Factors affecting police officers' acceptance of GIS technologies

130 Pages·2011·1.74 MB·English

by  Cakar, Bekir

FACTORS AFFECTING POLICE OFFICERS’ ACCEPTANCE OF GIS TECHNOLOGIES:

A STUDY OF THE TURKISH NATIONAL POLICE

Bekir Cakar, B.A., M.S.

Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS

Augus t 2011

APPROVED:

Miguel Ruiz, Co-Chair
Guillermo Oyarce, Co-Chair
Bruce Hunter, Committee Member
Shawne D. Miksa, Program Coordinator
Suliman Hawamdeh, Chair of the
Department of Library and
Information Sciences
Linda Schamber, Acting Dean of the
College of Information
James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the
Toulouse Graduate School
Cakar, Bekir. Factors affecting police officers' acceptance of GIS technologies: A
study of the Turkish National Police. Doctor of Philosophy (Information Science), August
2011, 120 pp., 26 tables, 19 figures, references, 96 titles.
The situations and problems that police officers face are more complex in today’s
society, due in part to the increase of technology and growing complexity of
globalization. Accordingly, to solve these problems and deal with the complexities, law
enforcement organizations develop and apply new techniques and methods such as
geographic information systems (GIS). However, the successful implementation of a
new technology does not just depend on providing perfect technical support, but
effective and active interaction between the user and system. For this reason,
research examining user acceptance of GIS technologies provides a valuable source to
investors and designers to predict whether the results of the technology will meet user
expectations; understanding the factors that influence user acceptance is vitally
important to make the system more usable and preferable.
This study attempts to explain Turkish National Police officers’ beliefs about and
behaviors toward GIS applications by using the technology acceptance models. It
contributes to the technology acceptance literature by testing the proposed model in a
rarely studied organization: law enforcement. Regarding methodology, I distributed a
survey questionnaire in Turkey; the unit of analysis was the law enforcement officers in
the Turkish National Police (TNP). In order to analyze the data derived from the survey
instrument, structural equation modeling (SEM), a multivariate statistical technique, was
used to analyze the quantitative data by utilizing the AMOS 16.0 software. The analysis
resulted in good model fit, and 6 of the 7 hypotheses were supported.
Copyright 2011
by
Bekir Cakar
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express sincere gratitude to my committee members Dr. Ruiz, Dr.
Oyarce, and Dr. Hunter for supporting me to complete this work. It was an honor
working with this excellent team. I also would like to thank my incredible friends from the
TNP for their help and support. This dissertation could not have been completed without
the co-operation of my colleagues.
I am grateful to the Turkish National Police (TNP) for providing for my education
through financial support during my doctoral studies.
Finally, I would like to express my special appreciation to my lovely spouse,
Zuhal and my beautiful daughters Emel Zehra and Nihal; without their love and support,
writing this dissertation would not have been possible.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix

Chapters

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Introduction ..................................................................................... 1
Definitions ....................................................................................... 2
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ................................ 2
User Acceptance .................................................................. 2
Problem Statement ......................................................................... 3
Significance of the Study ................................................................. 6
Overview of the Chapters ................................................................ 7

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................... 8
Introduction ..................................................................................... 8
Theoretical Framework ................................................................... 8
Theoretical Background of Technology Acceptance ............ 8
Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DOI) .................................... 8
The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) .............................. 13
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) ..................................... 13
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ........................ 16
Studies Examining User Acceptance ................................. 18
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ........................................ 20
Development of GIS ........................................................... 20
Application of GIS ............................................................... 21
A Helpful Tool for Law Enforcement Agencies ................... 23
The Use of GIS in Policing ................................................. 26
The Reasons to Use GIS in Police Departments ................ 27
Conclusion .................................................................................... 29
iv
3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 30
Introduction ................................................................................... 30
Research Design ........................................................................... 30
Research Model ............................................................................ 31
Variables and Hypothesis ............................................................. 32
Endogenous (Dependent) Variable: Intention to Use ......... 32
Exogenous (Independent) Variables .................................. 34
Survey Construction and Measurement Items .............................. 37
Data Collection .............................................................................. 38
Population and Sampling .............................................................. 41
The Structure of Turkish National Police ............................ 42
Validity and Reliability ................................................................... 42
Data Analysis Plan ........................................................................ 43
Criteria for the Statistical Analysis ...................................... 45

4. FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS .......................................................... 46
Introduction ................................................................................... 46
Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................... 46
Descriptive Statistics for Control Variables ......................... 47
Descriptive Statistics for Exogenous Variables .................. 50
Descriptive Statistics for Endogenous Variable .................. 52
Bivariate Correlations .................................................................... 53
Reliability Analysis ........................................................................ 58
Confirmatory Factor Analysis ........................................................ 59
CFA for Perceived Ease of Use .......................................... 60
CFA for Efficiency Gain ...................................................... 64
CFA for Social Influence ..................................................... 67
CFA for Intention ................................................................ 70
CFA for Perceived Usefulness ........................................... 73
CFA for Attitude .................................................................. 76
Structural Equation Modeling ........................................................ 79
Hypothesis Testing ........................................................................ 85

v
5. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 90
Introduction ................................................................................... 90
Summary of Findings and Discussions ......................................... 90
Implications ................................................................................... 96
Policy Implications .............................................................. 96
Theoretical Implications ...................................................... 99
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Studies ................ 100

Appendices

A. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS IRB LETTER ................................... 102

B. ACCEPTANCE OF GIS TECHNOLOGIES SURVEY (ENGLISH
VERSION) ............................................................................................. 104

C. ACCEPTANCE OF GIS TECHNOLOGIES SURVEY (TURKISH
VERSION) ............................................................................................. 108

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 113

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Survey Items ................................................................................................... 39
Table 2 The Percentage Distributions and Frequencies of Each Control Variable ....... 47
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Exogenous Variables................................................. 51
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics of Endogenous Variables .............................................. 52
Table 5 Correlation Matrix for Perceived Usefulness ................................................... 54
Table 6 Correlation Matrix for Perceived Ease of Use .................................................. 55
Table 7 Correlation Matrix for Social Influence ............................................................. 56
Table 8 Correlation Matrix for Efficiency Gain .............................................................. 56
Table 9 Correlation Matrix for Attitude .......................................................................... 57
Table 10 Correlation Matrix for Intention ...................................................................... 58
Table 11 Cronbach's Alpha Scores for Variables ......................................................... 59
Table 12 Parameter Estimates for Perceived Ease of Use .......................................... 63
Table 13 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Perceived Ease of Use ................................... 63
Table 14 The Parameter Estimates for Efficiency Gain ................................................ 66
Table 15 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Efficiency Gain ............................................... 67
Table 16 Parameter Estimates for Social Influence...................................................... 69
Table 17 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Social Influence .............................................. 70
Table 18 Parameter Estimates for Intention ................................................................. 72
Table 19 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Intention ......................................................... 73
Table 20 The Parameter Estimates for Perceived Usefulness ..................................... 75
Table 21 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for PU ................................................................... 76
Table 22 Parameter Estimates for Attitude ................................................................... 78
Table 23 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Attitude ............................................................ 79
vii
Table 24 Parameter Estimates for Generic and Revised SEM ..................................... 82
Table 25 Goodness-of-Fit Statistics for Generic and Revised SEM ............................. 84
Table 26 Hypothesis Testing Results ........................................................................... 89

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Theory of reasoned action (TRA; Legris et al., 2003). .................................... 14
Figure 2. Graphical view of theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). ......................... 15
Figure 3. The technology acceptance model (Davis et al., 1989). ................................. 17
Figure 4. Research model. ............................................................................................ 33
Figure 5. Measurement model for perceived ease of use. ............................................ 61
Figure 6. Revised model of perceived ease of use. ...................................................... 62
Figure 7. Measurement model for efficiency gain. ......................................................... 64
Figure 8. Revised model for efficiency gain. .................................................................. 65
Figure 9. Measurement model for social influence. ....................................................... 67
Figure 10. Revised model for social influence. .............................................................. 68
Figure 11. The measurement model for intention. ......................................................... 70
Figure 12. Revised model for the intention. ................................................................... 71
Figure 13. Measurement model for PU. ....................................................................... 73
Figure 14. Revised model for PU. ................................................................................. 74
Figure 15. Measurement model for attitude. .................................................................. 77
Figure 16. Revised model for the attitude. ..................................................................... 78
Figure 17. The generic SEM. ........................................................................................ 80
Figure 18. Revised SEM. .............................................................................................. 82
Figure 19. The hypothesis testing. ............................................................................... 88

ix