| Literature DB >> 32962149 |
Jerónimo García-Fernández1, Pablo Gálvez-Ruiz2, Moisés Grimaldi-Puyana1, Salvador Angosto3, Jesús Fernández-Gavira1, M Rocío Bohórquez4.
Abstract
E-Lifestyles are individual forms of behavior in the digital environment that reflect the values, activities, interests, and opinions of consumers. Likewise, fitness Apps are considered technological tools for promoting physical activity online. Although there are studies related to sports lifestyles, it has not been analyzed yet how e-lifestyles are related to the use of fitness Apps. Based on this, this study represents a step to clarify how e-lifestyles influence different relationships with perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude, and intentions to use Fitness Apps. Therefore, the objective of the study was to analyze the relationship between the e-lifestyles of consumers of Boutique fitness centers and their relationship with the perceived ease of use, the perceived usefulness, the attitude, and the intention to use Fitness Apps. The sample was 591 customers (378 women and 213 men) of 25 Boutique fitness centers. An online questionnaire was used for data collection. Data was analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation model. Findings provide an insight into the importance of e-lifestyles in the intention of using fitness Apps and therefore in promoting physical activity through online fitness services. The results showed positive relationships between e-lifestyles, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and attitude toward fitness Apps. Finally, the attitude toward fitness Apps offered a very high predictive value on use intention. This study provides a better understanding of consumer´s intention to use fitness Apps. The conclusions and recommendations for sports managers of fitness centers highlight the importance of e-lifestyles as a predecessor for the use of fitness Apps.Entities:
Keywords: e-lifestyles; fitness app; fitness services; intention to use; physical activity
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32962149 PMCID: PMC7559935 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17186839
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Proposed model.
Normality (univariate skewness and kurtosis), factor loadings in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE).
| Normality | CFA | CR | AVE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
| 0.81 | 0.59 | ||
| FA1. Design is the most important factor in choosing electronic products | −0.18/−0.93 | 0.68 | ||
| FA2. When I must choose between the two I usually buy an electronic device | −0.31/−0.82 | 0.93 | ||
| FA3. I often buy the latest model in electronic products | −0.05/−1.13 | 0.66 | ||
|
| 0.75 | 0.50 | ||
| LO5. I would rather enjoy leisure time than work hard | −0.35/−0.99 | 0.61 | ||
| LO6. Leisure is worth the extra money spent for it | −1.19/0.89 | 0.75 | ||
| LO7. I thoroughly enjoy my leisure time | −1.43/1.94 | 0.75 | ||
|
| 0.75 | 0.51 | ||
| II8. I spend less time watching TV because of the Internet | −0.48/−0.84 | 0.68 | ||
| II9. I am doing more shopping on the Internet than before | −0.79/−0.61 | 0.76 | ||
| II11. I trust information on Web sites that I have heard about | −0.04/−0.56 | 0.69 | ||
|
| 0.80 | 0.50 | ||
| ESP12. I think online buying is a novel, fun way to shop | −0.45/−0.45 | 0.78 | ||
| ESP13. E-shopping is easier than local shopping | −0.06/−0.96 | 0.69 | ||
| ESP14. I like browsing on the Internet | −1.02/0.53 | 0.71 | ||
| ESP15. I think e-shopping offers lower prices than local stores | −0.49/−0.42 | 0.63 | ||
| ESP16. I enjoy buying things on the Internet | −0.23/−0.79 | 0.77 | ||
| ESP18. I think e-shopping offers a better selection than local stores | −0.11/−0.89 | 0.60 | ||
|
| 0.97 | 0.89 | ||
| PEU1. Fitness Apps are easy to use | −0.84/0.58 | 0.89 | ||
| PEU2. Learning to use fitness Apps is easy | −1.03/1.20 | 0.92 | ||
| PEU3. Interaction with fitness Apps is clear and understandable | −0.85/0.63 | 0.96 | ||
| PEU4. It is easy to interact with fitness Apps | −0.84/0.71 | 0.97 | ||
|
| 0.93 | 0.77 | ||
| PU1. Using fitness Apps improves my exercise experience | −0.32/−0.33 | 0.83 | ||
| PU2. Using fitness Apps enhances my effectiveness in doing exercises | −0.08/−0.37 | 0.86 | ||
| PU3. Using fitness Apps increases my productivity in doing exercises | −0.09/−0.45 | 0.93 | ||
| PU4. Using fitness Apps is useful for doing exercises | −0.32/−0.46 | 0.87 | ||
|
| 0.91 | 0.71 | ||
| AT1. Using fitness Apps is a good idea | −0.80/0.71 | 0.78 | ||
| AT2. I intend to use fitness Apps in my fitness center | −0.51/−0.39 | 0.82 | ||
| AT3. Fitness Apps make the physical activity more interesting | −0.25/−0.61 | 0.87 | ||
| AT4. I like doing physical activity with fitness Apps | −0.13/−0.72 | 0.87 | ||
|
| 0.96 | 0.86 | ||
| IU1. I will use fitness Apps on a regular basis in the future | −0.19/−0.58 | 0.94 | ||
| IU2. I will frequently use fitness Apps in the future | −0.09/−0.49 | 0.94 | ||
| IU3. Assuming I have access to fitness Apps, I intend to use them | −0.55/−0.23 | 0.92 | ||
| IU4. Given that I have access to fitness Apps, I predict that I would use them | −0.48/−0.24 | 0.91 |
Note. FA = Fashion Consciousness; LO = Leisure Orientation; II = Internet Involvement; ESP = E-Shopping Preference; PEU = Perceived Ease of Use; PU = Perceived Usefulness; AT = Attitude Toward Fitness Apps.
Mean, standard deviation, convergent and discriminant validity.
| Factors | M | SD | AVE | FA | LO | II | ESP | PEU | PU | AT | IU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA | 3.02 | 0.97 | 0.59 | 1.0 | |||||||
| LO | 3.79 | 0.87 | 0.50 | 0.09 | 1.0 | ||||||
| II | 3.30 | 0.90 | 0.51 | 0.09 | 0.49 | 1.0 | |||||
| ESP | 3.33 | 0.86 | 0.50 | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.47 | 1.0 | ||||
| PEU | 3.75 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 1.0 | |||
| PU | 3.16 | 0.95 | 0.77 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.26 | 1.0 | ||
| AT | 3.36 | 0.95 | 0.71 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.21 | 0.68 | 1.0 | |
| IU | 3.29 | 1.02 | 0.86 | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.44 | 0.64 | 1.0 |
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; AVE = average variance extracted; FA = fashion consciousness; LO = leisure orientation; II = internet involvement; ESP = E-shopping preference; PEU = perceived ease of use; PU = perceived usefulness; AT = attitude toward fitness apps; IU = intention to use.
Standardized regression weights for the causal paths.
| Predictor Variables | Criterion Variables | Hypothesized Relationship | Standardized Coefficient (β) | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| e-Lifestyles | Perceived ease of use | H1 | 0.373 *** | Supported |
| e-Lifestyles | Perceived usefulness | H2 | 0.178 | Not supported |
| Perceived ease of use | Perceived usefulness | H3 | 0.452 *** | Supported |
| Perceived ease of use | Attitude toward mobile apps | H4 | 0.061 | Not supported |
| Perceived usefulness | Attitude toward mobile apps | H5 | 0.783 *** | Supported |
| Attitude toward mobile apps | Intention to use | H6 | 0.872 *** | Supported |
Note. *** p-value < 0.001.
Goodness-of-fit indexes of measurement invariance across genders.
| Models | χ2 (df) | Δχ2 (df) | p | CFI | ΔCFI | SRMR | ΔSRMR | RMSEA | ΔRMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement invariance across genders | |||||||||
| CI | 1612.95 (848) | 0.910 | 0.077 | 0.052 | |||||
| MI | 1653.38 (871) | 40.43 (23) | <0.001 | 0.908 | 0.002 | 0.072 | 0.005 | 0.052 | 0.000 |
| SI | 1662.50 (880) | 49.55 (32) | <0.001 | 0.908 | 0.002 | 0.071 | 0.006 | 0.052 | 0.000 |
| RI | 1676.35 (889) | 63.40 (41) | <0.001 | 0.907 | 0.003 | 0.068 | 0.009 | 0.052 | 0.000 |
Note. χ2 = chi-squared: df = degrees of freedom; Δχ2 = differences in the value of chi-squared; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CI = configural invariance; MI = measurement invariance; SI = structural invariance; RI = residual invariance.