See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343994433

Review of The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success'

Background and it's An application in The Education Setting, and Association
Linking with Technology Acceptanc...

Article · September 2020

CITATIONS READS

4 1,215

3 authors, including:

Samar Zaineldeen Aka Lucien Koffi

Jiangsu University Jiangsu University
13 PUBLICATIONS 75 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Information Systems Success View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samar Zaineldeen on 31 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Research in Social Sciences
Vol. 10 Issue 09, September 2020
ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081
Journal Homepage: http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories Indexed &
Listed at: Ulrich's Periodicals Directory ©, U.S.A., Open J-Gate as well as in Cabell’s Directories of Publishing Opportunities, U.S.A

Review of The DeLone and McLean Model of Information

Systems Success' Background and it's An application in The
Education Setting, and Association Linking with Technology
Acceptance Model

Samar Zaineldeen
Li Hongbo
Aka Lucien Koffi

Abstract
Evaluation for the success of the Information System (IS)
considerable importance; furthermore, the success of the IS is subject
to the proper implementation of technology by human-resource.
Currently, there are a variety of models to assess the success of IS,
such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Delone and
McLean model of IS success, and many more. A number of models
Keywords: can be utilized as a basis to assess the success of IS, Updated DeLone
and McLean model, and DeLone and McLean's model are examples
DeLone and McLean Models; that are used extensively as references, which apply six factors in
Information System; measuring IS execution. This paper provides a general idea of the
Education; current state of research on the IS Success Model. Thus, it gives a
TAM. brief point of entry into the background of theories and its adoption
in the education setting. Moreover, this paper presents an interesting
association linking between the DeLone and McLean model, in
addition to the Technology Acceptance Model was revealed.

Copyright © 2020 International Journals of Multidisciplinary Research

Academy.All rights reserved.

Author correspondence:
Samar Zaineldeen,
School of Management
Jiangsu University, xuefu Rd,JinKou,Zhenjiang,Jiangsu, China

1. Introduction
The expansion of the world wide web, universalizing of business, plus the climb of the information economy
have risen the value of information systems across institutions. Therefore there is an urgent need that scholars
distinguish how should information-technology outline the commerce globe. The study area of management
information systems emerged in the 1970s to emphasize the utility of computer systems in the industry,
enterprises in addition to authorities organizations [1]. There are various approaches to address the
conceptual progress of the management information systems discipline. One is to highlight those elementary
contributions to the management information systems literature [2,3]. A second approach analyzes the
development and growth of primary MIS textbooks Information system (IS) scientists have been working to
determine the features that can cause IS success, this leading researcher to establish models regard to
evidence-based to develop IS to become more efficient [4], this led DeLone and McLean to create an IS


School of Management, Jiangsu University, xuefu Rd,JinKou,Zhenjiang,Jiangsu, China

School of Management, Jiangsu University, xuefu Rd,JinKou,Zhenjiang,Jiangsu, China

School of Management, Jiangsu University, xuefu Rd,JinKou,Zhenjiang,Jiangsu, China

99 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496Impact Factor: 7.081

success model [5]. The IS success model was first developed in 1992 by [6] and provides an extended and
comprehensive definition of IS success.
To estimate the success of IS a number of scholars have determined IS success. Investigators' perception is
surely dissimilar in identify IS success. Therefore there are many measurements to assess IS success.
Assessment of IS success is determined by which viewpoint will be evaluated, for instance, from the user's
view, so this evaluated, for example, associated with contentment. The developer viewpoint can be said to be
satisfactory if the IS result is punctual, and it's less than or equal to the budget. Moreover, in evaluating the
success of IS, it can be seen from which extent to be assessed [7]. Delone and McLean (D&M) model [8]
defines the dimension of success in IS with three extents: system, utilization of the system as well as the
effect of the utilize itself.
This paper provides a general idea of the current state of research on the IS Success Model. Thus, it gives a
brief point of entry into the background of theories and its adoption in the education setting. Moreover, this
paper presents an interesting association linking between the DeLone and McLean model, in addition to the
Technology Acceptance Model was revealed.
Delone And Mclean IS Success Model
Come into existence a variety of models to describe the success of IS, for instance, Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) by [9,10], Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) by [11] and Theory of Reasoned Actions
(TRA) by [12], however, these models are to develop the process of adoption of technology. Barely approval
of technology unable to identify the success of IS; it is only a requirement. Therefore [6] created a model in
1992 to determine the success of IS. This novel D&M model was referring [13] that were on the basis of the
computational hypothesis of communication; these models essentially recognized their categories of
information; semantically level (capability to transmit message) technological level (efficiency, the accuracy
of the system), in addition to effective level (effect on the recipient) [13]. After that, Mason (1978) [14]
extended effectual level and increased three subgroups; influence on the system, influence on recipient plus
receipt of information. Subsequent to reviewing the issued study from 1981-1987, they generated six factors
to assess the success of IS; these are quality of information, use, quality of system, satisfaction of user,
organizational impact, in addition to individual impact.
After the publication of the initial information system success model by [6], various researchers have
attempted to set up its re-definition or even criticized it as a whole, e.g., [15, 16, 17]. The criticizers put forth
demands that the model is insufficient and needs the incorporation of further dimensions. It encourages
keeping the validity of the D&M model and states that it could sufficiently measure IS success, e.g. [18, 19].
Figure [1]. Shows the origin D&M IS success model.

Figure [1]. D&M IS success model (1992) [6]

Updated De-Lone And Mclean IS Success Model

D&M [6] fail to present experiential confirmation of the model they suggested and propose more
improvement, plus validation is considered necessary for their categorization [6]. Nevertheless, Seddon [17]
incorporated several participations related to the information system Success model, particularly concerning
brings together prior research, he offers a method for categorizing the diverse measures of information
system success models that had been suggested in the literature into six factors. Also, Seddon [17] proposes a
model of temporally and causality inter-related among the recognized categories. Moreover, he measured a
suitable base for further experimental and hypothetical research, in addition to acquired extensive approval
amongst IS researchers, who try to investigate and confirm the diverse aspects of the model. From another
point of view, scholars state that the D&M model incomplete and require to be modernized because the
measurement dimensions are regarded as inadequate. Stated by [8] that D&M model was not easy to merge
causal perceptions and process perceptions[20]. By adding quite a few modifications, in particular adding a
quality of system dimension, net benefit dimensions, and intention to use. See figure (2).

100 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496Impact Factor: 7.081

:
Figure [2].Updated D&M IS success model [21].
Constructs and Measures
The modernized model, which came ten years after the primary model was created, includes the declaration
of the advantages and drawbacks of the previous model. The novel model of D&M (2003) was the
consequence of disapproval and criticism in the earlier literature, e.g. [15, 16, 17]. The first development of
the revised IS success model is the integration of the quality of service aspect. Simultaneously, the factor of
intention to use is selected to assess usage, although the [21] united the organizational and an individual
impact into a single factor of net benefits [5,22].
The different factors of this model are described as-
 System Quality (SQ) is "concern with know if there are bugs in the systems, the reliability of the
user-interface, rate of response during interactional with systems, ease of use , credentials,
maintainability as well as the quality of the program code. See (Table 1).

Table (1) shows measurement variables for evaluating quality of system.

Constructs Definition Measurement References

Variable
(SQ) D&M [6] distinct (SQ) Accessibility [6, 21,23]
as: "the preferred Response time [5,6,21,24,25,26,27]
features of the IS itself, User friendly [8,29,23,29]
which generates the Reliability [5,6,21,22,23,24,26]
information.
Accuracy system [5,6,23,30]
Adaptability & [5,6,21,23]
Availability
Ease of learning [5,6,23,26,31]
Ease of use [5,6,22,24,26,29,31,32]
Efficiency [23]

Flexibility [5,6,23,24,25,26,27,30,31]

System features [5,23,31]

Integration of [5,6,23,25,27,31,32]
systems
Sophistication [23,31]
Interactivity [29]

101 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496Impact Factor: 7.081

 Information Quality (IQ) is "concern with an issue as relevance, timeliness, design of information
generated by IS as well as accuracy" [8]. Typical measurement items are presented in (Table 2).
Table (2) shows measurement variables for evaluating quality of information

Constructs Definition Measurement References

Variable
(IQ) (IQ) identified as Accuracy [6,22,25,26,34,35]
"appropriate features of
the system results [26] Adequacy [29]

Availability [5,23,31,33]

Completeness [5,6,21,25,26,27,33,34]

Understandability [5,6,29,31,33]

Timeliness [5,6,25,29,32,34,35]

Reliability [5,6,27,29]

Relevance [23,26,27,29,34,35]

Precision [5,6,26,27]

Format [5,6,23,27,31,34]

Uniqueness [23]

Usability [23,31]

Usefulness [29]
Conciseness [6,23,26,31,33,35]

 Service quality (ServQual) distinct as: "Quality of the service that users obtain from the information
system association and IT support individuals generally or for a particular information system. A
number of measurement variables have been suggested. Table (3) shows a sample of those variables.
Table (3) shows measurement variables for evaluating quality of service

Constructs Definition Measurement References

Variable
(ServQual) (SQUAL) identify as the Assurance [5,16,21,26,36,37]
quality of service described
by the IS department Empathy [5,16,21,26,36,37]
throughout of its services"
[26] Reliability [5,16,21,26,36,37]

Responsiveness [5,16,21,26,36,37,38]

Tangibles [5,16,21,26,36,37]

Flexibility [38]

Interpersonal quality [38]

Intrinsic quality [38]

IS training [38]

102 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496Impact Factor: 7.081

 User Satisfaction (US) concurring with [32], user contentment is "the professional approach towards
a particular PC program." Seddon [17] depicted the user contentment as "an affective consideration
on an attractive continuum of different results. Variables have been created to evaluate the
satisfaction of user with an IS exclusive, see table( 4).

Table (4) shows measurement variables for evaluating the satisfaction of the user
Constructs Definition Measurement References
Variable
US D&M [6] distinct the Overall satisfaction [5,6,19,28,33,39,40]
Satisfaction of the User as: with IS applications
“receiver response to the User information [6,23]
employ of the production satisfaction
of IS Overall satisfaction [6,8,23]
as singles
measurement

Adequacy [8,39,40]

Effectiveness [8,39,40]

Efficiency [8,39,40]

Enjoyment [23]

 The system uses as a success factor. Intention to Use is an attitude. Meanwhile, Use is behavior.
Besides, the use is action by the consumer to operate of IS. Petter et al. [26] defined " Intention to
Use or the users' belief about their likelihood to use the IS." D&M proposed intention to use as
another assessment to use for some environment. Table (5) shows measurement variables for this
success aspect.
Table (5) ) shows measurement variables for evaluating the intention to use and use

Constructs Definition Measurement References

Variable
(intention to) Also,[22]identified Actual use [9]
use "Intention to Use
predictable future Intention to (re)use [9,22,41]
consumption of an IS or its
product" .Use of the system Frequency of use [5,6,25,26,40]
is identified as: "the extent
to which employees and Daily use [25,40]
clients use the facilities of
an information system. Number of [21]
transactions
Navigation patterns [21]

Number of site [21]

visits

Nature of use [21]

 Net Benefits, D&M [21] classified the two dimensions, which are organization impact in addition to
Individual impact into one and called it Net Benefit. Net Benefits "degree to which IS are
contributing to the success of organizations, groups, individuals, enterprises as well as countries."
Provided sample measurement variables for the impact of individuals in Table (6) as well as the
impact of organizational in Table( 7).

103 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496Impact Factor: 7.081

Table (6) shows measurement variables for evaluating the individual impact

Constructs Definition Measurement References

Variable
Individual This construct indicates Decision [23,31]
Impact users' better effectiveness
understanding of IS context Individual [5,6,21,23,26]
and its productivity
influence over users' Job effectiveness [10,25]
performance.
Job performance [10,25]

Job simplification [10,25]

Learning [23,31]

Task Usefulness [10,25]

Task innovation [42]

Performance [10]

Table (7) shows measurement variables for evaluating the organizational impact

Constructs Definition Measurement References

Variable
Organizational The profits to be gained Business process [23,31]
Impact by the
the organization through Enhancement of [40,43]
using the IS system. communication and
Collaboration

Cost reduction [23,31,40]

Competitive [40,43]
advantage

Enhancement of [40,43]
internal operations
Enhancement of [40]
coordination

Improved decision [23,31,40]

making

Improved [23,31]
outcomes/outputs
Enhancement of [40]
reputation
Overall productivity [23,31]

Customer [42]
satisfaction

Overall success [40,43]

improvement of [43]
quality

104 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496Impact Factor: 7.081

2. The D&M IS success model in educational settings

D&M model has been utilized extensively to examine quite a lot of technologies in diverse areas of study,
comprising online learning systems [44], the electronic-government environment [45], the portal of campus
[46], and digitalize libraries [47]. Furthermore, the model also assists in building the base for another
theoretical, for instance, the Knowledge Management System (KMS) [48] in addition to the enterprise
System- Success Measurement Model [49].
Regarding educational information systems [19] did an experimental investigation in quasi-voluntary IS
employ circumstance related to a Student Information System (SIS). The SIS offers online accessibility to a
record of students' academic information plus person-related data. The utilize of SIS was optional. The
results agreed with D&M' view that IS success models it is necessary to determine accurately in a given
environment. As well They propose that further studies should study how "IS success models execute from
diverse perspectives.
Halonen et al. [50] expand this model to illustrate the success of knowledge distribution in an information
system that integrated a part of the database of private institutions of education. As the contribution of private
education is growing, it is essential to recognize if the obtainable education services support utilizes the
knowledge-base and if the service is received acceptable by the end-customer. In this descriptive qualitative
case study, the authors argue how the D&M' model can be employed to evaluate education services.
In the environment of e-Learning, the updated D&M model has been implemented in diverse sorts of
systems. In [44], the author suggested a model to inspect the critical factors for the effective utilization of the
online learning system by students. The consequences stated that quality of information, quality of system in
addition to quality of service considerably affected utilization through behavioral intention, and satisfaction
of the user. Lwoga [51]used the D&M model to study the variables that expect the usage of an e-learning
system by students. Lwoga's investigation was about earlier work [52], which initiated a novel factor,
"instructor quality" that concluded considerably impact the perceived usefulness of the e-learning systems.
Mtebe & Raisamo [53] present a model for evaluating the Learning Management System (LMS) published
in institutes of higher education in countries of Sub-Saharan through embracing and expanding the updated
D&M [21] model. The suggested model and the tool have been confirmed throughout a questionnaire of 200
students enrolled in a variety of coursework obtainable through Moodle LMS at University in Tanzania. The
conclusions of the study helped those who are concerned with the implementation of LMS in universities in
Sub-Saharan countries to assessed their accessible systems and to developed correctional measures and
policy to prevent future LMS downs.
Chen & Chengalur-Smith [54] explore variables affecting undergraduates' previous, present, along with
continual utilize of a Web portal of university' library using a credit-bearing course infused with information
literacy (IL) elements as an intervention. Applying a varied approach and utilizing the technology recognition
and IS success models as hypothetical fundamentals, the authors examined direct effects of user fulfillment,
voluntariness, and competing resources on portal utilization, in addition to associations between current
utilize, user fulfillment as well as sustained use.
Yakubu & Dasuki [55] studied is based on the D&M' model, which was customized to conclude the success
variables liable for the recognition by the students' University of Nigeria for the e-learning system called
Canvas. The study presents the gap in research about the lake of investigations of the embracing of e-
Learning in the least developed countries that have a focus on the employment of eLearning systems.

3. Linking D&M IS success model with Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

The TAM created by [9] is utilized to evaluate the recognition, embracing, and employ of information
technology. It is well-known, and two factors are being used in TAM, perceived ease of use (PEOU), along
with perceived usefulness (PU). PU identifies as the extent to which a person accepts that employing a
particular application framework will raise his or her work functioning inside an organization environment
[10]. PEOU measures the level to which a person assumes that employing a system is easy [9]. The TAM
model obtained a wide reputation amongst scholars. TAM is dissimilar to other models because it does not
evaluate success; however, it is utilized to investigate and forecast the user' intention to employ information
technologies.
An interesting association linking between D&M IS success model with TAM was also highlighted in the
literature. The TAM has been base on TRA [12], plus TPB [11], which are two of the most widely used
models applied to clarify IS behavior. According to TAM, Perceived Usefulness as well as Perceived Ease of
Use impact users' behavioral intentions as a consequence, this effect impacts on IS Use [19]

105 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496Impact Factor: 7.081

Chang [56] utilized factors from updated D&M model [21] plus the TAM [9], he suggested a model study the
consequence of quality antecedents on students' intention to use an E-learning system.
Adeyemi & Issa [57] study suggested a model of students' fulfillment in regard with Web portal for the
incorporation of D&M model and TAM. The study supposes that quality of information, quality of service,
quality of system, plus perceived usefulness independently identify students' contentment with a web portal.
Mohammadi [58] study an incorporated D&M model with the TAM to investigate the impact of perceived
usefulness, quality of service, perceived ease of use on users' intentions, in addition to fulfillment, beside the
usability towards employment as a mediator of E-learning in Iran. The sample collected from four
government universities in Iran The outcome exposed that user fulfillment, along with intention, both had a
positive impact on actual utilize of E-learning. Quality of system and quality of information was found to be
the main variables leading to users' intentions and fulfillment towards the utilization of E-learning.
Eventually, perceived usefulness plays the role of mediator in the relationship among users' intentions with
ease of use.
Wixom & Todd [59] proposed a model that integrated the TAM and user satisfaction model as two models
symbolize additional steps in a causal chain from the main feature of system design to attitude and potential
about consequences that eventually identify utilization. Chung [60] study success model is based on the TAM
model, and D&M model incorporated with key project management standards.
Abdel [61] Study customized the variables of the D&M Model with TAM also added two further success
factors, i.e., management support and training. An incorporated model for assessing IS success was
produced; the suggested model has been confirmed by an experimental study referring to a survey and
interview.

4. Conclusion

The most important subject for recent scholars IS success. D&M initiated IS success model to present a full
and comprehensive description of IS success. Till now, a large number of academic articles have quoted the
IS success model. In the present paper, we present the original as well as the updated D&M Model of IS
Success. The first version of D&M model has six interdependent variables of success: Quality of System,
Quality of Information, Satisfaction of User, Use, Impact of Organizational, furthermore Impact of
Individual. The variables of Quality of Service, as well as Intention to Use, added to the updated D&M
model; also, the original variables of Impact of Organizational and Individual were united into one
innovative variable, Net Benefits.
IS success model offers a realistic approach to assess, for instance, the satisfaction of users and the
consequences of that satisfaction on the employment of IS. The D&M model is well-known compare to all
models provided previously. Also, The TAM model considers widespread to investigate the readiness of the
end-user towards adopting computer technology. Although it is challenging to assert which model is
preferable, however, a suitable model can be chosen according to the condition of the study to be carried.

References
1. Davis, G. B. (1974). Management information systems: conceptual, foundations,
structure, and development.
2. Aron, J. D. (1969). Information systems in perspective. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR),
1(4), 213-236.
3. Penrose, E., & Penrose, E. T. (2009). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm: Oxford
university press.
4. Sørum, H., Medaglia, R., Andersen, K. N., Scott, M., & DeLone, W. (2012). Perceptions of
information system success in the public sector: Webmasters at the steering wheel?
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(3), 239-257.
5. Urbach, N., & Müller, B. (2012). The updated DeLone and McLean model of information
systems success Information systems theory (pp. 1-18): Springer.
6. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the
dependent variable. Information systems research, 3(1), 60-95.
7. Bradley, R. V., Pridmore, J. L., & Byrd, T. A. (2006). Information systems success in the
context of different corporate cultural types: an empirical investigation. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 23(2), 267-294.

106 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496Impact Factor: 7.081

8. Seddon, P., & Kiew, M.-Y. (1996). A partial test and development of DeLone and McLean's
model of IS success. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 4(1).
9. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
10. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-
1003.
11. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
12. Ajzen, F. (1980). Theory of reasoned action (TRA) in information seeking behavior and
technology adoption: theories and trends: IGI Global.
13. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). A mathematical model of communication. Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press, 11.
14. Mason, R. O. (1978). Measuring information output: A communication systems approach.
Information & management, 1(4), 219-234.
15. Kettinger, W. J., & Lee, C. C. (1994). Perceived service quality and user satisfaction with
the information services function. Decision sciences, 25(5‐6), 737-766.
16. Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., & Kavan, C. B. (1995). Service quality: a measure of information
systems effectiveness. MIS quarterly, 173-187.
17. Seddon, P. B. (1997). A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of
IS success. Information systems research, 8(3), 240-253.
18. Molla, A., & Licker, P. S. (2001). E-commerce systems success: An attempt to extend and
respecify the Delone and MacLean model of IS success. J. Electron. Commerce Res., 2(4),
131-141.
19. Rai, A., Lang, S. S., & Welker, R. B. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models: An
empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information systems research, 13(1), 50-69.
20. Gao, L., & Bai, X. (2014). An empirical study on continuance intention of mobile social
networking services. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics.
21. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2002). Information systems success revisited. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences.
22. Petter, S., & McLean, E. R. (2009). A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean
IS success model: An examination of IS success at the individual level. Information &
management, 46(3), 159-166.
23. Gable, G. G., Sedera, D., & Chan, T. (2008). Re-conceptualizing information system
success: The IS-impact measurement model. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 9(7), 18.
24. Hamilton, S., & Chervany, N. L. (1981). Evaluating information system effectiveness-Part I:
Comparing evaluation approaches. MIS quarterly, 55-69.
25. Iivari, J. (2005). An empirical test of the DeLone-McLean model of information system
success. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems,
36(2), 8-27.
26. Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. R. (2013). Information systems success: The quest for
the independent variables. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 7-62.
27. Bailey, J. E., & Pearson, S. W. (1983). Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing
computer user satisfaction. Management science, 29(5), 530-545.
28. Eldrandaly, K. A., Naguib, S. M., & Hassan, M. M. (2015). A model for measuring
geographic information systems success. Journal of Geographic Information System,
7(04), 328.
29. McKinney, V., Yoon, K., & Zahedi, F. M. (2002). The measurement of web-customer
satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information systems research,
13(3), 296-315.

107 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496Impact Factor: 7.081

30. DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2008). Measuring information systems success: models,
dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European journal of information systems,
17(3), 236-263.
31. Sedera, D., Gable, G., & Chan, T. (2004). A factor and structural equation analysis of the
enterprise systems success measurement model. Paper presented at the Proceedings of
the 10th Americas Conference on Information Systems
32. Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction.
MIS quarterly, 259-274.
33. Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2008). Measuring information systems success:
models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European journal of information
systems, 17(3), 236-263.
34. Jaafreh, A. (2017). Evaluation information system success: Applied delone and McLean
information system success model in context banking system in KSA. International Review
of Management and Business Research, 6(2), 829-845.
35. Rainer Jr, R. K., & Watson, H. J. (1995). The keys to executive information system success.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(2), 83-98.
36. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research. Journal of marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
37. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perc. Journal of retailing, 64(1), 12.
38. Chang, J. C.-J., & King, W. R. (2005). Measuring the performance of information systems: A
functional scorecard. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 85-115.
39. Seddon, P., & Yip, S.-K. (1992). An empirical evaluation of user information satisfaction
(UIS) measures for use with general. Journal of Information Systems, 6(1), 75-92.
40. Almutairi, H., & Subramanian, G. H. (2005). An empirical application of the DeLone and
McLean model in the Kuwaiti private sector. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
45(3), 113-122.
41. Wang, Y. S. (2008). Assessing e‐commerce systems success: a respecification and
validation of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Journal,
18(5), 529-557.
42. Torkzadeh, G., & Doll, W. J. (1999). The development of a tool for measuring the
perceived impact of information technology on work. Omega, 27(3), 327-339.
43. Sabherwal, R. (1999). The relationship between information system planning
sophistication and information system success: an empirical assessment. Decision
sciences, 30(1), 137-167.
44. Lin, H.-F. (2007). Measuring online learning systems success: Applying the updated
DeLone and McLean model. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 10(6), 817-820.
45. Hussein, R., Karim, N. S. A., Selamat, M. H., & Mamat, A. (2007). The Relationship
between Organisational Factors and Information Systems Success in the Malaysian
Electronic-Government Agencies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Information Technology and
Multimedia, 4(1).
46. bin Masrek, M. N. (2007). Measuring campus portal effectiveness and the contributing
factors. Campus-Wide Information Systems.
47. Shen, X., Li, D., & Shen, C. (2006). Evaluating China's university library Web sites using
correspondence analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 57(4), 493-500.
48. Wu, J.-H., & Wang, Y.-M. (2006). Measuring KMS success: A respecification of the DeLone
and McLean's model. Information & management, 43(6), 728-739.
49. Sedera, D., Chian, F. T. T., & Dey, S. (2006). dentifying and evaluating the importance of
multiple stakeholder perspective in measuring ES-success.

108 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496Impact Factor: 7.081

50. Halonen, R., Thomander, H., & Laukkanen, E. (2010). DeLone & McLean IS success model
in evaluating knowledge transfer in a virtual learning environment. International Journal
of Information Systems and Social Change (IJISSC), 1(2), 36-48.
51. Lwoga, E. (2014). Critical success factors for adoption of web-based learning management
systems in Tanzania. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 10(1).
52. Lee, B.-C., Yoon, J.-O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea:
Theories and results. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1320-1329.
53. Mtebe, J. S., & Raisamo, R. (2014). A Model for Assessing Learning Management System
Success in Higher Education in Sub‐Saharan Countries. The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries, 61(1), 1-17.
54. Chen, Y.-H., & Chengalur-Smith, I. (2015). Factors influencing students' use of a library
Web portal: Applying course-integrated information literacy instruction as an
intervention. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 42-55.
55. Yakubu, M. N., & Dasuki, S. (2018). Assessing eLearning systems success in Nigeria: An
application of the DeLone and McLean information systems success model. Journal of
Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 183-203.
56. Chang, C.-C., Yan, C.-F., & Tseng, J.-S. (2012). Perceived convenience in an extended
technology acceptance model: Mobile technology and English learning for college
students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5).
57. Adeyemi, I. O., & Issa, A. O. (2020). Integrating Information System Success Model (ISSM)
And Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): Proposing Students’ Satisfaction with
University Web Portal Model. Record and Library Journal, 6(1), 69-79.
58. Mohammadi, H. (2015). Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of
TAM and IS success model. Computers in human behavior, 45, 359-374.
59. Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and
technology acceptance. Information systems research, 16(1), 85-102.
60. Chung, B., Skibniewski, M. J., & Kwak, Y. H. (2009). Developing ERP systems success model
for the construction industry. Journal of construction engineering and management,
135(3), 207-216.
61. Zaied, A. N. H. (2012). An integrated success model for evaluating information system in
public sectors. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, 3(6),
814-825.

109 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]

View publication stats