| Literature DB >> 23460859 |
Tsai-Hsuan Tsai1, Alice May-Kuen Wong, Chien-Lung Hsu, Kevin C Tseng.
Abstract
This study aims to assess the acceptability of a fitness testing platform (iFit) for installation in an assisted living community with the aim of promoting fitness and slowing the onset of frailty. The iFit platform develops a means of testing Bureau of Health Promotion mandated health assessment items for the elderly (including flexibility tests, grip strength tests, balance tests, and reaction time tests) and integrates wireless remote sensors in a game-like environment to capture and store subject response data, thus providing individuals in elderly care contexts with a greater awareness of their own physical condition. In this study, we specifically evaluated the users' intention of using the iFit using a technology acceptance model (TAM). A total of 101 elderly subjects (27 males and 74 females) were recruited. A survey was conducted to measure technology acceptance, to verify that the platform could be used as intended to promote fitness among the elderly. Results indicate that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and usage attitude positively impact behavioral intention to use the platform. The iFit platform can offer user-friendly solutions for a community-based fitness care and monitoring of elderly subjects. In summary, iFit was determined by three key drivers and discussed as follows: risk factors among the frail elderly, mechanism for slowing the advance frailty, and technology acceptance and support for promoting physical fitness.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23460859 PMCID: PMC3583837 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057452
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1iFit fitness testing platform.
Figure 2The experimental procedure.
Figure 3The experimental procedures for the traditional and iFit tests.
(A-1) The conventional reaction-time measurement. (A-2) The iFit reaction-time measurement. (B-1) The conventional balance measurement. (B-2) The iFit balance measurement.
Figure 4The research model.
Statistics of age and degree of education.
| Age | |
| Mean | 79.6 |
| n | 101 |
| S.D. | 7.5 |
| Min. | 60.0 |
| Max. | 93.0 |
Descriptive statistics of TAM items (n = 101).
| Min. | Max. | Mean | S.D. | % ofScore 5 | |
| Perceived usefulness 1 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 3.9 | .8 | 18.8 |
| Perceived usefulness 2 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | .6 | 17.8 |
| Perceived usefulness 3 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.1 | .5 | 16.8 |
| Perceived usefulness 4 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.2 | .5 | 25.7 |
| Perceived usefulness 5 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.1 | .5 | 21.8 |
| Perceived ease of use 1 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.1 | .6 | 21.8 |
| Perceived ease of use 2 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.1 | .6 | 25.7 |
| Perceived ease of use 3 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.1 | .6 | 22.8 |
| Perceived ease of use 4 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.2 | .6 | 25.7 |
| Perceived ease of use 5 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.2 | .6 | 26.7 |
| Perceived ease of use 6 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.2 | .6 | 29.7 |
| Behavioral intention 1 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.2 | .5 | 21.8 |
| Behavioral intention 2 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.1 | .6 | 25.7 |
| Behavioral intention 3 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.1 | .6 | 23.8 |
| Behavioral intention 4 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.1 | .6 | 24.8 |
| Usage attitude 1 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.2 | .6 | 28.7 |
| Usage attitude 2 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.1 | .7 | 28.7 |
| Usage attitude 3 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.1 | .7 | 24.8 |
| Usage attitude 4 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.1 | .6 | 24.8 |
| Usage attitude 5 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | .7 | 24.8 |
KMO and Bartlett’s sphericity test.
| Kiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy | .929 | |
| Bartlett’s sphericity test | Approximately Chi-Square | 1516.571 |
| Degree of freedom | 190 | |
| Significant | .000 | |
: p<.001.
Rotated component matrix.
| Factors | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Perceived usefulness 1 | .124 | .297 | .406 | .585 |
| Perceived usefulness 2 | .113 | .109 | .252 | .809 |
| Perceived usefulness 3 | .401 | .373 | .139 | .623 |
| Perceived usefulness 4 | .423 | .407 | .192 | .601 |
| Perceived usefulness 5 | .123 | .307 | .234 | .756 |
| Perceived ease of use 1 | .762 | .059 | .324 | .099 |
| Perceived ease of use 2 | .747 | .214 | .127 | .096 |
| Perceived ease of use 3 | .850 | .090 | .224 | .186 |
| Perceived ease of use 4 | .647 | .472 | .175 | .134 |
| Perceived ease of use 5 | .505 | .620 | .165 | .213 |
| Perceived ease of use 6 | .729 | .351 | .223 | .276 |
| Behavioral intention 1 | .251 | .800 | .153 | .216 |
| Behavioral intention 2 | .178 | .763 | .267 | .280 |
| Behavioral intention 3 | .138 | .709 | .365 | .308 |
| Behavioral intention 4 | .181 | .527 | .589 | .259 |
| Usage attitude 1 | .289 | .554 | .431 | .302 |
| Usage attitude 2 | .325 | .158 | .808 | .223 |
| Usage attitude 3 | .277 | .149 | .775 | .237 |
| Usage attitude 4 | .109 | .434 | .710 | .242 |
| Usage attitude 5 | .285 | .235 | .796 | .217 |
TAM model’s path structure analysis.
| Fit index | χ2 |
| χ2/ | CFI | IFI | RMR | RMSEA |
| 226.110 | 146 | 1.549 | 0.941 | .942 | 0.024 | 0.074 | |
| Recommended value | <3 | >0.9 | >0.9 | <0.025 | <0.08 |
Hypotheses validation.
| Hypotheses | Description | Standardizedregression weights | T-values | Result |
|
| “Perceived ease of use” of the iFit platform has a positive andsignificant impact on “perceived usefulness” | 0.762 | 7.40 | Support |
|
| “Perceived ease of use” of the iFit platform has a positive andsignificant impact on “usage attitude”. | 0.298 | 2.105 | Support |
|
| “Perceived usefulness” of the iFit platform has a positive andsignificant impact on “usage attitude”. | 0.496 | 3.304 | Support |
|
| “Perceived usefulness” of the iFit platform has a positive andsignificant impact on “behavioral intention”. | 0.629 | 4.824 | Support |
|
| “Usage attitude” for the iFit platform has a positive andsignificant impact on “behavioral intention”. | 0.305 | 2.700 | Support |
p<.05,
p<.001.
Figure 5Assumptions verification figure.