Factors Analysis of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Version 2: Influence on the Regulation of Acceptance and Use of Vending Machines
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The aims of research were 1) to develop a measure of acceptance and use of vending machines to meet the standard criteria, 2) to study the influence of acceptance on vending machines usage, and 3) to study the influence of moderator variables affecting acceptance on vending machines usage: gender, age, and experience. The study was conducted on 406 subjects who had used vending machines no less than twice in the past month, which serving the Bangkok and vicinity areas and derived by quota sampling method. A questionnaire was assessed for content validity index, both Item and Scale level method, and reliability by the Cronbach Alpha coefficient. Data were analyzed statistically, namely Mahalanobis d-Square, comparison of the average variance extracted with the shared variance, structural equation modeling, and multi-group analysis. The results reviewed that 1) the measurement instrument was met with the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology; version 2 and passed the criteria for assessing validity. 2) Factors directly influencing behavior intention with statistical significance include effort expectancy, social influence, hedonic motivation, price value, and habit. Moreover, the factors directly influencing the use behavior were statistically significant, namely, habit and behavior intention, and 3) gender, and age were the variable moderate influence for 2 routes, and experience was the variable moderate influencing for 3 paths.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339, https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
Triandis, H.C. 1977. Interpersonal Behavior. Brooke/Cole, Monterey, CA.
Roger, E. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York.
Taylor, S. and Todd, P.A. 1995. Understanding Information Technology usage: A test of competing model. Information System Research, 6(2), 144-176.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. and Davis, G.B. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478, https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, Y.L. and Xu, X. 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178, https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.
Chang, C-M., Liu, L-W., Huang, H-C. and Hsieh, H-H. 2019. Factors Influencing Online Hotel Booking: Extending UTAUT2 with Age, Gender, and Experience as Moderators. Information, 10(9), 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/info10090281.
Arista, A. and Abbas, B.S. 2022. Using the UTAUT2 model to explain teacher acceptance of work performance assessment system. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(4), 2200-2208, http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i4.22561.
Mishra, N., Gupta, S.L., Srivastava, P., Srivastava, S. and Kabir, M. 2022. Student Acceptance of Social Media in Higher Education: An application of UTAUT2 model. Thailand and the world economy, 40 (1), 88-108.
Farsi, G.A. 2023. The Efficiency of UTAUT2 Model in Predicting Student’s Acceptance of Using Virtual Reality Technology. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 17(12), 17-27, https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v17i12.36951.
Sharma, D. 2023. Factors affecting M-payment adoption in millennials: Testing extended UTAUT2 model. Thailand and the world economy, 41(2), 40-61.
Hammouri, Q. et al. 2023. An empirical investigation on acceptance of e-wallets in the fintech era in Jordan: Extending UTAUT2 model with perceived trust. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 7(3), 1249-1258, https://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2023.4.013.
Ciftci, S.K., Gok, R. and Karadag, E. 2023. Acceptance and use of the distance education systems of Turkish medical educators during COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of contextual factors with the UTAUT2. BMC Medical Education, 23(36), 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04024-7.
อภิญญา อิงอาจ. 2565. หลักการ ทฤษฎี และแนวปฏิบัติ: การพัฒนาแบบจำลองสมการโครงสร้าง. สำนักพิมพ์จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย, กรุงเทพฯ. [Ingard, A. (2022). Principles theories and practices: structural equation modeling. Chulalongkorn University Press, Bangkok. (in Thai)]
Lynn, M. 1986. Determination and Quantification of Content Validity Index. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382-386, https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017.
Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50, https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. 1992. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230-258, https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005.
Kline, R.B. 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. The Guilford Press, New York.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. 1999. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-5, https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. 2004. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed., Pearson, New York.
บุญใจ ศรีสถิตย์นรากูร. 2555. การพัฒนาและตรวจสอบคุณภาพเครื่องมือวิจัย : คุณสมบัติการวัดเชิงจิตวิทยา. โรงพิมพ์แห่งจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย, กรุงเทพฯ. [Srisatidnarakul, B. (2012). Development and Validation of Research Instruments: Psychometric Properties. Chulalongkorn University Printing House, Bangkok. (in Thai)]