1 |
L. Wang, P.L.P. Rau & G. Salvendy. (2011). A cross-culture study on older adults' information technology acceptance. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 9(5), 421-220.
DOI
|
2 |
S. Naspetti, S. Mandolesi, J. Buysse, T. Latvala, P. Nicholas, S. Padel, E. J. Van Loo, & R. Zanoli. (2017). Determinants of the acceptance of sustainable production strategies among dairy farmers: Development and testing of a modified Technology Acceptance Model. Substantiality, 9, 1805-1821. DOI : 10.3390/su9101805
DOI
|
3 |
E. Meyer. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
|
4 |
J. A. Lee (2018). Trend and challenges of using welfare technology in elderly care. International Journal of Contents, 14(2), 30-34. DOI : 10.5392/IJoC.2018.14.2.030
DOI
|
5 |
J. K. Kim. (2018). Study on Welfare Technology and Welfare Technology Assessment for older adults. Journal of Korea Contents Association, 5, 156-166.
|
6 |
Nordic Welfare Center (2020). Welfare Technology. Retrieved from https://nordicwelfare.org/en/welfare-policy/welfare-technology/#:~:text=Welfare%20technology%20is%20all %20technology,a%20disability%20or%20the%20elderly.
|
7 |
A. E. Molzahn, M. Kalfoss, M. K. Schick, & S. M. Skevington (2010). Comparing the importance of different aspects of quality of life to older adults across diverse culture. Age and ageing, 40(2), 192-199.
DOI
|
8 |
F. D. Davis. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
|
9 |
D. Al-Jumeily, A. Hussain, & S. Crate. (2014). The impact of cultural factors on technology acceptance, students point of view. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS), Las Vegas, NV., 1-7. Retrieved from http://worldcomp-proceedings.com/proc/p2014/FEC2413.pdf
|
10 |
S. Merchant. (2007). Exploring the influence of cultural values on the acceptance of information technology: An application of the technology acceptance model. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 4, 430-443.
|
11 |
S. Frennert & K. Baudin (2019). The concept of welfare technology in Swedish municipal eldercare, Disability and Rehabilitation. DOI : 10.1080/09638288.2019.1661035
DOI
|
12 |
A.R. Hendrickson, P.D. Massey & T. P. Cronan. (June, 1993). On the test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales. MIS quarterly, 17(2), 227-230.
DOI
|
13 |
P. Ketikidis, T. Dimitrovski, L Lazuras & P.A. Bath (2012). Acceptance of health information technology in health professionals: An application of the revised technology acceptance model. Health Informatics Journal, 18(2), 124-134.
DOI
|
14 |
I. Altman. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
|
15 |
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2018). What are some types of assistive devices and how are they used? Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/rehabtech/c onditioninfo/device
|
16 |
F. D. Davis. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and use acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
DOI
|
17 |
P.F. Musa. (2006). Making a case for modifying the technology acceptance model to account for limited accessibility in developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 12(3), 213-224. DOI : 10.1002/itdj.20043
DOI
|
18 |
M. Lenca, M. Lipps, T. Wangmo, F. Jotterand, B. Elger, R. Kressig (2018). Health Professional's and researchers's views on Intelligent Assistive Technology for Psychogeriatric Care. Gerontechnology, 17(3), 138-149. DOI : 10.4017/gt.2018.17.3.002.00
DOI
|
19 |
Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. (2020). Older Americans 2020: Key indicators of well-being. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Report
|
20 |
D. A. Adams, R.R. Nelson, & P.A. Todd (June, 1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication. Management Information System (MIS) quarterly, 16(2), 227-247
DOI
|
21 |
R. Rauniar, G. Rawski, J. Yang, & B. Johnson. (2014). Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1) 6-30. DOI : 10.1108/JEIM-04-2012-0011
DOI
|
22 |
V. Venktatesh & F. D. Davis (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
DOI
|
23 |
P.Y.K Chau (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185-204.
DOI
|
24 |
J. Kim. (2020). Senior Business Overseas Cases and Strategies for Revitalization, Aging Review Quarterly, 37, 30-42. Korea Insurance Research Institute.
|
25 |
H. Zade, M. Drouhard, B. Chinh, L. Gan & C. Aragon. (2018). Conceptualizing disagreement in qualitative coding. CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 159, 1-11. DOI : 10.1145/3173574.3173733
DOI
|
26 |
S. B. Merriam, & E. J. Tisdell. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
|
27 |
L. Burla, B. Knierim, J. Barth, K. Liewald, M. Duetz, & A. Thomas, A. (2008). From text to codings: intercoder reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis. Nursing Research, 57(2), 113-117. DOI : 10.1097/01.nnr.0000313482.33917.7d
DOI
|
28 |
C. MacPhail, N. Khoza, L. Abler, & M. Ranganthan, M. (2016). Process guidelines for establishing intercoder reliability in qualitative studies. Qualitative Research, 16(2), 198-212. DOI : 10.1177/1468794115577012
DOI
|
29 |
M. J. Belotto. (2018). Data analysis methods for qualitative research: managing the challenges of coding, interrater reliability, and thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2622-2633. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss11/2
|
30 |
D. Compton, T. P. Love & J. Sell. (2012). Developing and assessing intercoder reliability in studies of group interaction. Sociological Methodology,42, 348-364. DOI : 10.1177/0081175012444860
DOI
|
31 |
G. Hofstede. (1980). Culture's consequences, international differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA SAGE.
|
32 |
J. Saldana. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
|
33 |
J. W. Creswell. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. United Kingdom: Content Technologies.
|
34 |
E. T. Hall. (1981). Beyond culture. New York, Anchor Books.
|
35 |
G. Youn, B. G. Knight, H-S. Jeong, & D. Benton. (1999). Differences in familism values and caregiving outcomes among Korean, Korean American, and White American dementia caregivers. Psychology and Aging, 14(3), 355-364. DOI : 10.1037/0882-7974.14.3.355
DOI
|
36 |
D. Segura & J. L. Pierce. (Autumn 1993). Chicano/o family structure and gender personality: Chodorow, familism, and psychoanalytic sociology revisited. Signs, 19(1), 62-91.
DOI
|
37 |
AARP. (2018). Where WeLive: Communities for All Ages. AARP, Washington DC.
|
38 |
R. Ormerod. (2006). The history and ideas of pragmatism. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 892-908. DOI :10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602065
DOI
|
39 |
S. Trepte & P. K. Masur. (2017). Need for Privacy. In: Zeigler-Hill V., Shackelford T. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_540-1
|
40 |
A. F. Westin. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.
|
41 |
R. Schulz, H-W. Wahl, J.T. Matthews, A. De Vito Dabbs, S.R. Beach, & S. Czaja (2015). Advancing the Aging and Technology Agenda in Gerontology. The Gerontologist, 55(5), 724-734. DOI : 10.1093/geront/gnu071
DOI
|
42 |
D. F. Mahoney. (2010). An evidence-based adoption of technology model for remote monitoring of Elders' Daily Activities. Ageing International, 36(1), 66-81.
DOI
|
43 |
R. Schulz, H-WWahl, H-W., Matthews, J.T., De Vito Dabbs, A., Beach, S. R., & Czaja, S. (2015). Advancing the Aging and Technology Agenda in Gerontology. The Gerontologist, 55 (5), 724-734. DOI :10.1093/geront/gnu071
DOI
|
44 |
Hofstede Insights (2021). Country Comparison. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparis on/south-korea/
|
45 |
N. R. Hooyman & H.A. Kiyak. (2011). Social gerontology: A multidisciplinary perspective (9th ed.). New York: Pearson.
|