Computer Self-Efficacy: A Bibliography

January 28, 2008

My preliminary bibliography for my ILS680 special project:


Agarwal, R., & V. Sambamurthy and Ralph M. Stair. (2000). Research report: The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy – an empirical assessment. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 418-430.

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Barbeite, F. G., & Weiss, E. (2004). Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an internet sample: Testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 1-15.

Beas, M. I., & Salanova, M. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs, computer training and psychological well-being among information and communication technology workers. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 1043-1058.

Beckers, J. J., & Schmidt, H. G. (2001). The structure of computer anxiety: A six-factor model. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 35-49.

Busch, T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 147-158.

Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133-153.

Cleyle, S. (2003). Introduction. Library Hi Tech, 21(3), 270-272.

Coffin, R. J., & MacIntrye, P. D. (1999). Motivational influences on computer-related affective states. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 549-569.

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.

Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. L. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145-158.

Czaja, S. J., Neil Charness, Arthur D. Fisk, Christopher Herzog, Sankaran N. Nair, Wendy A. Rogers, et al. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333-352.

Decker, C. A. (1999). Technical education transfer: Perceptions of employee computer technology self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 161-172.

Decker, C. A. (1998). Training transfer: Perception of computer use self-efficacy among university employees. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 14(2)

Deng, X. 1., Doll, W. 2., & Truong, D. 3. (2004). Computer self-efficacy in an ongoing use context. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(6), 395-412.

Downey, J. (2006). Measuring general computer self-efficacy: The surprising comparison of three instruments in predicting performance, attitudes, and usage. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences,

Downey, J. (2006). Refining the scope in computer self-efficacy relationships: An empirical comparison of three instruments in predicting competence and attitudes.

Downey, J. P., & McMurtrey, M. (2007). Introducing task-based general computer self-efficacy: An empirical comparison of three general self-efficacy instruments. Interacting with Computers, 19, 382-396.

Ellen, P. S., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (1991). Resistance to technological innovations: An examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(4), 297-307.

Garnes, D. M. B. (2005). Hope and self-efficacy as motivational influences in technology adoption.

Goh, D., Ogan, C., Ahuja, M., Herring, S. C., & Robinson, J. C. (2007). Being the same isn’t enough: Impact of male and female mentors on computer self-efficacy of college students in IT-related fields. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(1), 19-40.

Hasan, B. (2006). Delineating the effects of general and system-specific computer self-efficacy beliefs on IS acceptance. Information & Management, 43, 565-571.

Hasan, B. 1. (2003). The influence of specific computer experiences on computer self-efficacy beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(4), 443.

Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987). Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: The case of computers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 307-313.

Hsu, W. K., & Huang, S. S. (2006). Determinants of computer self-efficacy – an examination of learning motivations and learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(3), 245-265.

Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega: International Journal of Management Science, 23(6), 587-605.

Imhof, M., Vollmeyer, R. 1., & Beierlein, C. 1. (2007). Computer use and the gender gap: The issue of access, use, motivation, and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 2823-2837.

Jawahar, L. M., & Elango, B. (2001). The effect of attitudes, goal setting and self-efficacy on end user performance. Journal of End User Computing, 13(2), 40-45.

Johnson, R. D. (2005). An empirical investigation of sources of application-specific computer self-efficacy and mediators of the efficacy-performance relationship. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, 737-758.

Jones, D. E. (1999). Ten years later: Support staff perceptions and opinions on technology in the workplace. Library Trends, 47(4), 711-745.

Korukonda, A. R. 1. (2007). Differences that do matter: A dialectic analysis of individual characteristics and personality dimensions contributing to computer anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1921-1942.

Kupersmith, J. (1992). Technostress and the reference librarian. Reference Services Review, 20, 7-14, 50.

Lam, T., & Vincent Cho, and Hailin Qu. (2007). A study of hotel employee behavioral intentions towards adoption of information technology. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 49-65.

Leach, D. J. 1., Wall, T. D. 1., & Jackson, P. R. 2. (2003). The effect of empowerment on job knowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 76(1), 27.

Liaw, S. 1. (2007). Computers and the internet as a job assisted tool: Based on the three-tier use model approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 399-414.

Lin, H. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(135), 135-149.

Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resourcs, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 825-841.

Marakas, G. M., Johnson, R. D., & Clay, P. F. (2007). The evolving nature of the computer self-efficacy construct: An empirical investigation of measurement construction, validity, reliability and stability over time. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(1), 15-46.

Marcolin, B. L., Compeau, D. R., Munro, M. C., & Huff, S. L. (2000). Assessing user competence: Conceptualization and measurement. Information Systems Research, 11(1), 37-60.

Marquié, J. C. 1., Jourdan-Boddaert, L. 1., & Huet, N. 1. (2002). Do older adults underestimate their actual computer knowledge? Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(4), 273-280.

McDonald, T., & Siegall, M. (1992). The effects of technological self-efficacy and job focus on job performance, attitudes, and.. Journal of Psychology, 126(5), 465.

Nawe, J. (1995). Work-related stress among the library and information workforce. Library Review, 44(6), 30-37.

Nelson, D. L. (1990). Individual adjustment to information-driven technologies: A critical review. MIS Quarterly, 14(1), 79-98.

Potosky, D. (2002). A field study of computer efficacy beliefs as an outcome of training: The role of computer playfulness, computer knowledge, and performance during training. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 241-255.

Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B., & Garud, R. (2003). Technology enabled work: The role of self-efficacy in determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 180-198.

Roberts, P., & Henderson, R. (2000). Information technology acceptance in a sample of government employees: A test of the technology acceptance model. Interacting with Computers, 12, 427-443.

Rosen, L. D., & Weil, M. M. (1995). Computer availability, computer experience and technophobia among public school teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 11(1), 9-31.

Salanova, M., Grau, R. M., Llorens, S., & Cifre, E. (2000). Computer training, frequency of usage and burnout: The moderating role of computer self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 575-590.

Salanova, M. 1., & Schaufeli, W. B. 2. (2000). Exposure to information technology and its relation to burnout. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19(5), 385-392.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: Burnout and work engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20(2), 177-196.

Sheng, Y. P., Pearson, J. M., & Crosby, L. (2003). Organizational culture and employees’ computer self-efficacy: An emperical study. Information Resources Management Journal, 16(3), 42.

Shih, H. 1. (2006). Assessing the effects of self-efficacy and competence on individual satisfaction with computer use: An IT student perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 1012-1026.

Sievert, M. E. (1988). Investigating computer anxiety in an academic library. Information Technology and Libraries, 7(3), 243-252.

Sinha, S. P., Talwar, T., & Rajpal, R. (2002). Correlational study of organzational commitment, self-efficacy and psychological barriers to technology change. Psychologia, 45, 176-183.

Tella, A., Tella, A., & Adekunle, P. O. (2007). An assessment of librarian social competence and information technology self-efficacy: Implications for library practice in the digital era. PNLA Quarterly, 71(4), 12-16.

Thatcher, J. B., Gundlach, M. J., McKnight, D. H., & Srite, M. (2007). Individual and human-assisted computer self-efficacy: An empirical examination., 841-858. Available at

Topper, E. F. (2007). What’s new in libraries: Stress in the library workplace. New Library World, 108(11/12), 561-564.

Torkzadeh, G., Koufteros, X., & Pfughoeft, K. (2003). Confirmatory analysis of computer self-efficacy. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(2), 263-275.

Torkzadeh, R., Pfughoeft, K., & Hall, L. (1999). Computer self-efficacy, training effectiveness and user attitudes; am empirical study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(4), 299-309.

Weil, M. M., Rosen, L. D., & Wugalter, S. E. (1990). The etiology of computerphobia. Computers in Human Behavior, 6, 361-379.

Whitley, Bernard W. Jr. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(1), 1-22.

Wilfong, J. D. (2006). Computer anxiety and anger: The impact of computer use, computer experience, and self-efficacy beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 1001-1011.


Finally, A Much Better Discussion

January 27, 2008

Library 2.0 – what does the term really mean? Honestly, I’ve followed the discussions in the library world for the past couple of years pretty closely, and I still have no idea. Neither do I think it is important to actually have a hard and fast definition. It is a label that I suspect means many different things to many different people – and should have different meanings. While I think that some of the discussions that have taken place around Library 2.0 have been important, I was extremely bothered by the subtle thread of hostility that often crept into the debates. There seemed to be some unspoken belief that Library 2.0 would save libraries and that if your weren’t on board, you would be contributing to the demise of the library. The 2.0 concept seemed to be one that had the ability to divide the library world into two separate camps rather than helping librarians work together to solve real problems.

To me, the recent discussions taking place about Library 2.0 are much more important. They are real, more honest – and I think they offer a better glimpse of reality in today’s library world.

Some of the posts:

My Research Topic

January 25, 2008

This semester is just about 4 days old. My class this semester, ILS680-Evaluation & Research, is built around a research project. I’ve been thinking about this since the end of last semester, doing some preliminary literature searches on issues relating to technology in libraries and/or technical support issues in libraries. Since Tuesday, I’ve been immersed in literature about computer self-efficacy – a fascinating field with a great deal of literature devoted to it. Of course, there isn’t much in the way of evaluating levels of perceived computer self-efficacy among library staff. I have to thank my professor for mentioning self-efficacy which was the missing piece to my jumbled research ideas.

So, my research question, which I’m sure will undergo future revisions, should be something along the lines of “Do different models of technical support in academic libraries impact computer self-efficacy levels of library staff?” Some of the questions that I’m hoping to be able to get answers to: Do different models of technical support affect computer self-efficacy? Do combined IT/library departments engender greater computer self-efficacy? Less? I also want to compare computer self-efficacy across demographic groups. Is there a difference depending upon educational attainment? Age? etc.

I’m pretty excited about my topic – which is good considering how much time I will be spending with it over the next several months. Computer self-efficacy is a key issue – once which I think must have a huge impact on library staff’s ability to make the most of technology in the workplace. I am definitely looking forward to getting started. Of course, in the near future, I need to refine my research question, do a literature review, and fill out an IRB (Institutional Research Board) application. There is lots and lots of work to be done, but I think this might just be the best ending to my graduate school experience.

How’s that for some positive thinking?

The Beginning Of The End . . .

January 21, 2008

My last class officially starts tomorrow. However, I have logged into the class and posted my introduction. I also started writing my first journal entry in which the professor requests that we discuss our opinions of online classes. It is due tomorrow. As I was working on the entry, I realized how much my overall thoughts about distance education have changed during my time at Southern and how mixed my emotions are on this subject. The bottom line? I seriously do not think that I would ever do an online program again. I might take an online class, but I would not enter a program unless a school had online tools to allow for student and professor interaction outside the classroom. There would need to be a good infrastructure dedicated to distance students – one that made them feel welcome and important. I found it very difficult to write the journal entry, to give form to my jumbled thoughts on this topic. I ended up saving it in draft form so that I can think more about it.

One of my biggest problems with my online program is the lack of community feeling. I know that I have been going to school. My stress levels can attest to that fact. Intellectually, I know that I am going to Southern Connecticut State University. I mean that is the school that is on my Visa bill – and the one that should be on my diploma. However, I feel no sense of belonging to any type of college community, feel no sense of connection the school and feel only limited connections to any peers or professors. While two years ago I probably would have said that this wouldn’t matter, I now believe that it is very important. I have missed this type of connection and do feel as if my degree program could have been so much more than it has been.

Just When You Think You Are Ready

January 17, 2008

. . . you find out you are not. I am incredibly nervous about this upcoming semester. I believe my last class, ILS680 – Evaluation and Research, is going to be tough and is going to require a great deal of work. To combat my nervousness and to help prepare, I tried to get myself organized and ready early. The professor who teaches this course has a great web site with tentative schedules and syllabi for students. I checked her site often in order to get a sense of the class – and to get more practical information (like textbook information). The professor uses the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association repeatedly. So, I ordered it back in mid-December. I went on my merry way believing that I was all set with books.

Thank goodness I checked her web site earlier in the week. Imagine my surprise when I realized there was another required text, Ling M. Pan’s Preparing Literature Reviews: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (2008 3rd edition). I’m not sure why I didn’t check on this sooner. I did know in December that the information on the professor’s web site was tentative. Anyway, this second book is important early on in the class. One of our first assignment’s is a literature review. So, I needed to get this book – and get it fast.

Neither nor Barnes & Noble had this edition in stock. I was a bit worried for a moment before I realized that I should be checking with SCSU’s bookstore. They did have it in stock – for less than the advertised price at either Amazon or Barnes & Noble. I ordered the book and had to pay for two-day shipping, which is the price I must pay for not paying good enough attention. Anyway, this is the first time that I have ordered books from the college’s bookstore and am eager to see how it goes.

Now, I should be all set. Right? I hope so!

Ponytailed Young Men And Older Women Librarians – Bad Mojo?

January 16, 2008

My boss sent me a link to an article from the January 18, 2008 edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education – “Strains and Joys Color Mergers Between Libraries and Tech Units” by Andrea L. Foster (Section: Money & Management, Volume 54, Issue 19, Page A1). As a systems librarian, this is a subject that is of great interest to me. Despite the fact that I do not work in an institution with a combined IT/library department, I know that I can learn something from the successes and failures in this arena – and be prepared for any discussions that may come up at my place of work.

The article was an interesting read. The bottom line is that sometimes such mergers are succcesful, but sometimes are not. More often than not, these mergers seem to happen at smaller and less complex institutions. The mergers are not a cost-saving move. Usually, the library is absorbed into the IT organizational unit and the chief librarian position is eliminated. Librarians are often quite apprehensive about such mergers, and books seem to be the biggest loser. There is often an underlying assumption that books are becoming less important to the academic mission. Many are usually moved to make room for “information commons” areas.

The most interesting part of the article, however, was a discussion about a highly problematic merger at Gettysburg College. Foster writes:

Tensions arose when technology workers, ponytailed young men, began sharing the same office space with librarians, most of whom were older women, said Ms. Wagner. According to her account, the men brought in a huge microwave, were slobs, had messy cords dangling from equipment and said they worked much harder than the librarians who left work at 4:30 and took breaks throughout the day.

Yikes! This definitely doesn’t sound like a successful venture. The account gave me a rather comical vision of shushing-type, bun-wearing, librarians having their space invaded by food-stained microwave ovens covered in cords behind and odd young men with long hair. Sounds like a big no, no to me.

Has Citing Become A Lost Art?

January 15, 2008

I have been following the accusations of plagiarism against author Cassie Edwards since they first came to light on the Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books blog. By way of disclosure, I am a voracious reader of romance novels. They are my escape from stress. However, I have only read one short story by Cassie Edwards. I don’t particularly remember it, so don’t have an opinion about her writing. I tried to reserve judgement on the issue, but have been truly amazed at all of the evidence of plagiarism that has been documented. This case is truly extraordinary. In one purported interview, Ms. Edwards suggested that citing sources isn’t something that is expected in the romance genre. I can see her point because citations are few and far between (but not unheard of). However, I’m not sure that I recall the rule that if one is writing fiction, they are not required to cite their sources.

I know I’m one of those fairly rigid types who has a compulsive need to follow the rules. I remember being paranoid when writing papers in junior high that I wasn’t citing things properly. This, of course, led me to have citations in every sentence. Fortunately, I grew more comfortable about citing quotes and ideas that I had gotten from others in my research. At this point in my life, citing things is second nature to me. I find it incomprehensible that published authors might not have this same understanding.

Even stranger are some of the comments that people made on many of the blog posts on Smart Bitches Who Read Trashy Novels (there are links to all posts about this topic on the home page of the blog). Many commenters were very confused about the difference between copyright violation and plagiarism. Several believed that it is not necessary to cite sources that are out of copyright. I was flabbergasted by these comments, until I started asking people that I know about their ideas of plagiarism. I’m actually thinking now that it isn’t all that common for people to understand these issues. Several others that I asked wanted to know why this even mattered. Wow! Although I will say that most of them aren’t likely to ever write or do research.

On a lighter note, author Paul Tolme has a rather humorous reaction, in an article on, to having been plagiarized by Edwards. While Tolme is a bit sarcastic about the romance novel genre, he does neatly turn this around to try and draw more attention to the plight of the black-footed ferret. I hope it helps.