| Literature DB >> 31487812 |
Yu-Sheng Kao1, Kazumitsu Nawata2, Chi-Yo Huang3.
Abstract
In recent years, IoT (Internet of Things)-based smart devices have penetrated a wide range of markets, including connected health, smart home, and wearable devices. Among the IoT-based smart devices, wearable fitness trackers are the most widely diffused and adopted IoT based devices. Such devices can monitor or track the physical activity of the person wearing them. Although society has benefitted from the conveniences provided by IoT-based wearable fitness trackers, few studies have explored the factors influencing the adoption of such technology. Furthermore, one of the most prevalent issues nowadays is the large attrition rate of consumers no longer wearing their device. Consequently, this article aims to define an analytic framework that can be used to explore the factors that influence the adoption of IoT-based wearable fitness trackers. In this article, the constructs for evaluating these factors will be explored by reviewing extant studies and theories. Then, these constructs are further evaluated based on experts' consensus using the modified Delphi method. Based on the opinions of experts, the analytic framework for deriving an influence relationship map (IRM) is derived using the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL). Finally, based on the IRM, the behaviors adopted by mass customers toward IoT-based wearable fitness trackers are confirmed using the partial least squares (PLS) structural equation model (SEM) approach. The proposed analytic framework that integrates the DEMATEL and PLS-SEM was verified as being a feasible research area by empirical validation that was based on opinions provided by both Taiwanese experts and mass customers. The proposed analytic method can be used in future studies of technology marketing and consumer behaviors.Entities:
Keywords: decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL); internet of things (IoT); modified delphi method; partial least squares (PLS); technology adoption; wearable fitness trackers
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31487812 PMCID: PMC6765920 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16183227
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Construct definitions of users’ adoption of IoT-based wearable fitness trackers.
| Constructs | Definitions |
|---|---|
| Perceived Usability | Perceived usability represents the degree to which people believe that using a technology will be free of effort [ |
| Performance Expectancy | Performance expectancy is defined as the extent to which the usage of a novel technology or product can provide benefit to consumers in performing daily activities [ |
| Perceived Utility | Perceived utility is defined as the question of whether the functionality of the system can do what is needed [ |
| Network Externality | Network externality stands for the effect that users obtain from a product or service will contribute to more values to users with the increase of users, complementary product, or service [ |
| User Innovativeness | User innovativeness is the extent to which a user adopts a particular technology earlier than other people [ |
| Domain Specific Knowledge | Domain specific knowledge is adapted from concept technology awareness [ |
| Adopting Intention | Adopting intention refers to the degree to which a person has formulated conscious plans to perform or not perform some specified future behavior(s) [ |
| Usage Behavior | Usage behavior can be considered as the ultimate measure of adoption; e.g., variety and frequency of use toward a particular technology [ |
Figure 1Analytical procedure of the proposed work.
Results of construct evaluation using the modified Delphi method.
| Title | PTU | PE | PTUS | NE | UI | DK | AI | UB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree | 38 | 41 | 40 | 41 | 37 | 41 | 41 | 41 |
| Disagree | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Agree % | 92.68% | 100.00% | 97.56% | 100.00% | 90.24% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% |
| Disagree % | 7.32% | 0.00% | 2.44% | 0.00% | 9.76% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Note: PTU: perceived technology utility; PE: performance expectancy; PUTS: perceived usability; NE: network externality; UI: user innovativeness; DK: domain specific knowledge; AI: adopting intention; UB: usage behavior.
The direct-influence matrix .
| Aspect. | PE | UI | NE | DK | PTU | PTUS | AI | UB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance expectancy (PE) | 0.000 | 2.732 | 2.878 | 2.732 | 2.780 | 3.024 | 3.293 | 2.707 |
| User innovativeness (UI) | 2.732 | 0.000 | 2.902 | 2.683 | 2.585 | 2.707 | 3.220 | 2.756 |
| Network externality (NE) | 2.707 | 2.585 | 0.000 | 2.902 | 2.683 | 2.780 | 3.049 | 2.585 |
| Domain specific knowledge (DK) | 2.683 | 2.805 | 2.951 | 0.000 | 2.683 | 2.707 | 2.976 | 2.561 |
| Perceived technology utility (PU) | 3.146 | 2.585 | 2.610 | 2.780 | 0.000 | 2.659 | 3.146 | 2.585 |
| Perceived usability (PUS) | 3.024 | 2.561 | 2.854 | 2.805 | 2.732 | 0.000 | 3.195 | 2.463 |
| Adopting intention (AI) | 2.805 | 2.585 | 2.659 | 2.634 | 2.805 | 2.732 | 0.000 | 3.585 |
| Usage behavior (UB) | 2.707 | 2.561 | 2.463 | 2.439 | 2.756 | 2.585 | 2.317 | 0.000 |
The normalized direct-influence matrix .
| Aspect | PE | UI | NE | DK | PTU | PTUS | AI | UB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance expectancy (PE) | 0.000 | 0.136 | 0.143 | 0.136 | 0.138 | 0.150 | 0.163 | 0.134 |
| User innovativeness (UI) | 0.136 | 0.000 | 0.144 | 0.133 | 0.128 | 0.134 | 0.160 | 0.137 |
| Network externality (NE) | 0.134 | 0.128 | 0.000 | 0.144 | 0.133 | 0.138 | 0.151 | 0.128 |
| Domain specific knowledge (DK) | 0.133 | 0.139 | 0.146 | 0.000 | 0.133 | 0.134 | 0.148 | 0.127 |
| Perceived utility (PU) | 0.156 | 0.128 | 0.130 | 0.138 | 0.000 | 0.132 | 0.156 | 0.128 |
| Perceived usability (PUS) | 0.150 | 0.127 | 0.142 | 0.139 | 0.136 | 0.000 | 0.159 | 0.122 |
| Adopting intention (AI) | 0.139 | 0.128 | 0.132 | 0.131 | 0.139 | 0.136 | 0.000 | 0.178 |
| Usage behavior (UB) | 0.134 | 0.127 | 0.122 | 0.121 | 0.137 | 0.128 | 0.115 | 0.000 |
The total influence matrix .
| Aspect | PE | UI | NE | DK | PTU | PTUS | AI | UB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance expectancy (PE) | 3.317 | 3.230 | 3.368 | 3.313 | 3.325 | 3.359 | 3.660 | 3.364 |
| User innovativeness (UI) | 3.353 | 3.033 | 3.288 | 3.231 | 3.237 | 3.266 | 3.569 | 3.285 |
| Network externality (NE) | 3.311 | 3.108 | 3.122 | 3.200 | 3.201 | 3.229 | 3.519 | 3.238 |
| Domain specific knowledge (DK) | 3.321 | 3.126 | 3.260 | 3.084 | 3.212 | 3.236 | 3.527 | 3.247 |
| Perceived utility (PU) | 3.362 | 3.140 | 3.270 | 3.228 | 3.117 | 3.257 | 3.559 | 3.271 |
| Perceived usability (PUS) | 3.376 | 3.156 | 3.297 | 3.247 | 3.254 | 3.159 | 3.580 | 3.285 |
| Adopting intention (AI) | 3.379 | 3.168 | 3.301 | 3.251 | 3.268 | 3.289 | 3.454 | 3.339 |
| Usage behavior (UB) | 3.095 | 2.904 | 3.019 | 2.974 | 2.995 | 3.011 | 3.261 | 2.912 |
and values obtained from the total influence matrix .
| Aspect |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance expectancy (PE) | 26.936 | 26.514 | 53.449 | 0.422 |
| User innovativeness (UI) | 26.262 | 24.864 | 51.126 | 1.397 |
| Network externality (NE) | 25.926 | 25.925 | 51.851 | 0.002 |
| Domain specific knowledge (DK) | 26.013 | 25.529 | 51.541 | 0.484 |
| Perceived utility (PU) | 26.204 | 25.610 | 51.815 | 0.594 |
| Perceived usability (PUS) | 26.354 | 25.805 | 52.159 | 0.549 |
| Adopting intention (AI) | 26.449 | 28.128 | 54.577 | −1.679 |
| Usage behavior (UB) | 24.171 | 25.940 | 50.111 | −1.768 |
Figure 2The influential causal relationship by DEMATEL method.
Figure 3The research model. H1: Perceived usability has a positive effect on performance expectancy; H2: User innovativeness has a positive effect on performance expectancy; H3: Perceived utility has a positive effect on performance expectancy; H4: Performance expectancy has a positive effect on network externality; H5: Domain specific knowledge has a positive effect on adopting intention; H6: Perceived utility has a positive effect on adopting intention; H7: Performance expectancy has a positive effect on adopting intention; H8: Perceived usability has a positive effect on adopting intention; H9: Network externality has a positive effect on adopting intention; H10: User innovativeness has a positive effect on adopting intention; H11: Performance expectancy has a positive effect on usage behavior; H12: Adopting intention has a positive effect on usage behavior.
Construct item statistics.
| Constructs | Items | loadings | CR | AVE | Alpha | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance expectancy | PE1 | 0.898 | 50.351 | 0.919 | 0.791 | 0.868 |
| PE2 | 0.885 | 43.573 | ||||
| PE3 | 0.885 | 46.789 | ||||
| User innovativeness | UI1 | 0.738 | 15.061 | 0.897 | 0.745 | 0.829 |
| UI2 | 0.916 | 59.789 | ||||
| UI3 | 0.923 | 85.175 | ||||
| Network externality | NE1 | 0.819 | 32.310 | 0.889 | 0.727 | 0.813 |
| NE2 | 0.891 | 42.389 | ||||
| NE3 | 0.846 | 24.091 | ||||
| Domain specific knowledge | DK1 | 0.801 | 22.422 | 0.850 | 0.655 | 0.741 |
| DK2 | 0.820 | 32.348 | ||||
| DK3 | 0.806 | 25.495 | ||||
| Perceived utility | PU1 | 0.826 | 39.128 | 0.888 | 0.726 | 0.811 |
| PU2 | 0.859 | 37.660 | ||||
| PU3 | 0.870 | 45.090 | ||||
| Perceived usability | PUS1 | 0.876 | 52.665 | 0.907 | 0.764 | 0.846 |
| PUS2 | 0.867 | 39.758 | ||||
| PUS3 | 0.880 | 44.952 | ||||
| Adopting intention | AI1 | 0.853 | 33.501 | 0.903 | 0.756 | 0.840 |
| AI2 | 0.886 | 46.537 | ||||
| AI3 | 0.871 | 35.921 | ||||
| Usage behavior | UB1 | 0.888 | 47.945 | 0.897 | 0.745 | 0.828 |
| UB2 | 0.890 | 48.590 | ||||
| UB3 | 0.809 | 26.488 |
The discriminant validity of this research.
| Constructs | AI | IK | NE | PE | PTU | PTUS | UA | UI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adopting intention (AI) | 0.870 | |||||||
| Domain specific knowledge (DK) | 0.652 | 0.809 | ||||||
| Network externality (NE) | 0.494 | 0.621 | 0.853 | |||||
| Performance expectancy (PE) | 0.571 | 0.579 | 0.476 | 0.889 | ||||
| Perceived utility (PU) | 0.655 | 0.639 | 0.442 | 0.567 | 0.852 | |||
| Perceived usability (PUS) | 0.633 | 0.628 | 0.497 | 0.626 | 0.677 | 0.874 | ||
| Usage behavior (UB) | 0.752 | 0.561 | 0.429 | 0.566 | 0.674 | 0.625 | 0.863 | |
| User innovativeness (UI) | 0.497 | 0.426 | 0.360 | 0.308 | 0.400 | 0.398 | 0.457 | 0.863 |
Figure 4Structural model of IoT-based wearable fitness trackers adoption with path coefficients. Note: *** , ** , * .
The effect of constructs.
| Constructs | Title | NE | PE | AI | UB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PU | Direct effects | - | 0.256 | 0.243 | - |
| Indirect effects | - | - | 0.034 | 0.229 | |
| Total effects | - | 0.256 | 0.278 | 0.229 | |
| PE | Direct effects | 0.476 | - | 0.134 | 0.203 |
| Indirect effects | - | - | - | 0.085 | |
| Total effects | 0.476 | - | 0.134 | 0.289 | |
| PUS | Direct effects | - | 0.440 | 0.151 | - |
| Indirect effects | 0.210 | - | 0.059 | 0.223 | |
| Total effects | 0.210 | 0.440 | 0.210 | 0.223 | |
| DK | Direct effects | - | - | 0.214 | - |
| Indirect effects | - | - | - | 0.121 | |
| Total effects | - | - | 0.214 | 0.121 | |
| UI | Direct effects | - | - | 0.190 | - |
| Indirect effects | - | - | - | 0.121 | |
| Total effects | - | - | 0.190 | 0.121 | |
| AI | Direct effects | - | - | - | 0.636 |
| Indirect effects | - | - | - | - | |
| Total effects | - | - | - | 0.636 | |
|
| 0.227 | 0.431 | 0.588 | 0.593 |
Sample demographics.
| Measurement | Item | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 131 | 57.96 |
| Female | 95 | 42.04 | |
| Age | Less than 20 | 26 | 11.50 |
| 20–35 | 180 | 79.65 | |
| 36–45 | 19 | 8.41 | |
| More than 45 | 1 | 0.44 | |
| Education | High school or under | 6 | 2.65 |
| Undergraduate | 148 | 65.49 | |
| Graduate | 72 | 31.86 | |
| Occupation | Student | 90 | 39.82 |
| Manufacturing | 30 | 13.27 | |
| Logistics | 3 | 1.33 | |
| Finance | 7 | 3.10 | |
| IT | 40 | 17.70 | |
| Healthcare | 4 | 1.77 | |
| Public sector or research institution | 16 | 7.08 | |
| Other | 36 | 15.93 | |
| Frequencies using IoT-based wearable fitness trackers (per day) | Less than 2 h | 47 | 20.80 |
| 2–4 h | 85 | 37.61 | |
| 4–7 h | 61 | 26.99 | |
| More than 7 h | 33 | 14.60 |
Questionnaire items.
| Constructs | Measurement items |
|---|---|
| Perceived usability (PTUS) (adapted from Lacka and Chong [ | |
| PTUS1 | The IoT-based wearable fitness trackers are easy to use for IoT services in our daily life. |
| PTUS2 | I find it easy to get IoT-based wearable fitness trackers to do what I want them to do while accomplishing daily activities. |
| PTUS3 | Learning to operate IoT-based wearable fitness trackers for daily activities is easy. |
| Performance expectancy (PE) (adapted from Venkatesh and Thong [ | |
| PE1 | Using IoT-based wearable fitness trackers allows me to manage daily activities in an efficient way. |
| PE2 | Using IoT-based wearable fitness trackers makes the daily activities easier. |
| PE3 | Using IoT-based wearable fitness trackers allow me to accomplish daily activities more quickly. |
| Perceived technology utility (PTU) (adapted from Lacka and Chong [ | |
| PTU1 | Goals of IoT-based wearable fitness trackers can be met while accomplishing daily activities. |
| PTU2 | The features of IoT-based wearable fitness trackers enable people to effectively cope with daily activities. |
| PTU3 | I can minimize cost with IoT-based on wearable fitness trackers while accomplishing daily activities. |
| Network externality (NE) (adapted from Hsu and Lin [ | |
| NE1 | I think more and more people will adopt IoT-based wearable fitness trackers. |
| NE2 | I think a number of relevant IoT technologies (i.e., QR code and NFC) can be used in wearable fitness trackers. |
| NE3 | I think IoT-related devices and IoT services are very popular. |
| User innovativeness (UI) (adapted from Parasuraman [ | |
| UI1 | I learn more than others about IoT-based wearable fitness trackers. |
| UI2 | I keep up with the latest technological developments in my area of interest. |
| UI3 | I enjoy the challenge of figuring out how to use wearable fitness trackers for IoT application services |
| Domain specific knowledge (DK) (adapted from Koo and Chung [ | |
| IK1 | I agree that IoT-based wearable fitness trackers can substitute for traditional devices. |
| IK2 | I believe that there will be more and more IoT-based service and device providers in the market. |
| IK3 | I believe that IoT-based wearable fitness trackers are critical for our social life. |
| Adopting intention (AI) (adapted from Venkatesh and Thong [ | |
| AI1 | I intend to recommend to people that they use IoT-based wearable fitness trackers. |
| AI2 | I have intentions of using IoT-based wearable fitness trackers in my daily life. |
| AI3 | I am eager to use related IoT applications on my wearable fitness trackers. |
| Usage behavior (UB) (adapted from Venkatesh and Thong [ | |
| UB1 | I use IoT services with my wearable fitness trackers frequently. |
| UB2 | Overall, I use IoT-based wearable fitness trackers to deal with daily activities a lot. |
| UB3 | I spend much time using my IoT-based wearable fitness trackers. |