Towards A Wearable Technology Model 2: The Paradox of Wearable Technology Adoption

Manal Y. Alduaij

doi:10.3991/ijim.v20i14.62293

Authors

Manal Y. Alduaij The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training, Safat, Kuwait https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0920-4432

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v20i14.62293

Keywords:

Wearable Technology Model, User Satisfaction, User Enjoyment, Technology Adoption, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, TAM

Abstract

This study presents an updated version of the original wearable technology model (WTM) proposed by Alduaij, referred to as the Wearable Technology Model 2 (WTM2). The new model adopts a more user-centered approach by incorporating experiential constructs, such as user satisfaction and user enjoyment, to better capture the affective dimensions of wearable technology (WT) adoption. Wearable technologies represent a paradigm shift in user interaction with digital systems, transitioning from handheld devices to seamlessly integrated wearable technology. These technologies offer valuable benefits in health monitoring, fitness tracking, productivity enhancement, and ubiquitous communication, making them increasingly central to daily life. The proposed WTM 2 extends the original WTM by incorporating two additional constructs (user satisfaction and user enjoyment) alongside the core technology acceptance model (TAM) constructs of perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) and the WTM constructs of privacy (PRV) and design. A quantitative methodology was employed, utilizing an online, randomly distributed questionnaire that targeted diverse demographic segments of the population. Data were analyzed using multiple regression and chi-square tests to examine the relationships between constructs. This study makes both theoretical and practical contributions by refining our understanding of adoption drivers and barriers while providing actionable insights for high-tech companies seeking to enhance the wearable user experience and increase market uptake.

Author Biography

Manal Y. Alduaij, The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training, Safat, Kuwait

Manal Yousuf Alduaij is a professor in Management Information Systems at the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET), in the management department in Kuwait. Manal received her PhD in management information systems from Imperial College London in the United Kingdom in 2013. Research focuses include the adoption and use of information and telecommunication technology, such as instant messaging applications, smartphone applications, M-commerce, and mobile social media. In addition, recent research interest is on the acceptance and adoption of wearable technology. During COVID-19, research emphasis has been placed on E-learning and E-commerce in relation to entrepreneurial innovation. In addition to using cyber adoption and dependence. I have an interest in exploring the adoption and building a model around usage and adoption called the wearable technology model (WTM; Alduaij, 2022). Due to the model's great acceptance, I decided to update it to new variables and named it the wearable technology model 2 (WTM2).

References

[1] M. Y. Alduaij, “Towards a Wearable Technology Model: Implications for Wearable Technology Adoption,” International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector (IJISSS), vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–25, Jan. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.4018/IJISSS.295869.

[2] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, Sep. 1989, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.

[3] W. Lin, “Augmented Reality Smart glasses: Current Challenges and Future Innovations in Wearable Technology,” Theoretical and Natural Science, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 209–215, 2025.

[4] B. S. Mohanty, Z. H. Shaikh, D. M. Mahapatra, S. Ratnakaranm, and D. Manikeswari, “Wearable technologies in education,” in Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, IGI Global, 2024, pp. 309–330. doi: https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-7817-5.ch012.

[5] N. S. Fiad, R. R. Muhammad, K. Muhammad, S. T. Farghaly, M. H. Alaswad, and A. G. Hassabo, “Transforming fashion: The influence of technology, smart clothing, and historical costumes,” Journal of Textiles, Coloration and Polymer Science, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 467–476, Dec. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.21608/jtcps.2024.258415.1258.

[6] M. Y. Alduaij, “The paradox of technology adoption: Exploring the effect of cyber usage and its effect on dependence,” International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 17, no. 8, p. 32, Jul. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v17n8p32.

[7] M. Y. Alduaij, “Employing the technology acceptance model to explore the trends of social media adoption and its effect on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use,” Journal of Information Technology Management, vol. 11, no. 2, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.22059/jitm.2019.290075.2405.

[8] M. Jamalova, “Modelling User Behavior Towards Smartphones and Wearable Technologies,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 143–160, Jun. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v18i12.48035.

[9] G. Chen, “Design and Application of Scenario-Based Perception of Smart Wearable Device Interaction Method,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), vol. 18, no. 13, pp. 69–81, Jul. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v18i13.49071.

[10] H. Yildirim and A. M. T. Ali-Eldin, “A model for predicting user intention to use wearable iot devices at the workplace,” Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 497–505, Oct. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2018.03.001.

[11] A. Godfrey, V. Hetherington, H. Shum, P. Bonato, N. H. Lovell, and S. Stuart, “From A to Z: Wearable technology explained,” Maturitas, vol. 113, no. 1, pp. 40–47, Jul. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.04.012.

[12] M. Mardonova and Y. Choi, “Review of Wearable Device Technology and Its Applications to the Mining Industry,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 547, Mar. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/en11030547.

[13] L. Da Silva, “Wearavle Technology in Sports Monitoring Performance and Health Metrics,” Journal of Sport Psychology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 250–258, 2024.

[14] C. L. Nam, H. Y. YU, S. Manchiraju, and A. Anderson, “Consumers’ smart fitness apparel purchase intention: Do social acceptability attributes, environmental concerns, and health beliefs matter? ,” in International Textile and Apparel Association Annual Conference Proceedings, Iowa State University Press, 2025. Accessed: May 11, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/itaa/article/id/15877/

[15] W. H. DeLone and E. R. McLean, “The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: a Ten-Year Update,” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 9–30, 2003.

[16] W. A. Cidral, T. Oliveira, M. Di Felice, and M. Aparicio, “E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study,” Computers & Education, vol. 122, pp. 273–290, Jul. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001.

[17] B. H. Wixom and P. A. Todd, “A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance,” Information Systems Research, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 85–102, Mar. 2005, doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0042.

[18] S. Vairamuthu and S. Margret Anouncia, “Reconnoitering Students’ Satisfaction of an Online Based Assessment System to Improve Usability using PSO: An Examination into a Problem Solving and Programming Course,” Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1207–1211, Oct. 2016, doi: https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.800.

[19] M. Y. Alduaij, M. A. Alterkait, and S. Alainati, “Using the delone and mclean success model to evaluate moodle’s information system success,” Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 15008–15015, Aug. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.7300.

[20] H. S. Hashim, Y. Bin Yusoff, and Z. Bin Hassan, “Usage of Internet of Things in Iraqi Higher Education: An Extension of Information System Success Model,” Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 20203–20210, Feb. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.8844.

[21] H. J. Thomas, C. P. J. Harmse, and C. Schultz, “Predicting wearable technology readiness in a south african government department: Exploring the influence of wearable technology acceptance and positive attitudes,” African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–18, Nov. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2024.2414468.

[22] M. Y. Alduaij, “An exploratory study of m-commerce key benefits and barriers among actual users, intentional users and non-intentional users,” Innovation, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 260–276, Mar. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2018.1444489.

[23] Nabeel Al-Huwail, A. Al-Hunaiyyan, Shaikhah Alainati, and Ayman Alhabshi, “Artificial Intelligence in Education: Perspectives and Challenges,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), vol. 19, no. 04, pp. 26–47, Feb. 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v19i04.52117.

[24] I. Awolusi, E. Marks, and M. Hallowell, “Wearable technology for personalized construction safety monitoring and trending: Review of applicable devices,” Automation in Construction, vol. 85, no. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.010, pp. 96–106, Jan. 2018, Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926580517309184

[25] M. Dehghani, K. J. Kim, and R. M. Dangelico, “Will smartwatches last? factors contributing to intention to keep using smart wearable technology,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 480–490, May 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.01.007.

[26] D. Pal, S. Funilkul, and B. Papasratorn, “Antecedents of Trust and the Continuance Intention in IoT-Based Smart Products: The Case of Consumer Wearables,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 184160–184171, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2960467.

[27] A. Ahmad, T. Rasul, A. Yousaf, and U. Zaman, “Understanding Factors Influencing Elderly Diabetic Patients’ Continuance Intention to Use Digital Health Wearables: Extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 81, Sep. 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030081.

[28] Z. Guo, G. Liu, Z. Liu, and A. Khan, “Evaluating the Determinants of Young Runners’ Continuance Intentions toward Wearable Devices,” HighTech and Innovation Journal, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 720–738, Dec. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.28991/hij-2023-04-04-02.

[29] S. Naz et al., “Extending the role of technology continuance theory and task technology fit with pre-technology adoption and post-technology adoption behaviors,” Sep. 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202109.0219.v1.

[30] M. Pobiruchin, J. Suleder, R. Zowalla, and M. Wiesner, “Accuracy and Adoption of Wearable Technology Used by Active Citizens: A Marathon Event Field Study,” JMIR mHealth and uHealth, vol. 5, no. 2, p. e24, Feb. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.6395.

[31] J. V. Jacobs et al., “Employee acceptance of wearable technology in the workplace,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 78, no. 78, pp. 148–156, Jul. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.03.003.

[32] F. D. Davis, “A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-user Information systems: Theory and Results,” Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1985.

[33] T. Kim and W. Chiu, “Consumer Acceptance of Sports Wearable technology: the Role of Technology Readiness,” International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 109–126, Feb. 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijsms-06-2017-0050.

[34] S. H. Koo, K. Gaul, S. Rivera, T. Pan, and D. Fong, “Wearable Technology Design for Autism Spectrum Disorders,” Archives of Design Research, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 37–55, Feb. 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2018.02.31.1.37.

[35] D. Halder and K. T. Vigaykarthigenyan, “NUDGING RESPONSIBLE FINANCIAL BEHAVIOUR: EXTENDING THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL WITH EPNM,” Acta Innovations, no. 57, pp. 44–54, 2025.

[36] N. I. Sudhindra and P. S. Rajeswari, “The Ethical Personalisation Nudging Model (EPNM): Extending TAM to Promote Trust and Responsible Gaming Behavior,” Acta Innovations, no. 56, pp. 77–91, 2025.

[37] L. Cadmus-Bertram, R. Gangnon, E. J. Wirkus, K. M. Thraen-Borowski, and J. Gorzelitz-Liebhauser, “Accuracy of Heart Rate Monitoring by Some Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 167, no. 8, p. 607, Oct. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/l17-0380.

[38] J. A. Gliem and R. R. Gliem, “Calculating, interpreting, and reporting cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert-type scales,” in Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, 2003.

[39] K. Ibrahim, F. Simpeh, and O. J. Adebowale, “Awareness and Adoption of Wearable Technologies for Health and Safety Management in the Nigerian Construction Industry,” Frontiers in Engineering and Built Environment, vol. 4, no. 1, 2024.

[40] R. Gopalakrishnan, “User adoption of internet of things: Determining factors that directly affect internet of things service adoption and applying them to an existing system,” Thesis, Ryerson University Library and Archives, Toronto Metropolitan University, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.32920/ryerson.14653911.

[41] IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 31.0) , (2025).

[42] J. Nunnally and I. H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, 1994.

[43] A. Field, Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 5th ed. Sage Publications, 2018.

[44] D. McFadden, “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior,” in Frontiers in Econometrics, New York: Academic Press, 1974, pp. 105–142.

[45] H. Sun and C. Gu, “Understanding determinants of end-user’s continuance intention on fitness wearable technology,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 1–21, Sep. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2124360.

[46] Pietro Mercati and G. Bhat, “Self-Sustainable wearable and internet of things (iot) devices for health monitoring: Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Design and Test, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 1–1, Jan. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/mdat.2024.3432862.