6.1 First step of SEM:
The main idea of this chapter is to understand the results which were obtained using AMOS 21. The current study collected the data from 424 survey questionnaires from Jordanian people who using smart phone in three cities; Amman, Irbid and Aqaba.
As mentioned in chapter 5, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to evaluate model fitness, reliability and validity construct.
The model adequately fit the observed data as the values of fit indices are all within their recommended level where; ?2 (CMIN/ DF: 3.014), goodness of fit index (GFI: 0.908), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI: 0.812), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA: ?0.059), normed of fit index (NFI: 0.941), and comparative of fit index (CFI: 0.951) (Hair et al., 2010).
In the reliability matter; there were three main tests; internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) which was calculated using SPSS. AMOS 21 used to calculate composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE). As mentioned in chapter 5 the result came higher than the threshold for each latent construct (Cronbach’s alpha ?0.70, CR >0.70, AVE >0.50) (Hair et al, 2010; Nunnally, 1978).
In the last step of SEM first stage; validity was tested. As seen in chapter 5 the standardized factor load for each item was higher than the cut-off point of 0.50, with the p value less than 0.0001 (Hair et al., 2010). Also all inter-correlation estimates were found to be ? 0.85(Kline, 2005) and the squared root of AVE for each construct was higher than the inter-correlation estimates with other corresponding constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Therefore validity is satisfied in this study.
6.2 Second step of SEM (Hypothesis Tests):
This study adopted UTAUT2 model along with privacy, technology anxiety and awareness. The structural model accomplishes an accepted level within the terms of predictive power in the dependent factor (behavioral intention) with R² 60%. R² value explains how much a group of independent factors is able to explain the statistical variance in one single dependent factor (Kline, 2011).
In the details; there are 8 paths between the independent factors (exogenous factors) which are (Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Price value, Technology anxiety, Privacy, Hedonic Motivation, Awareness, and Facilitating Conditions), and the dependent factor (endogenous factor) which is (Behavioral Intentions). Using AMOS 21 for the second stage of SEM; the structural model was examined to test the research hypotheses (Hair et al., 2010).
For the first path which is PE? BI (?=0.21 p