Table 1.
Construct | Operationalized definition | ||
Perceived usefulness | |||
|
Description | Alignment of the dashboard and its functions with the community stakeholder’s expectations for goals and tasks | |
|
Benefits | How the dashboard positively influences the work and decision-making expectations of the community stakeholder | |
|
Drawbacks | How the dashboard did not meet the work and decision-making expectations of the community stakeholder | |
Perceived ease of use | |||
|
Description | Alignment of the technical functionality of the dashboard with the community stakeholder’s workflow (needs and desires) | |
|
Barriers | Specific challenges faced with using the portal | |
|
Facilitators | Specific resources needed to support the use of the portal | |
Intention to use | |||
|
Description | The willingness of the community stakeholder to use the dashboard in the future, even if modified slightly | |
|
Acceptance | The approachability of the dashboard as a technological tool to accomplish work | |
|
Preference | Specific improvements, changes, or recommendations to the dashboard | |
Contextual factors | |||
|
Description | Circumstances (eg, social, cultural, and historical circumstances) that influence a community stakeholder’s use of the dashboard | |
|
Community data orientation | Collective perceptions about how the community connects and works with data, including community data tools and approaches for decision-making |
aDefinitions derived from Davis [16].