Figure 1
Research model of the study.
Table 1
Demographic characteristics.
| n | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 103 | 44.2 |
| Male | 130 | 55.8 | |
| Age (years) | 19–25 | 21 | 9.0 |
| 26–40 | 149 | 63.9 | |
| 41–55 | 63 | 27.1 | |
| VCT usage experience | Less than 1 year | 72 | 30.9 |
| 1–3 years | 87 | 37.3 | |
| 4 years or more | 74 | 31.8 |
Table 2
Scale items and constructs.
| CONSTRUCT | ITEM NUMBER | SOURCE |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived usefulness (PU) | PU1 | Wu & Yu (2023), adapted from Davis (1989) |
| PU2 | ||
| PU3 | ||
| Perceived ease of use (PEU) | PEU1 | Wu & Yu (2023), adapted from Davis (1989) |
| PEU2 | ||
| PEU3 | ||
| Subjective norms (SN) | SN1 | Venkatesh & Bala (2008), adapted from Taylor & Todd (1995) |
| SN2 | ||
| SN3 | ||
| SN4 | ||
| Output quality (OQ) | OQ1 | Venkatesh & Bala (2008), adapted from Davis et al. (1992) |
| OQ2 | ||
| OQ3 | ||
| Technostress (T) | T1 | Wu & Yu (2023), adapted from Verkijika (2019) |
| T2 | ||
| T3 | ||
| Self-efficacy (SE) | SE1 | Lee et al. (2013), adapted from Compeau & Higgins (1995) |
| SE2 | ||
| SE3 | ||
| SE4 | ||
| SE5 | ||
| SE6 | ||
| Facilitating conditions (FC) | FC1 | Teo et al. (2018), adapted from Thompson et al. (1991) |
| FC2 | ||
| FC3 | ||
| Technological complexity (TC) | TC1 | Teo (2009), adapted from Thompson et al. (1991) |
| TC2 | ||
| TC3 | ||
| Perceived enjoyment (PE) | PE1 | Venkatesh & Bala (2008), adapted from Davis et al. (1992) |
| PE2 | ||
| PE3 | ||
| Behavioral intention (BI) | BI1 | Baber (2021), adapted from Chen (2011) |
| BI2 | ||
| BI3 | ||
| BI4 | ||
| Attitude (AT) | AT1 | Taylor & Todd (1995) |
| AT2 | ||
| AT3 | ||
| AT4 |
Table 3
Measurement model evaluation results.
| CONSTRUCT | ITEM | LOADING | AVERAGE VARIANCE EXTRACTED | CRONBACH’S ALPHA | COMPOSITE RELIABILITY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived usefulness | PU1 | .95 | .86 | .92 | .95 |
| PU2 | .95 | ||||
| PU3 | .88 | ||||
| Perceived ease of use | PEU1 | .90 | .83 | .90 | .94 |
| PEU2 | .90 | ||||
| PEU3 | .93 | ||||
| Perceived enjoyment | PE1 | .96 | .90 | .94 | .96 |
| PE2 | .97 | ||||
| PE3 | .92 | ||||
| Technostress | T1 | .90 | .77 | .85 | .91 |
| T2 | .91 | ||||
| T3 | .81 | ||||
| Output quality | OQ1 | .90 | .76 | .84 | .90 |
| OQ2 | .82 | ||||
| OQ3 | .88 | ||||
| Self-efficacy | SE1 | .80 | .73 | .92 | .94 |
| SE2 | .81 | ||||
| SE3 | .88 | ||||
| SE4 | .93 | ||||
| SE5 | .87 | ||||
| SE6 | .82 | ||||
| Facilitating conditions | FC1 | .95 | .86 | .92 | .95 |
| FC2 | .95 | ||||
| FC3 | .88 | ||||
| Technological complexity | TC1 | .91 | .86 | .92 | .94 |
| TC2 | .93 | ||||
| TC3 | .93 | ||||
| Subjective norms | SN1 | .87 | .73 | .87 | .91 |
| SN2 | .90 | ||||
| SN3 | .83 | ||||
| SN4 | .79 | ||||
| Behavioral intention | BI1 | .92 | .82 | .93 | .95 |
| BI2 | .93 | ||||
| BI3 | .92 | ||||
| BI4 | .85 | ||||
| Attitude | AT1 | .85 | .76 | .89 | .92 |
| AT2 | .83 | ||||
| AT3 | .91 | ||||
| AT4 | .90 |
Table 4
Fornell-Larcker criteria analysis.
| PE | PEU | PU | BI | FC | TC | T | AT | OQ | SE | SN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PE | .95 | ||||||||||
| PEU | .44 | .91 | |||||||||
| PU | .51 | .41 | .93 | ||||||||
| BI | .72 | .35 | .41 | .90 | |||||||
| FC | .31 | .35 | .25 | .31 | .93 | ||||||
| TC | –.22 | –.29 | –.15 | –.18 | –.04 | .92 | |||||
| T | –.33 | –.22 | –.30 | –.27 | –.04 | .50 | .88 | ||||
| AT | .54 | .34 | .39 | .46 | .22 | –.20 | –.24 | .87 | |||
| OQ | .59 | .49 | .65 | .47 | .42 | –.10 | –.31 | .42 | .87 | ||
| SE | .43 | .63 | .38 | .39 | .34 | –.18 | –.07 | .32 | .49 | .85 | |
| SN | .48 | .38 | .63 | .42 | .49 | –.06 | –.22 | .37 | .70 | .43 | .85 |
Table 5
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) analysis.
| PE | PEU | PU | BI | FC | TC | T | AT | OQ | SE | SN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PE | |||||||||||
| PEU | .47 | ||||||||||
| PU | .54 | .45 | |||||||||
| BI | .77 | .38 | .44 | ||||||||
| FC | .33 | .38 | .28 | .33 | |||||||
| TC | .24 | .31 | .17 | .20 | .05 | ||||||
| T | .36 | .25 | .33 | .30 | .07 | .56 | |||||
| AT | .58 | .38 | .42 | .50 | .24 | .22 | .27 | ||||
| OQ | .66 | .56 | .72 | .53 | .48 | .12 | .38 | .48 | |||
| SE | .46 | .68 | .41 | .42 | .37 | .19 | .14 | .35 | .55 | ||
| SN | .53 | .44 | .69 | .47 | .56 | .07 | .26 | .42 | .82 | .47 |
Table 6
Results of hypothesis testing.
| HYPOTHESIS | PATH COEFFICIENT | p VALUE | t VALUE | DECISION |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: PEU ➔ PU | .099 | .104 | 1.627 | Not supported |
| H2: PEU ➔ AT | .226 | .003** | 2.957 | Supported |
| H3: PU ➔ AT | .297 | .000*** | 4.024 | Supported |
| H4: PU ➔ BI | .275 | .000*** | 3.994 | Supported |
| H5: AT ➔ BI | .357 | .000*** | 4.985 | Supported |
| H6: SN ➔ PU | .328 | .000*** | 3.995 | Supported |
| H7: OQ ➔ PU | .344 | .000*** | 3.800 | Supported |
| H8: T ➔ PU | –.096 | .072 | 1.799 | Not supported |
| H9: T ➔ PEU | –.069 | .250 | 1.150 | Not supported |
| H10: SE ➔ PEU | .499 | .000*** | 8.963 | Supported |
| H11: FC ➔ PEU | .130 | .022* | 2.291 | Supported |
| H12: TC ➔ PEU | –.128 | .030* | 2.166 | Supported |
| H13: PE ➔ PEU | .135 | .022* | 2.287 | Supported |
[i] *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Figure 2
Structural model evaluation (*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001).