4.2.1 Evaluation of Measurement model
The outer model is evaluated first in PLS-SEM analysis (or measurement model). The goal is to see how effectively the items (questions) load on the hypothetical concept. The outer model is evaluated by looking at the reliability of individual items (indicator reliability), the reliability of each latent variable, internal consistency (Cronbach alpha and composite reliability), construct validity (loading and cross-loading), convergent validity (average variance extracted, (AVE), and discriminant validity. Cross loading (Fornell-Larcker criterion, HTMT criterion) (Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, 2017).
To assess the measurement model's internal consistency and convergent validity, composite reliability, individual indicator reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) were all employed. To measure discriminant validity, the Fornell-Larcker criteria and cross-loadings were utilized.
a. Indicator reliability
According to a common rule of thumb for indicator reliability, a latent variable should explain a significant part, usually at least 50%, of each indicator's variance (Joseph F. Hair et al., 2013). Therefore, the outer loading of an indicator should be more than 0.7082, because that value squared (0.7082) equals 0.50. As shown in Table 4.4 and Fig. 4.1, Except for WD5 (0.657), TR1(0.672), TR2 (0.651), SN5(0.609), and SN6(0.614) all the indicators for the constructs in this model were well above the minimum acceptable level for outer loadings.
Table 4.4: Construct Reliability, Validity, and collinearity Test result
Latent Variable
|
Indicators
|
Loadings
|
Collinearity
Statistics
(VIF)
|
Construct
Reliability
Cronbach’s
Alpha (a)
|
Composite
Reliability
(CR)
|
Average
Variance
Extracted
(AVE)
|
Web Design
|
WD1
|
0.778
|
1.654
|
0.841
|
0.887
|
0.613
|
WD3
|
0.804
|
2.342
|
WD4
|
0.786
|
2.048
|
WD5
|
0.657
|
1.402
|
WD6
|
0.875
|
2.510
|
Perceived Usefulness
|
PU1
|
0.792
|
2.653
|
0.920
|
0.924
|
0.668
|
PU3
|
0.808
|
2.369
|
PU4
|
0.816
|
2.223
|
PU5
|
0.875
|
2.790
|
PU6
|
0.806
|
2.360
|
PU7
|
0.807
|
1.899
|
Perceived Ease of Use
|
PEOU2
|
0712
|
1.656
|
0.824
|
0.876
|
0.586
|
PEOU3
|
0.740
|
1.659
|
PEOU6
|
0.771
|
1.851
|
PEOU7
|
0.836
|
2.119
|
PEOU8
|
0.764
|
1.758
|
Trust
|
TR1
|
0.672
|
1.216
|
0.815
|
0.870
|
0.575
|
TR2
|
0.651
|
1.426
|
TR3
|
0.810
|
2.170
|
TR4
|
0.810
|
2.161
|
TR5
|
0.828
|
2.425
|
Subjective Norm
|
SN1
|
0.706
|
1.942
|
0.768
|
0.840
|
0.516
|
SN2
|
0.779
|
2.100
|
SN3
|
0.852
|
2.122
|
SN5
|
0.609
|
2.628
|
SN6
|
0.614
|
3.110
|
Purchase Intention
|
PI1
|
0.807
|
1.849
|
0.824
|
0.876
|
0.586
|
PI2
|
0.801
|
1.816
|
PI3
|
0.813
|
1.960
|
PI5
|
0.741
|
1.706
|
PI6
|
0.760
|
1. 681
|
b. Internal Consistency
The most common measurement used for internal consistency is Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability, in which it measures the reliability based on the interrelationship of the observed items variables. In PLS-SEM, the values are organized according to their indicator’s individual reliability (Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, 2017). The values range from 0 to 1, where a higher value indicates higher reliability level. Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability value > 0.70 is acceptable(Cronbach, 1951)(Jum C. Nunnally, 1978)(Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, 2017). As shown in Table 4.4. Cronbach’s Alpha values for all constructs is > 0.70 and the composite reliability (CR) of all variables are > 0.70 showing the internal consistency of the measurement items.
c. Convergent Validity
Convergent validity is the assessment to measure the level of correlation of multiple indicators of the same construct that are in agreement (Batool et al., 2015). To establish convergent validity, the factor loading of the indicator, composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE) have to be considered (Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, 2017). The value ranges from 0 to 1. AVE value should exceed 0.50, Composite Reliability (CR) and the indicator's outer loadings should be higher than 0.708 so that it is adequate for convergent validity (Henseler et al., 2009a)(Ab Hamid et al., 2017)(Joseph F. Hair et al., 2013).As shown in Table 4.4 the values of AVE are greater than 0.5. The factor loading and Composite Reliability (CR)values are > 0.708 showing the convergent validity of the measurement model.
d. Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity is the extent to which a construct is truly distinct from other constructs by empirical standards. Thus, establishing discriminant validity implies that a construct is unique and captures phenomena not represented by other constructs in the model. The Fornell-Larcker criterion is a conservative approach to assessing discriminant validity. It compares the square root of the AVE values with the latent variable correlations. Specifically, the square root of each construct's AVE should be greater than its highest correlation with any other construct. This criterion can also be stated as the AVE should exceed the squared correlation with any other construct. The logic of this method is based on the idea that a construct shares more variance with its associated indicators than with any other construct (Joseph F. Hair et al., 2013)(Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, 2017). As shown in Table 4.5: The diagonal bold values are \(\sqrt{AVE}\) and the other values are correlations. The square root of each construct’s AVE is greater than its highest correlation with any other construct. Therefore, discriminate validity criteria are fulfilled.
Table 4.5:
Discriminant Validity. The diagonal (bold) values are\(\sqrt{AVE}\)
|
PEOU
|
PI
|
PU
|
SN
|
TR
|
WD
|
PEOU
|
0.766
|
|
|
|
|
|
PI
|
0.671
|
0.785
|
|
|
|
|
PU
|
0.394
|
0.603
|
0.818
|
|
|
|
SN
|
0.444
|
0.661
|
0.461
|
0.718
|
|
|
TR
|
0.620
|
0.556
|
0.396
|
0.444
|
0.758
|
|
WD
|
0.471
|
0.456
|
0.452
|
0.384
|
0.469
|
0.783
|
4.2.2. Assessment of structural model
Once we have confirmed that the construct measures are reliable and valid, the next step addresses the assessment of the structural model results. The structural model is evaluated by examining at its predictive capabilities as well as the relationships between the constructs. The significance of the path coefficients, level of R2 values, f2 effect size, predictive relevance, and Q2 effect size are the key criteria for evaluating the structural model in PLS-SEM. According to(Joseph F. Hair et al., 2013) assessment of structural model have five steps including: Assessment of structural model for collinearity issues, Assessment of the significance and relevance of the structural model relationships using structural model path coefficients, Assessment of the level of R2, Assessment of the effect sizes f2, Assessment of the predictive relevance Q2 and the q2 effect sizes.
a. Collinearity Assessment
Before conducting the analyses, the structural model must be examined for collinearity. The path coefficients might be biased if the estimation involves significant levels of collinearity among the predictor constructs. If the level of collinearity is extremely high (as indicated by a Variance Inflation Factor or VIF value of 5 or higher), one should consider removing one of the corresponding indicators(s)(Joseph F. Hair et al., 2013). As shown in Table 4.4 all constructs have a VIF value of less than 5 showing there is no collinearity issue. SN6 has a relatively highest value of VIF (3.11) but still within the limit.
b. Structural Model Path Coefficients
After running the PLS-SEM algorithm, estimates are obtained for the structural model relationships (i.e., the path coefficients), which represent the hypothesized relationships among the constructs. The path coefficients have standardized values between − 1 and + 1. Estimated path coefficients close to + 1 represent strong positive relationships (and vice versa for negative values) that are almost always statistically significant (i.e., different from zero in the population). The closer the estimated coefficients are to 0, the weaker the relationships. Very low values close to 0 are usually non-significant (i.e., not significantly different from zero)(Joseph F. Hair et al., 2013). Whether a coefficient is significant ultimately depends on its standard error that is obtained by means of bootstrapping. When the empirical “t” value is larger than the critical value, we say that the coefficient is significant at a certain error probability (i.e., significance level). Commonly used critical values for two tailed tests are 1 .65 (significance level = 10%), 1.96 (significance level = 5% ), and 2.57 (significance level = 1 % )(Joseph F. Hair et al., 2013) for this research the ritical value used was 1.96 (significance level = 5%).
The path analysis result shows that all paths have a positive relationship with their dependent variable (See Fig. 4.1 and Table 4.6); however, not all variables are statistically significant. As indicated by the bootstrapping results of PLS-SEM in Table 4.6: The effect of PU, PEOU, SN, TR, and WD on PI is positive and significant whereas the effect of PEOU and TR on PU are insignificantly positive. The effect of SN& WD on PU is positive and significant. The effect of TR&WD ON PEOU is significantly positive (see Table 4.6). The hypotheses H1, H2, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, and H10 were supported but hypotheses H3 and H7 were not supported.
Table 4. 6: Path analysis result: Path coefficients
Hypothesis
|
Path
|
Path coefficient
|
t-statistics
|
p-values
|
Remark
|
H1
|
PUàPI
|
0.282
|
3.569
|
0.000
|
Accepted
|
H2
|
PEOUàPI
|
0.403
|
5.065
|
0.000
|
Accepted
|
H3
|
PEOUàPU
|
0.089
|
0.983
|
0.326
|
Rejected
|
H4
|
SNàPI
|
0.352
|
4.467
|
0.000
|
Accepted
|
H5
|
SNàPU
|
0.280
|
2.925
|
0.004
|
>>
|
H6
|
TRàPI
|
0.078
|
0.716
|
0.474
|
Rejected
|
H7
|
TRàPU
|
0.095
|
0.879
|
0.380
|
Rejected
|
H8
|
TRàPEOU
|
0.512
|
4.589
|
0.000
|
>>
|
H9
|
WDàPU
|
0.258
|
2.627
|
0.009
|
Accepted
|
H10
|
WDàPEOU
|
0.232
|
2.325
|
0.020
|
Accepted
|
As shown in Table 4.6, all the path coefficients are positive which shows the positive impact of all determinants on purchase intention of consumers. Except PEOUàPU (p=0.326), TRàPI (p=0.474), and (TRàPU) (p=0.380) all the hypothesis are accepted.
Table 4. 7: Path Analysis result: Total Effects
Hypothesis
|
Path
|
t-statistics
|
p-values
|
Remark
|
H1
|
PUàPI
|
3.236
|
0.000
|
Accepted
|
H2
|
PEOUàPI
|
3.750
|
0.000
|
Accepted
|
H3
|
PEOUàPU
|
0.928
|
0.354
|
Rejected
|
H4
|
SNàPI
|
4.865
|
0.000
|
Accepted
|
H5
|
SNàPU
|
2.780
|
0.006
|
>>
|
H6
|
TRàPI
|
2.587
|
0.010
|
>>
|
H7
|
TRàPU
|
1.089
|
0.277
|
Rejected
|
H8
|
TRàPEOU
|
4.286
|
0.000
|
Accepted
|
H9
|
WDàPU
|
2.815
|
0.005
|
Accepted
|
H10
|
WDàPEOU
|
2.298
|
0.022
|
Accepted
|
|
WDàPI
|
2.831
|
0.005
|
Accepted
|
As shown in table 4.7 except H3(PEOUàPU, p=0.354) and H7 (TRàPU, p=0.277) all the variables have a positive and significant effect on consumers’ purchase intention supporting hypotheses H1, H2, H4, H5, H6, H8, H9, and H10.
Table 4. 8: Path analysis results, Total indirect effect
Path
|
t-statistics
|
p-values
|
Remark
|
PEOUàPI
|
0.820
|
0.413
|
Insignificant effect
|
PEOUàPU
|
|
|
|
PUàPI
|
|
|
|
SNàPI
|
1.899
|
0.058
|
Insignificant effect
|
SNàPU
|
|
|
|
TRàPEOU
|
|
|
|
TRàPI
|
3.00
|
0.003
|
Significant effect
|
TRàPU
|
0.813
|
0.417
|
Insignificant effect
|
WDàPEOU
|
|
|
|
WDàPI
|
2.831
|
0.005
|
Significant
|
WDàPU
|
0.859
|
0.391
|
Insignificant effect
|
As shown in table 4.8 the variables that have positive and significant total indirect effect on consumers’ online digital market platform purchase intention are only Trust (TR) and Website design (WD).
Table 4. 9: Special indirect effects
Path
|
t-statistics
|
p-values
|
Remark
|
WDàPEOUàPI
|
1.883
|
0.060
|
Insignificant
|
SNàPUàPI
|
1.899
|
0.058
|
>>
|
TRàPEOUàPU
|
0.813
|
0.417
|
>>
|
TRàPUàPI
|
0.589
|
0.556
|
>>
|
WDàPEOUàPU
|
0.859
|
0.391
|
>>
|
WDàPUàPI
|
2.454
|
0.014
|
Significant
|
TRàPEOUàPI
|
3.275
|
0.001
|
>>
|
PEOUàPUàPI
|
0.820
|
0.413
|
Insignificant
|
WDàPEOUàPUàPI
|
0.746
|
0.456
|
>>
|
TRàPEOUàPUàPI
|
0.726
|
0.468
|
>>
|
As shown in Table 4.9, among the variables only Website Design (WD) and trust (TR) have significant and positive special indirect effect on consumer’s online purchase intention as mediated by perceived usefulness (PU) and Perceived ease of use (PEOU) respectively.
c. Coefficient of Determination (R 2 Value)
The most commonly used measure to evaluate the structural model is the coefficient of determination (R2 value). This coefficient is a measure of the model's predictive accuracy and is calculated as the squared correlation between a specific endogenous construct's actual and predicted values. The coefficient represents the exogenous latent variables' combined effects on the endogenous latent variable. Because the coefficient is the squared correlation of actual and predicted values, it also represents the amount of variance in the endogenous constructs explained by all of the exogenous constructs linked to it. The R2 value ranges from 0 to 1 with higher levels indicating higher levels of predictive accuracy in general, R2 values of 0.75, 0.50, or 0.25 for the endogenous constructs can be described as respectively substantial, moderate, and weak (Joseph F. Hair et al., 2013)(Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2009b) Table 4.10 shows the R2 values for all endogenous variables. The Purchase Intention (PI) have substantial R2 value (0.676) that is 67.6 % of the variance of PI is predicted by the cumulative effect of exognous variables and the remaining 32.4 % is explained by some other unknown variables. Similarly; PEOU (0.42), PU (0.317) have close to moderate R2values.
Table 4.10:
R2 and R2 adjusted results
Latent Variable
|
R2
|
R2 Adjusted
|
PEOU
|
0.426
|
0.414
|
PI
|
0.676
|
0.662
|
PU
|
0.317
|
0.288
|
d. Effect Size f 2
In addition to evaluating the R2 values of all endogenous constructs, the change in the R2 value when a specified exogenous construct is omitted from the model can be used to evaluate whether the omitted construct has a substantive impact on the endogenous constructs. This measure is referred to as the f2 effect size. Guidelines for assessing f2 are that values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35, respectively, represent small, medium, and large effects (Salkind, 2012)of the exogenous latent variable.
As shown in Table 4.11 the f2 values of PEOUàPI (0.234), PUàPI (0.155), SNàPI (0.237), and TRàPEOU (0.356) has large effect. The f2 values of SNàPU (0.083), WDàPEOU (0.075), and WDàPU will have medium effect. The f2 value of PEOUàPU (0.006), TRàPI (0.011), and TRàPU (0.008) will have small effect on the endogenous corresponding variables if removed from the model.
Table 4. 11: f2 values
|
PEOU
|
PI
|
PU
|
SN
|
TR
|
WD
|
PEOU
|
|
0.234
|
0.006
|
|
|
|
PI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PU
|
|
0.155
|
|
|
|
|
SN
|
|
0.237
|
0.083
|
|
|
|
TR
|
0.356
|
0.011
|
0.008
|
|
|
|
WD
|
0.075
|
|
0.070
|
|
|
|
e. Blindfolding and Predictive Relevance Q2
In addition to evaluating the magnitude of the R2 values as a criterion of predictive accuracy, researchers should also examine Stone-Geisser's Q2 value (Geisser, 1974). This measure is an indicator of the model's predictive relevance.
The Q2 values that are greater than 0 indicate that the exogenous constructs have predictive relevance for the endogenous construct under consideration. The values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35, respectively, imply that an exogenous construct has a small, medium, or large predictive relevance for a given endogenous construct as a relative measure of predictive relevance (Q2)(Geisser, 1974)(Joseph F. Hair et al., 2013).
Table 4. 12: Q2 values
PEOU
|
0.234
|
PI
|
0.398
|
PU
|
0.180
|
SN
|
|
TR
|
|
WD
|
|
By interpreting these results, we can identify the key constructs with the highest relevance to explain the endogenous latent variable(s) in the structural model. Accordingly, from Table 4.12 we see that PI (0.398) and PEOU (0.234) have large relevance and PU (0.180) has medium relevance to the endogenous variable.