## 2 Literature Review
### Review of the Literature
#### 2.2.2 Conflicting Technology Acceptance Models in Research
Researchers identified performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and habit as the most significant predictors, with habit identified as such in three studies, and the others occurred as significant in two studies. Findings for the second most influential predictors were just as varied as the primary. Additionally, only four of the studies included  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Citation** & **Technology** & **PE** & **EE** & **SI** & **FC** & **HM** & **PV** & **HT** \\ \hline
[102] & Learning management system & 0.130 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.100 & 0.210 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.130 \({}^{\star}\) & & & 0.040 \\
[103] & Internet, mobile, eHealth, eGov, etc. & 0.470 \({}^{\star}\) & \(-\)0.002 & 0.140 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.050 & 0.150 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.040 & 0.240 \({}^{\star}\) \\
[104] & Wearable healthcare & 0.128 & 0.145 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.171 \({}^{\star}\) & & & 0.107 \({}^{\star}\) & \\
[105] & Mobile apps & 0.097 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.175 \({}^{\star}\) & & & 0.175 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.269 \({}^{\star}\) & \(-\)0.049 & 0.323 \({}^{\star}\) \\
[91] & eHealth services & 0.191 \({}^{\star}\) & & & & & & \\
[20] & Multigenerational differences tablets & 9.60 \({}^{\star}\) & 48.37 \({}^{\star}\) & & & 19.93 \({}^{\star}\) & & \\
[106] & Web-based lecture & 0.260 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.050 & 0.150 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.140 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.060 & 0.200 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.260 \({}^{\star}\) \\
[92] & eHealth services & 0.200 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.185 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.081 & 0.005 & 0.038 & \(-\)0.010 & 0.206 \({}^{\star}\) \\the construct, price value, and it was only significant in one. The variance in the findings provides a researcher with cause to scrutinize the research designs more closely. [PERSON] et al. [102] explored students' acceptance of a learning management system (LMS) with the UTAUT2. In this study, the educational institution chose the learning management system and provided it to the students, who had no choice in purchasing the tool or using it. The researchers removed the price value construct and substituted learning value. Learning value and social influence were the most significant predictors of behavioral intention, followed by performance expectancy. A similar study by [PERSON] et al. [106] using UTAUT2 showed that performance expectancy and habit were the most significant and positive predictors of behavioral intention. Researchers also reported that price value in the context of students' fees was a significant predictor. [PERSON] et al. [20] performed a UTAUT study investigating whether there were multigenerational differences in adopting tablet technology. Researchers developed the UTAUT for the business environment where acceptance of the technology is involuntary, and performance expectancy was the single most significant predictor to acceptance [16]. [PERSON] et al. [20] reported that the most significant generational differences to tablet adoption were effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, and performance expectancy, which were all significant in the UTAUT2, indicating that the researchers should have used the later. [PERSON] et al. [104] investigated users' adoption of wearable fitness technology using the consumer focused UTAUT2 and added a construct for risk. Although the researchers used a consumer-focused theory, they did not include the constructs of hedonic motivation, price value, or habit, which were significant predictors in the UTAUT2. They reported that participants' perceived privacy risk had the most significant and negative impact on their behavioral intention to use the devices over social influence. However, it had a positive statistical significance. Effort expectancy was a significant predictor, and consistently so when the technology was health related. This construct was the only one from the UTAUT2 that was not rejected and found to be significant in the study by [PERSON] et al. [91] on acceptance of databased preventative healthcare services. [PERSON] et el.