Presenting a casual model for ethical behavioral intention of information technology among students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

摘要

Background and Aim: The ethical issue of the usage of Information Technology (IT) seems to be growing as rapidly as the technology development. The aim of this study is presenting a casual model for ethical behavioral intention of information technology among medical Students. Methods: This study is a Cross -Sectional study. The study sample consisted of the students studying at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. The sample (234 persons) was selected through accidental stratified method, using Table krejcie and Morgan. The data was collected through a questionnaire that made based on standard questionnaires. Content validity was approved by experts and reliability was obtained by Cronbach's alpha. For data analysis, path analysis and LISREL statistical software were used. Ethical Considerations: By providing the research objectives and process, emphasizing on confidentiality, participants' oral consent to participate and colaborate in research was obtained. Findings: Three variables of computer ethical self-efficacy, perceived risk and subjective norm had a direct effect on ethical behavioral intention; computer ethical self-efficacy had the greatest direct effect (r=0.38) and also computer ethical self-efficacy and subjective norm on ethical behavioral intention through the attitude to ethical use and ethical behavior control had an indirect effect. Conclusion: to fulfiment advantages of the information technology without negative effects of experienced unethical behaveiors in academic environments, we must focus on improving the ethical self-efficacy and strengthing of the ethical motivation among students to use of information technology, and preventive social and technical actions. Please cite this article as: Seif MH. Presenting a casual model for ethical behavioral intention of information technology among students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Med Ethics J 2016; 10(35): 177-198.