Cover not available

Article published In: Translation and Interpreting Studies: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The predictive effects of user perceptions on the willingness to continue using machine translation

Relevant but less than satisfactory?

ORCiD logo with link | Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Published online: 29 January 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.25014.man
Abstract
Machine translation (MT) users generally express a willingness to continue using MT systems, despite their often-negative perceptions of MT output quality. Informed by an extended Technology Acceptance Model, this questionnaire-based study of trainee translators (N = 273) investigates this phenomenon by assessing the predictive effects of users’ perceptions on their intention to continue using MT systems. Perception of MT output quality was found to have no significant direct effect on respondent’s intent to continue using MT; however, the strongest predictor of continued use was the perceived relevance of MT output, followed by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. This study suggests that user perceptions of relevance and usefulness, other than output quality, were more direct determinants of user intent. The results highlight the importance of user perceptions in translation technology acceptance, providing a new perspective on MT system research and development.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
    • Perceptions of machine translation
    • Perceptions as proximal determinants of translation technology adoption
  • Method
    • Participants and the context
    • Instruments
    • Data collection and analysis
  • Results
    • Preliminary data analysis
    • Measurement model assessment
    • Structural model assessment
  • Discussion
  • Implications
  • Conclusion
  • References
References (48)
References
Al-Rahmi, Ali Mugahed, Waleed Mugahed Al-Rahmi, Uthman Alturki, Ahmed Aldraiweesh, Sultan Almutairy, and Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan. 2022. “Acceptance of mobile technologies and M-learning by university students: An empirical investigation in higher education.” Education and Information Technologies 27(6): 7805–7826. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arenas-Gaitán, Jorge, Patricio Ramírez-Correa, and Javier Rondán-Cataluña. 2011. “Cross cultural analysis of the use and perceptions of web based learning systems.” Computers & Education 57(2): 1762–1774. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asscher, Omri, and Ella Glikson. 2023. “Human evaluations of machine translation in an ethically charged situation.” New Media & Society 25(5): 1087–1107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bywood, Lindsay, Panayota Georgakopoulou, and Thierry Etchegoyhen. 2017. “Embracing the threat: Machine translation as a solution for subtitling.” Perspectives 25(3): 492–508. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cadwell, Patrick, Sheila Castilho, Sharon O’Brien, and Linda Mitchell. 2016. “Human factors in machine translation and post-editing among institutional translators.” Translation Spaces 5(2): 222–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cadwell, Patrick, Sharon O’Brien, and Carlos Teixeira. 2018. “Resistance and accommodation: Factors for the (non-) adoption of machine translation among professional translators.” Perspectives 26(3): 301–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christensen, Tina, and Anne Schjoldager. 2016. “Computer-aided translation tools — the uptake and use by Danish translation service providers.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 251: 89–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creswell, John W. 2012. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, Fred. 1989. “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.” MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doherty, Stephen, and Dorothy Kenny. 2014. “The design and evaluation of a statistical machine translation syllabus for translation students.” Interpreter and Translator Trainer 8(2): 295–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernández Torné, Anna, and Anna Matamala. 2021. “Human evaluation of three machine translation systems: From quality to attitudes by professional translators.” Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 181: 123–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guerberof-Arenas, Ana. 2026. “Perspectives on machine translation, post-editing, and automation.” In The Routledge Handbook of the Translation Industry, ed. by Callum Walker and Joseph Lambert, 186–204. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guerberof-Arenas, Ana, Joss Moorkens, and David Orrego-Carmona. 2024. “‘A Spanish version of EastEnders’: A reception study of a telenovela subtitled using MT.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 411: 230–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hair, Joseph, Tomas Hult, Christian Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2022. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jia, Yanfang, and Sanjun Sun. 2023. “Man or machine? Comparing the difficulty of human translation versus neural machine translation post-editing.” Perspectives 31(5): 950–968. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasperė, Ramunė, Jolita Horbačauskienė, Jurgita Motiejūnienė, Vilmantė Liubinienė, Irena Patašienė, and Martynas Patašius. 2021. “Towards sustainable use of machine translation: Usability and perceived quality from the end-user perspective.” Sustainability 13(23): art. 13430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kasperė, Ramunė, Jurgita Motiejūnienė, Irena Patasienė, Martynas Patašius, and Jolita Horbačauskienė. 2023. “Is machine translation a dim technology for its users? An eye tracking study.” Frontiers in Psychology 141: art. 1076379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
King, William R., and Jun He. 2006. “A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model.” Information & Management 43(6): 740–755. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Man, Deliang, Aiping Mo, Meng Huat Chau, Mitchell O’Toole, and Charity Lee. 2020. “Translation technology adoption: Evidence from a postgraduate programme for student translators in China.” Perspectives 28(2): 253–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D. 2017. “Translators and machine translation: Knowledge and skills gaps in translator pedagogy.” The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 11(4): 280–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson. 2017. Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “Order effects in the translation process.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 1(1): 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. “Methodological considerations for survey research: Validity, reliability, and quantitative analysis.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies 191: 172–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2024. “Psychometric properties of survey translations: A simulation study.” Translation, Cognition & Behavior 7(1): 159–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moorkens, Joss. 2017. “Under pressure: Translation in times of austerity.” Perspectives 25(3): 464–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nitzke, Jean, Carmen Canfora, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, and Dimitrios Kapnas. 2024. “Decisions in projects using machine translation and post-editing: An interview study.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 411: 127–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sharon. 2024. “Human-centered augmented translation: Against antagonistic dualisms.” Perspectives 32(3): 391–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popel, Martin, Marketa Tomkova, Jakub Tomek, Łukasz Kaiser, Jakob Uszkoreit, Ondřej Bojar, and Zdeněk Žabokrtský. 2020. “Transforming machine translation: A deep learning system reaches news translation quality comparable to human professionals.” Nature Communications 11(1): art. 4381. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ragni, Valentina, and Lucas Nunes Vieira. 2021. “What has changed with neural machine translation? A critical review of human factors.” Perspectives 30(1): 137–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rico Pérez, Celia. 2024. “Re-thinking machine translation post-editing guidelines.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 411: 26–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossi, Caroline, and Jean-Pierre Chevrot. 2019. “Uses and perceptions of machine translation at the European Commission.” JoSTrans: Journal of Specialised Translation 311: 177–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saroia, Asher Irfan, and Shang Gao. 2018. “Investigating university students’ intention to use mobile learning management systems in Sweden.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 56(5): 569–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scherer, Ronny, Fazilat Siddiq, and Jo Tondeur. 2019. “The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education.” Computers & Education 1281: 13–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tian, Sha, and Wenjiao Yang. 2024. “Modeling the use behavior of interpreting technology for student interpreters: An extension of UTAUT model.” Education and Information Technologies 29(9): 10499–10528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Egdom, Gys-Walt, and Mark Pluymaekers. 2019. “Why go the extra mile? How different degrees of post-editing affect perceptions of texts, senders and products among end users.” JoSTrans: Journal of Specialised Translation 311: 158–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venkatesh, Viswanath, and Hillol Bala. 2008. “Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions.” Decision Sciences 39(2): 273–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venkatesh, Viswanath, and Fred Davis. 2000. “A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies.” Management Science 46 (2): 186–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venter, Peet, Mari Jansen van Rensburg, and Annemarie Davis. 2012. “Drivers of learning management system use in a South African open and distance learning institution.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 28(2): 183–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Xiangling, Tingting Wang, Ricardo Muñoz Martín, and Yanfang Jia. 2021. “Investigating usability in postediting neural machine translation: Evidence from translation trainees’ self-perception and performance.” Across Languages and Cultures 22(1): 100–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Yuxi, Liping Chen, and Jiayin Han. 2024. “Exploring factors influencing students’ willingness to use translation technology.” Education and Information Technologies 29(13): 17097–17118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Xiaodong, Bing Song, Liang Chen, Shirley S. Ho, and Jin Sun. 2025. “Technological optimism surpasses fear of missing out: A multigroup analysis of presumed media influence on generative AI technology adoption across varying levels of technological optimism.” Computers in Human Behavior 1621: art. 108466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, Yanxia, and Xiangling Wang. 2019. “Modeling the intention to use machine translation for student translators: An extension of Technology Acceptance Model.” Computers & Education 1331: 116–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, Junfeng, Xiang Li, and Hong Liao. 2025. “A context-specific analysis of translation technology usage behavior among college EFL students: Insights from the UTAUT2 model.” Education and Information Technologies 30(12): 16515–16549. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zheng, Jianwei, and Wenjun Fan. 2022. “Multivaried acceptance of post-editing in China.” Pragmatics and Society 13(4): 644–662. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue