research-article

Understanding the adoption of quantified self-tracking wearable devices in the organization environment: an empirical case study

Authors:

Jayden Khakurel,

Antti KnutasAuthors Info & Claims

PETRA '19: Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments

Pages 119 - 128

https://doi.org/10.1145/3316782.3321527

Published: 05 June 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Prior research on wearable devices has focused heavily on the consumer market. This study makes a unique empirical contribution to wearables research by extending the knowledge on factors that contribute to the adoption of quantified self-tracking wearable devices in an organizational environment. A wearable acceptance model (WAM) and factors that can influence the individual's decision to adopt quantified self-tracking wearable devices and self-monitoring practices were tested with an online survey of 129 university employees (faculty, administration) and students. Partial least squares path modeling was applied in an analysis to test nine hypotheses to validate the WAM. The factors in the individual context i.e. attitude plays a significant mediating role between the intention to use and the other influential factors of technology, implementation and risk context. The factors of the fashnology (wearability, aesthetic/design), individual (attitude) and risk context (privacy concern) tend to have strong and direct effects on the int use the devices, whereas factors of risk context (privacy and technology context (performance expectancy) moderate influence on the intention to use through Organizational facilitating conditions have a significant influence on the intention to use. Surprisingly, effort expectancy does not have any effect on attitude.

References

[1]

Stefano Abbate, Marco Awenuti, and Janet Light. 2014. Usability Study of a wireless monitoring system among Alzheimer's disease elderly population. Int. J. Telemed. Appl. 2014, (2014).

Digital Library

[2]

Robert P Abelson. 1985. A Variance Explanation Paradox: When a Little is a Lot. Psychol. Bull. 97, 1 (1985), 129--133.

[3]

Apurva Adapa, Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah, Richard H. Hall, Keng Siau, and Samuel N. Smith. 2017. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Smart Wearable Devices. Int. J. Human-Computer Interact. (August 2017}, 1--11

[4]

Btihaj Ajana. 2017. Digital health and the biopolitics of the Quantified Self. Digit. Heal. 3, (January 2017), 1--18.

[5]

Francisco de Arriba-Pérez, Manuel Caeiro-Rodríguez, and Juan M. Santos-Gago. 2016, Collection and processing of data from wrist wearable devices in heterogeneous and multiple-user scenarios. Sensors(Switzerland) 16, 9 (2016)

[6]

Chris Baber, James Knight, D Haniff, and L Cooper. 1999. Ergonomics of Wearable Computers. Mob. Networks Appl. 4, 1 (1999), 15--21.

Digital Library

[7]

Soonyong Bae and Taesik Lee. 2011. Gender differences in consumers' perception of online consumer reviews. Electronic Commerce Research 11, 201--214.

Digital Library

[8]

Christine BenMessaoud, Hadi Kharrazi, and Karl F. MacDorman. 2011. Facilitators and barriers to adopting robotic-assisted surgery: Contextualizing the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. PLoS One 6, 1 (2011)

[9]

Sean Brooks, Michael Garcia, Naomi Lefkovitz, Suzanne Lightman, and Ellen Nadeau. 2017. An introduction to privacy engineering and risk management in federal systems. Gaithersburg, MD.

[10]

Juan Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, Stephen Eldridge, Eva Martinez-Caro, and Maria Teresa Sanchez Polo. 2013. The value of extended framework of TAM in the electronic government services. Proc. Eur. Conf. Knowl. Manag. ECKM 1, 1 (2013), 148--158.

[11]

Patrick Y. K. Chau and Paul Jen-Hwa Hu. 2001. Information Technology Acceptance by Individual Professionals: A Model Comparison Approach. Decis. Sci. 32, 4 (2001), 699--719.

[12]

Patrick Y K Chau and Paul J. Hu. 2 002. Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 18, 4 (2002), 191--229.

Digital Library

[13]

Chiau-ching Chen and Hsu-Shih Shih. 2014. A Study of the Acceptance of Wearable Technology for Consumers --- An Analytical Network Process Perspective. Int J. Anal. Hierarchy Process (2014), 1--5.

[14]

Ava Chin. 2010. Tech Savvy: Technology as the New Fashion Statement. In Fashion Statements, Ron Scapp and Brian Seitz (eds.). Palgrave Macmillan US, New York, 35--42.

[15]

Teresa ML Chiu and Benny PS Ku. 2015. Moderating Effects of Voluntariness on the Actual Use of Electronic Health Records for Allied Health Professionals. JMIR Med. Informatics 3, 1 (February 2015), e7.

[16]

Byungjoo Choi, Sungjoo Hwang, and Sang Hyun Lee. 2017. What drives construction workers' acceptance of wearable technologies in the workplace?: Indoor localization and wearable health devices for occupational safety and health. Autom. Constr. 84, (December 2017), 31--41.

[17]

Fred D Davis. 1986. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Retrieved from http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15192

[18]

Christopher Davison and Evangelia Argyriou. 2016. Gender Preferences in Technology Adoption: An Empirical Investigation of Technology Trends in Higher Education. Int. J. Gender, Sci. Technol. 8, 3 (2016), 405--419.

[19]

Tony Doyle. 2011. Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. J. Value Inq. 45, 1 (March 2011), 97--102.

[20]

Mica R. Endsley. 1995. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 37, 1 (March 1995), 32--64.

[21]

Mike Featherstone. 2007. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism (2nd editio ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd, London.

[22]

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

[23]

D B Flora and P J Curran. 2004. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods 9, 4 (2004), 466--491.

[24]

Claes Fornell and David F Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurements error. J. Mark. Res. 18, (1981), 39--50.

[25]

Nuno Fortes and Paulo Rita. 2016. Privacy concerns and online purchasing behaviour: Towards an integrated model. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 22, 3 (2016), 167--176.

[26]

Yiwen Gao, He Li, and Yan Luo. 2015. An empirical study of wearable technology acceptance in healthcare. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115, 9 (October 2015), 1704--1723.

[27]

Abubakar Bello Garba, Jocelyn Armarego, David Murray, and William Kenworthy. 2015. Review of the Information Security and Privacy Challenges in Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Environments. J. inf. Priv. Secur. 11, 1 (January 2015), 38--54.

[28]

David Gefen and Detmar W. Straub. 2005. A Practical Guide to Factorial Validity using PLS-GRAPH:Tutorial and Annotated Example. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16, 5 (2005), 20.

[29]

F. Gemperle, C. Kasabach, J. Stivoric, M. Bauer, and R. Martin. 1998. Design for wearability. In Digest of Papers. Second International Symposium on Wearable Computers (Cat. No. 98EX215), 116--122.

Digital Library

[30]

Joseph F. Hair, Barry J. Babin, and Nina Krey. 2017. Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling in the Journal of Advertising: Review and Recommendations. J. Advert. 46, 1 (January 2017), 163--177.

[31]

Joseph F. Jr. Hair, G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2014. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM).

Digital Library

[32]

Sang Cheol Han, Youn-Hee Han, and Hui Sik Kim. 2014. Characteristics and perspectives of wearable smart devices and industrial ecosystem. In 2014 20th IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS), 911--914.

[33]

Päivi Heikkilä, Anita Honka, Sebastian Mach, Franziska Schmalfuß, Eija Kaasinen, and Kaisa Väänänen. 2018. Quantified Factory Worker - Expert Evaluation and Ethical Considerations of Wearable Self-tracking Devices. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek Conference on - Mindtrek '18, 202--211.

Digital Library

[34]

J. Henseler, T. K. Dijkstra, M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, A. Diamantopoulos, D. W. Straub, D. J. Ketchen, J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, and R J. Calantone. 2014. Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Ronkko and Evermann (2013). Organ. Res. Methods 17, 2 (2014), 182--209.

[35]

Jörg Henseler, Theo K. Dijkstra, Marko Sarstedt, Christian M. Ringle, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Detmar W. Straub, David J. Ketchen, Joseph F. Hair, G. Tomas M. Hult, and Roger J. Calantone. 2014. Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS. Organ. Res. Methods 17, 2 (2014), 182--209.

[36]

Jörg Henseler, Christian M Ringle, and Rudolf R Sinkovics. 2009. The use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. Adv. Int. Mark. 20, 2009 (2009), 277--319.

[37]

Mireille Hildebrandt. 2008. Defining profiling: A new type of knowledge? In Profiling the European Citizen: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. 17--45.

[38]

N. M A Huijts, E. J E Molin, and L. Steg. 2012. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 1 (2012), 525--531.

[39]

Din Jong and Tzong-song Wang. 2009. Student Acceptance of Web-based Learning System. Inf. Syst J. 8, (2009), 533--536. 978-952-5726-00-8 (Print), 978-952-5726-01-5 (CD-ROM)

[40]

Alexandra Ling Ju and Mirjana Spasojevic. 2015. Smart Jewelry. In Proceedings of the 2015 Workshop on Future Mobile User Interfaces - FutureMobileUI '15, 13--15.

Digital Library

[41]

Kalantari Mahdokht. 2017. Consumers' Adoption of Wearable Technologies: Literature Review, Synthesis, and Future Research Agenda. Int. J. Technol. Mark. (2017).

[42]

Rafidah Kamarudin, Azizah Aris, Norzaidi Mohd Daud, Choy Chong Siong, Intan Salwani Mohamed, and Noraini Ibrahim. 2009. The Impact of Perceived Stress and Stress Factors on Academic Performance of Pre-Diploma Science Students: A Malaysian Study. Int. J. Sci. Res. Educ. 2, 1 (2009), 13--26.

[43]

B-T Karsh. 2004. Beyond usability: designing effective technology implementation systems to promote patient safety. Qual. Saf. Heal. Care 13, 5 (October 2004), 388--394.

[44]

James E Katz and Satomi Sugiyama. 2005. Mobile Phones as Fashion Statements: The Co-creation of Mobile Communication's Public Meaning. In Mobile Communications. Springer-Verlag, London, 63--81.

[45]

Jayden Khakurel, Helinä Melkas, and Jari Porras. 2018. Tapping into the wearable device revolution in the work environment: a systematic review. Inf. Technol. People 31, 3 (June 2018), 791--818.

[46]

Ng Kim-soon, Universiti Tun, Hussein Onn, Universiti Tunku, and Abdul Rahman. 2015. Factors Influencing Intention to Use Mobile Technologies for Learning among Technical Universities Students. Innov. Sustain. Econ. Compet. Advant. From Reg. Dev. to Glob. Growth (2015), 1--12.

[47]

Ki Joon Kim and Dong-Hee Shin. 2015. An acceptance model for smart watches. Internet Res. 25, 4 (2015), 527--541.

[48]

Rex B Kline. 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd editio ed.). The Guilford press, New York, USA.

[49]

Bart Larivière, David Bowen, Tor W. Andreassen, Werner Kunz, Nancy J. Sirianni, Chris Voss, Nancy V. Wünderlich, and Arne De Keyser. 2017. "Service Encounter 2.0": An investigation into the roles of technology, employees and customers. J. Bus. Res. 79, (October 2017), 238--246.

[50]

Xin Li, Traci J. Hess, and Joseph S. Valacich. 2008. Why do we trust new technology? A study of initial trust formation with organizational information systems. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 17, 1 (2008), 39--71.

Digital Library

[51]

Nina Limpf and Hilde a.M. Voorveld. 2015. Mobile Location-Based Advertising: How Information Privacy Concerns Influence Consumers' Attitude and Acceptance. J. Interact. Advert. 15, 2 (2015), 111--123.

[52]

Todd D. Little, William A Cunningham, Golan Shahar, and Keith F. Widaman. 2002. To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 9, 2 (2002), 151--173.

[53]

Dawei Liu and Xiaohong Guo. 2017. Exploring gender differences in acceptance of mobile computing devices among college students. Inf. Syst. E-bus. Manag. 15, 1 (February 2017), 197--223.

Digital Library

[54]

Xin Liu, Katia Vega, Partie Maes, and Joe A Paradiso. 2016. Wearability Factors for Skin Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 7th Augmented Human International Conference 2016 on - AH '16, 1--8.

Digital Library

[55]

June Lu, Chun-sheng Yu, and Chang Liu. 2008. Gender and Age Differences in Individual Decisions about Wireless Mobile Data Services: A Report from China. Sprouts Work. Pap. Inf. Syst. 6, 34 (2008), 1--19.

[56]

Deborah Lupton. 2013. Digitized Health Promotion: Personal Responsibility for Health in the Web 2.0 Era. In To Fix or to Heal: Patient Care, Public Health, and the Limits of Biomedicine. 152--176.

[57]

Deborah Lupton. 2014. Self-tracking cultures: towards a sociology of personal informatics. OZCHI 2014 26th Aust. Comput. Interact. Conf. Des. Futur. Futur. Des. (2014), 1--10.

Digital Library

[58]

Deborah Lupton. 2015. Health promotion in the digital era: A critical commentary. Health Promotion International 30, 174--183.

[59]

Jyoti Devi Mahadeo. 2009. Towards an understanding of the factors influencing the acceptance and diffusion of e-government service. In Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Government, ECEG, 451--460.

[60]

Alessandro Marcengo and Amon Rapp. 2014. Visualization of Human Behavior Data. Innov. Approaches Data Vis. Vis. Anal. (2014), 236--265.

[61]

Miriam J. Metzger. 2006. Privacy, Trust, and Disclosure: Exploring Barriers to Electronic Commerce. J. Comput. Commun. 9, 4 (June 2006), 00--00.

[62]

Kathryn C Montgomery, Jeff Chester, and Katharina Kopp. 2016. Health Wearable Devices in the Big Data Era: Ensuring Privacy, Security, and Consumer Protection. Cent. Digit. Democr. Rep. (2016), 122.

[63]

Ji Won Moon and Young Gul Kim. 2001. Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Inf. Manag. 38 4 (2001), 217--320.

[64]

Phoebe Moore. 2015. The Quantified Self: What counts in the neoliberal workplace. New Media Soc. (2015), 1--14.

[65]

M.G. Morris, V. Venkatesh, and P.L. Ackerman. 2 005. Gender and Age Differences in Employee Decisions About New Technology: An Extension to the Theory of Planned Behavior. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 52, 1 (February 2005), 69--84.

[66]

Vivian Genaro Motti and Kelly Caine. 2014. Human Factors Considerations in the Design of Wearable Devices. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc Annu. Meet. 58, 1 (September 2014), 1820--1824.

[67]

Shazma Nandwani and Sadiq Khan. 2016. Teachers' Intention towards the Usage of Technology: An Investigation Using UTAUT Model. J. Educ. Soc. Sci. 4, 2 (2016), 95--111.

[68]

Fatemeh Nikayin, Marikka Heikkilä, Mark De Reuver, and Sam Solaimani. 2014. Workplace primary prevention programmes enabled by information and communication technology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 89, (2014), 326--332.

[69]

Tiago Oliveira, Manoj Thomas, Goncalo Baptista, and Filipe Campos. 2016. Mobile payment: Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology. Comput. Human Behav. 61, (2016), 404--414.

Digital Library

[70]

Ulf Henning Olsson, Tron Foss, Sigurd V. Troye, and Roy D. Howell. 2000. The Performance of ML, GLS, and WLS Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling Under Conditions of Misspecification and Nonnormality. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 7, 4 (2000), 557--595.

[71]

Lukasz Piwek, David A. Ellis, Sally Andrews, and Adam Joinson. 2016. The Rise of Consumer Health Wearables: Promises and Barriers. PLoS Med. 13, 2 (201)).

[72]

Devendra Potnis, Dawit Demissie, and Kanchan Deosthali. 2017. Students' intention to adopt Internet-based personal safety wearable devices: Extending UTAUT with trusting belief. First: Monday 22, 9 (2017).

[73]

Deborah A. Prentice and Dale T. Miller. 1992. When Small Effects are Impressive. Psychol. Bull. 112, 1 (1992), 160--164.

[74]

Lisa Rashotte. 2007. Social Influence. Blackwell Encycl. Sociol. 56, 1985 (2007), 4426--4429.

[75]

Philipp A. Rauschnabel, Alexander Brem, and Bjoern S. Ivens. 2015. Who will buy smart glasses? Empirical results of two pre-market-entry studies on the role of personality in individual awareness and intended adoption of Google Glass wearables. Comput. Human Behav. 49, (2015), 635--647.

Digital Library

[76]

Philipp A. Rauschnabel, Daniel W. E. Hein, Jun He, Young K. Ro, Samir Rawashdeh, and Bryan Krulikowski. 2016. Fashion or Technology? A Fashnology Perspective on the Perception and Adoption of Augmented Reality Smart Glasses, i-com 15, 2 (2016).

[77]

Irene Le Roux and Tania Maree. 2016. Motivation, engagement, attitudes and buying intent of female Facebook users. Acta Commer. 16, 1 (March 2016).

[78]

Louise K. Schaper and Graham P. Pervan. 2007. ICT and OTs: A model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists. Int. J. Med. Inform. 76, SUPPL. 1 (2007), 212--221.

[79]

Nitasha Sharma and Amandeep Kaur. 2011. Factors associated with stress among nursing students. Nurs. Midwifery Res. J. 7, 1 (2011), 12--21.

[80]

Andreas Sonderegger and Juergen Sauer. 2010. The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: Effects on user performance and perceived usability. Appl. Ergon. 41, 3 (2010), 403--410.

[81]

Ayoung Suh, Ruohan Li, and Lili Liu. 2016. The Use of Wearable Technologies and Body Awareness: A Body-Tool Relationship Perspective. In HCI International 2016. 388--392.

[82]

Melanie Swan. 2013. The Quantified Self: Fundamental Disruption in Big Data Science and Biological Discovery. Big Data 1, 2 (June 2013), 85--99.

[83]

Xin Tan, Li Qin, Yongbeom Kim, and Jeffrey Hsu. 2012. Impact of privacy concern in social networking web sites. Internet Res. 22, 2 (2012), 211--233.

[84]

Timothy Teo and Verica Milutinovic. 2015. Modelling the intention to use technology for teaching mathematics among pre-service teachers in Serbia. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 31, 4 (June 2015), 77--88.

[85]

Samrand Toufani, John Philip Stanton, and Tendai Chikweche. 2017. The importance of aesthetics on customers' intentions to purchase smartphones. Mark. Intell. Plan. 35, 3 (2017), 316--338.

[86]

Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G Morris, Gordon B Davis, and Fred D Davis. 2003. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 27, 3 (2003), 425--478.

[87]

Hanlu Ye, Meethu Malu, Uran Oh, and Leah Findlater. 2014. Current and Future Mobile and Wearable Device Use by People With Visual Impairments. Chi 2014 (2014), 3123--3132.

Digital Library

[88]

Chunxiao Yin, Lili Liu, and Libo Liu. 2014. Byod Implementation: Understanding Organizational Performance Through a Gift Perspective. In PACIS Proceedings.

[89]

Bo Zhang, Na Wang, and Hongxia Jin. 2014. Privacy Concerns in Online Recommender Systems: Influences of Control and User Data Input. SOUPS '14 Proc. Tenth Symp. Usable Priv. Secur. (2014), 159--173.

Digital Library

[90]

Ping Zhang, Shelley N. Aikman, and Heshan Sun. 2008. Two types of attitudes in ICT acceptance and use. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 24, 7 (2008), 628--648.

[91]

Yao Zhang, Xiaoming Li, Shan Qiao, Yuejiao Zhou, and Zhiyong Shen. 2018. Information Communication Technology (ICT) use among PLHIV in China: A promising but underutilized venue for HIV prevention and care. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 38, 1 (February 2018), 27--33.

Digital Library

Cited By

Lallemand CLushnikova ADawson JToebosch R(2024)Trinity: A Design Fiction to Unravel the Present and Future Tensions in Professional Informatics and Awareness Support ToolsProceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work10.1145/3663384.3663396(1-15)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3663384.3663396
Van Den Heuvel RLallemand C(2023)Personal Informatics at the Office: User-Driven, Situated Sensor Kits in the WorkplaceProceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work10.1145/3596671.3598577(1-13)Online publication date: 13-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3596671.3598577
Dai WZhou H(2023)An Analysis of Philosophy and Morality in Wearable Human-Computer InteractionHCI International 2023 – Late Breaking Papers10.1007/978-3-031-48057-7_22(356-372)Online publication date: 26-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48057-7_22
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Intended use of smartwatches and pedometers in the university environment: an empirical analysis
UbiComp '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers

In this work, we empirically examine factors that influence the intention to use wearables e.g. smartwatch or pedometer, in the university environment through a Wearable Acceptance Model (WAM). WAM incorporates UTAUT model and additional variables like ...
Wearable technologies

Although still in the early stages of diffusion, smartwatches represent the most popular type of wearable devices. Yet, little is known about why some people are more likely to adopt smartwatches than others. To deepen the understanding of underlying ...
Examining Healthcare Providers' Acceptance of Data From Patient Self-Monitoring Devices Using Structural Equation Modeling With the UTAUT2 Model

As wide-scale adoption by the market and consumers of ubiquitous devices or mobile apps that track fitness, sleep, nutrition, and basic metabolic parameters increases, it is vital to understand the attitudes of healthcare providers toward these devices. ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

PETRA '19: Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments

June 2019

655 pages

ISBN:9781450362320

DOI:10.1145/3316782

Conference Chair:
Fillia Makedon
University of Texas at Arlington

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 June 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

PETRA '19

PETRA '19: The 12th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference

June 5 - 7, 2019

Rhodes, Greece

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

12
Total Citations
View Citations
430
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)63
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

Reflects downloads up to 03 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Lallemand CLushnikova ADawson JToebosch R(2024)Trinity: A Design Fiction to Unravel the Present and Future Tensions in Professional Informatics and Awareness Support ToolsProceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work10.1145/3663384.3663396(1-15)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3663384.3663396
Van Den Heuvel RLallemand C(2023)Personal Informatics at the Office: User-Driven, Situated Sensor Kits in the WorkplaceProceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work10.1145/3596671.3598577(1-13)Online publication date: 13-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3596671.3598577
Dai WZhou H(2023)An Analysis of Philosophy and Morality in Wearable Human-Computer InteractionHCI International 2023 – Late Breaking Papers10.1007/978-3-031-48057-7_22(356-372)Online publication date: 26-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48057-7_22
Lushnikova ABongard-Blanchy KKoenig VLallemand C(2023)Eliciting Meaningful Collaboration Metrics: Design Implications for Self-Tracking Technologies at WorkHuman-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 202310.1007/978-3-031-42286-7_36(643-664)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-42286-7_36
Liu ZRen YKong XLiu S(2022)Learning Analytics Based on Wearable Devices: A Systematic Literature Review From 2011 to 2021Journal of Educational Computing Research10.1177/0735633121106478060:6(1514-1557)Online publication date: 12-Feb-2022
https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211064780
Lushnikova ABongard-Blanchy KLallemand C(2022)What Aspects of Collaboration are Meaningful to You? Informing the Design of Self-Tracking Technologies for CollaborationAdjunct Proceedings of the 2022 Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference10.1145/3547522.3547681(1-5)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3547522.3547681
Tuisku OJohansson-Pajala RHoppe JPekkarinen SHennala LThommes KGustafsson CMelkas H(2022)Assistant nurses and orientation to care robot use in three European countriesBehaviour & Information Technology10.1080/0144929X.2022.204273642:6(758-774)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2042736
Gopinath KNarayanamurthy G(2022)Early bird catches the worm! Meta-analysis of autonomous vehicles adoption – Moderating role of automation level, ownership and cultureInternational Journal of Information Management10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.10253666(102536)Online publication date: Oct-2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102536
Almusawi HDurugbo CBugawa A(2021)Innovation in Physical Education: Teachers’ Perspectives on Readiness for Wearable Technology IntegrationComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104185(104185)Online publication date: Mar-2021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104185
Hafiz PBardram J(2020)The Ubiquitous Cognitive Assessment Tool for Smartwatches: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation StudyJMIR mHealth and uHealth10.2196/175068:6(e17506)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2020
https://doi.org/10.2196/17506
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents