Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Selected research observable variables (Source: As stated in reference column)
| Variable | The operational definition | Reference model/theory |
|---|---|---|
| Job board esthetics | Pleasant mental experience of the website without the logical interventions (Moshagen and Thielsch, 2010) | Signaling theory (Spence, 1903); TAM (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1989; Cober, et al., 2004); VisAWI model (Moshagen and Thielsch, 2010) |
| Job board content | The concern that the content provided is accurate, diverse, and up-to-date (Loiacono, Watson and Goodhue, 2002) | Signaling theory (Spence, 1903; Allen, Mahto and Otondo, 2007) |
| Jobseeker self-efficacy | A person's belief in their ability to organize and perform a series of actions on the Internet to perform a particular task (Eastin and LaRose, 2000) | A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use (Venkatesh and Davis, 1996) |
| Attitude toward job board's functionality | Jobseekers’ perceptions of how the job board's web functionalities and technical features can assist them in purchasing or accessing the product or services they want | Authors’ own elaboration |
| Perceived usefulness | Jobseekers’ belief in the ability to obtain job information, improve job effectiveness, and increase the chances of finding a suitable job on the job board (Brahmana and Brahmana, 2013) | TAM (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1989) |
| Perceived ease of use | User perception of the amount of effort (time and resources) required to use the job board (Fabriana, 2015) | TAM (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1989) |
| Reputation | The perceptual representation of a company's past and possible future actions describes the attractiveness of the company to all its key customers (Fombrun, 1996, p.165) | TPB (Ajzen, 1988, 1991); brand equity theory (Keller, 1993); the reputation quotient SM (Fombrun, Gardberg and Sever, 2000; Cober, et al., 2004) |
| Attitude toward job board | Respondent's overall assessments regarding the use of the job board (Lin, 2010) | TAM (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1989); TPB (Ajzen, 1988, 1991) |
| Intention to use job board | Assessing jobseekers’ possibility of using job board (including job search, website membership, and resume posting) in the present and future (Lin, 2010) | TAM (Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw, 1989); TPB (Ajzen, 1988, 1991) |
Factors, variance percentage, and eigenvalues (before rotation) (Source: Authors’ own research)
| Factors | Eigenvalues | Variance percentage | Cumulative variance percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.23 | 33.10 | 33.10 |
| 2 | 3.20 | 9.71 | 42.81 |
| 3 | 2.93 | 6.32 | 49.13 |
| 4 | 2.92 | 5.30 | 54.43 |
| 5 | 2.80 | 5.12 | 59.56 |
Variables influencing intention to use e-recruitment and job boards in previous research (Source: As stated in the author column)
| Author(s) | Variables |
|---|---|
| Kaur and Kaur (2022) | Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM), PU, POU, attitude |
| Nadlifatin, et al. (2022) | PU, POU, job pursuit attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control |
| Schaarschmidt, Walsh and Ivens (2021) | Discrepant information, persuasion knowledge activation, company response, trustworthiness |
| Meah and Sarwar (2021) | Data quality, reliability, recognition, networking spectrum, result demonstrability, simplicity of navigation |
| Chen, Warden and Liou (2021) | Esthetic forms, recruitment information, interactive functions, information fitness interface attributes |
| Khalid, et al. (2021) | Technology, attitude toward use, POU, PU |
| Nguyen (2021) | Computer self-efficacy, perceived privacy risk, POU, PU |
| Irawan, Adiputra and Arshanty (2021) | Perceived enjoyment, POU, PU, perceived trust, attitude toward use |
| Rahman and Patra (2020) | Usability, user experience, performance expectancy, subjective norms, trustworthiness |
| Candra, et al. (2020) | POU, critical mass, capability, perceived playfulness, PU, trustworthiness |
| Grimaldo and Uy (2020) | PU, POU, attitude |
| Woon and Singh (2019) | PU, perceived information content quality, perceived search engine optimization |
| Selvanathan, et al. (2019) | POU, PU, perceived credibility |
| Banerjee and Gupta (2019) | Perceived quality, perceived credibility, organizational attractiveness, age, gender, work experience, preview mode, employee testimonial, source of advertisement |
| Priyadarshini, Sreejesh and Jha (2019) | Information characteristics (relevancy, accuracy, timeliness), organizational attractiveness, attitude toward website |
| Carmack and Heiss (2018) | Effectiveness, past behavior, perceived behavioral control, actual behavioral control, attitudes, subjective norms |
| Laumer, et al. (2018) | Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, habit, trust, age, gender, experience, context (jobseeker) |
| Poudel (2018) | Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, subjective norms, objective norms, facilitating conditions |
| Chang and Kim (2018) | Accuracy, security, self-efficacy, individual innovation, user satisfaction, POU, PU |
| Siew, et al. (2018) | Perceived compatibility, PU, POU, attitude toward use |
| Zhang, et al. (2018) | Outcome expectation, PU, Internet self-efficacy, POU |
| Arsanti and Yuliasari (2018) | Innovativeness, PU, POU, attitude |
| Mahmood and Ling (2017) | PU, POU, trust |
| Huang and Chuang (2016) | Task characteristics, technology characteristics, task–technology fit, performance expectancy, efforts expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, habit |
| Alsultanny and Alotaibi (2015) | POU, PU, perceived enjoyment, attitude toward use |
| Febriana (2015) | POU, PU, attitude toward use |
| Liyanage and Galhena (2014) | PU, POU |
| Kashi and Zheng (2013) | Impressions of website, impressions of hiring organization, PU, POU |
| Gregory, Meade and Thompson (2013) | Website design (website usability, website esthetics), website content (job information, organizational information), P–E fit (P–J fit, P–O fit), attitudes toward organization, attitudes toward website |
| RoyChowdhury and Srimannarayana (2013) | Perceived efficiency, user-friendliness, information provision, fairness perception, Internet selection image |
| Brahmana and Brahmana (2013) | Perceived stress, POU, PU, perceived enjoyment |
| De Goede, Klehe and van Vianen (2011) | P–I fit, P–O fit, assessment of website design, OI similarity |
| Lin (2010) | PU, POU, attitude, peer influence, external influence, subjective norm, self-efficacy, perceived behavioral control |
| Williamson, et al. (2010) | Website vividness, amount of company and job attribute information on website, firm employer reputation |
| Kroustalis (2009) | P–O fit/P–J fit, website content (job information-organization information), website design (website usability-website esthetics), attitudes toward website, attitudes toward organization |
| Sylva and Mol (2009) | Individual attributes (age, gender, minority status, prior experience, Internet familiarity, applicant source, country), efficiency, Internet selection image, user-friendliness, process fairness, information provision, overall process satisfaction |
| Goldberg and Allen (2008) | Parasocial interaction, ease of use, usefulness, diversity statements, engagement, attitude toward the organization |
| Allen, Mahto and Otondo (2007) | Organization familiarity, organization image, job information, organization information, attitude toward organization, attitude toward website |
| Cober, et al. (2004) | Website façade, jobseeker's prior attitude toward the organization, initial affective reactions, website system features, perception of website usability, search behavior, familiarity, organizational image, website attitude, jobseeker individual differences |
j_fman-2022-0005_apptab_001
| Variables | Questions |
|---|---|
| Job board esthetics | 1. All pages of this job board possess a kind of unique beauty. |
| Job board content | 5. This job board publishes diverse job opportunities. |
| Jobseekers’ self-efficacy in job board | 9. The homepage of this job board immediately guides me to my desired destination. |
| Attitude toward job board functionalities | 13. This job board can be adapted to all browsers and devices. |
| Perceived usefulness of job board | 17. This job board provides me with updated job opportunities. |
| Perceived ease of use of job board | 21. Creating a user account on this job board is simple. |
| Job board reputation | 25. In my opinion, this job board is a reliable recruitment portal both for jobseekers and employers. |
| Attitude toward job board | 29. I consider this job board user-friendly. |
| Intention to use job board | 33. I intend to register on this job board to get informed about the most current job opportunities in my field of expertise. |
Cronbach's α for latent factors (Source: Authors’ work)
| Factor | Cronbach's α coefficient |
|---|---|
| Reputation-seeking intention to use | 0.82 |
| Practical utility | 0.79 |
| Technological innovation | 0.78 |
| Functional adequacy | 0.79 |
| Content accessibility | 0.77 |
Durbin–Watson (DW) test results (Source: Authors’ own study)
| DW statistic value | |
|---|---|
| Practical utility on reputation-seeking intention to use | 2.17 |
| Technological innovation on reputation-seeking intention to use | 2.02 |
| Functional adequacy on reputation-seeking intention to use | 2.02 |
| Content accessibility on reputation-seeking intention to use | 2.02 |
Fit indices of the measurement model (Source: Authors’ study)
| Model-fit index | NNFI | NFI | CFI | RMR | GFI | RMSEA | χ2/df |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement model | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.14 | 0.91 | 2.13 | 0.03 |
| Recommended value | > 0.90 | > 0.90 | > 0.90 | < 0.5 | > 0.90 | > 0.1 | < 5 |
| Result | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable |
Correlation matrix of latent variables (Source: Authors’ own work)
| Latent variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reputation-seeking intention to use | 1 | ||||
| 2. Practical utility | **0.72 | 1 | |||
| 3. Technological innovation | **0.69 | **0.57 | 1 | ||
| 4. Functional adequacy | **0.65 | **0.54 | **0.46 | 1 | |
| 5. Content accessibility | **0.64 | **0.58 | **0.39 | **0.39 | 1 |
The results of path analysis for the hypothesized paths (Source: Authors’ own research)
| Hypothesis | Hypothesized paths | Standardized estimate coefficient | Significance level | t-value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H’1 | Technology innovation to reputation-seeking intention to use | 0.40 | P < 0.01 | 11.57 | Accepted |
| H’2 | Content accessibility to reputation-seeking intention to use | 0.01 | P < 0.05 | 0.30 | Rejected |
| H’3 | Practical utility to reputation-seeking intention to use | 0.52 | P < 0.01 | 8.40 | Accepted |
| H’4 | Functional adequacy to reputation-seeking intention to use | 0.04 | P < 0.05 | 0.84 | Rejected |
| H’5 | Technology innovation to practical utility | 0.12 | P < 0.01 | 4.41 | Accepted |
| H’6 | Content accessibility to practical utility | 0.50 | P < 0.01 | 18.84 | Accepted |
| H’7 | Functional adequacy to practical utility | 0.39 | P < 0.01 | 13.93 | Accepted |
Goodness-of-fit statistics of the research model (Source: Authors’ study)
| Index | Value | Recommended value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 | 1.76 | ≤ 2 | Fitness of model |
| P-value | 0.19 | ≥ 0.05 | Fitness of model |
| RMSEA | 0.0001 | ≤ 0.05 | Fitness of model |
| NFI | 0.96 | ≥ 0.95 | Fitness of model |
| CFI | 0.96 | ≥ 0.9 | Fitness of model |
| GFI | 0.97 | ≥ 0.9 | Fitness of model |
Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) test results (Source: Authors’ study)
| Reputation-seeking intention to use | Technological innovation | Functional adequacy | Practical utility | Content accessibility | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K–S Z value | 1.60 | 1.24 | 1.68 | 2.28 | 1.77 |
| Significance level | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.007 | 0.0001 | 0.004 |