acceptance of provider-delivered e-health. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11 (04) 241-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Hooff B v d. et al Knowledge Sharing in Knowledge Communities in Communities and Technologies. M. Huysman (ed.). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003; pp 119-41.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Adams DA, Nelson RR, Todd PA. Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology - a Replication. MIS Quarterly 1992; 16 (02) 227-47.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Heilman G, White D.. On General Application of the Technology Acceptance Model. Available at http://mcb.unco.edu/pdfs/WPS/TAM-2.doc Accessed Sep. 15 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; 2004. p 498
  • 44 SPSS Amos 5.0 Available at http://www.spss.com/amos/ Accessed Nov 15 2004
    PubMed
  • 45 Nunally JC. Pyschometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Hoyl RH. (ed.) Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Bollen KA. Overall Fit in Covariance Structural Models: Two Types of Sample Size Effects. Psychological Bulletin 1990; 107 (02) 256-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Hoelter J. The analysis of covariance structures: goodness-of-fit indices. Soc Methods & Research 1983; 11: 325-44.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 2000; 46 (02) 186-204.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar