| Literature DB >> 35214513 |
Yao Song1,2, Yanpu Yang3, Peiyao Cheng4.
Abstract
Driven by advanced voice interaction technology, the voice-user interface (VUI) has gained popularity in recent years. VUI has been integrated into various devices in the context of the smart home system. In comparison with traditional interaction methods, VUI provides multiple benefits. VUI allows for hands-free and eyes-free interaction. It also enables users to perform multiple tasks while interacting. Moreover, as VUI is highly similar to a natural conversation in daily lives, it is intuitive to learn. The advantages provided by VUI are particularly beneficial to older adults, who suffer from decreases in physical and cognitive abilities, which hinder their interaction with electronic devices through traditional methods. However, the factors that influence older adults' adoption of VUI remain unknown. This study addresses this research gap by proposing a conceptual model. On the basis of the technology adoption model (TAM) and the senior technology adoption model (STAM), this study considers the characteristic of VUI and the characteristic of older adults through incorporating the construct of trust and aging-related characteristics (i.e., perceived physical conditions, mobile self-efficacy, technology anxiety, self-actualization). A survey was designed and conducted. A total of 420 Chinese older adults participated in this survey, and they were current or potential users of VUI. Through structural equation modeling, data were analyzed. Results showed a good fit with the proposed conceptual model. Path analysis revealed that three factors determine Chinese older adults' adoption of VUI: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and trust. Aging-related characteristics also influence older adults' adoption of VUI, but they are mediated by perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and trust. Specifically, mobile self-efficacy is demonstrated to positively influence trust and perceived ease of use but negatively influence perceived usefulness. Self-actualization exhibits positive influences on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Technology anxiety only exerts influence on perceived ease of use in a marginal way. No significant influences of perceived physical conditions were found. This study extends the TAM and STAM by incorporating additional variables to explain Chinese older adults' adoption of VUI. These results also provide valuable implications for developing suitable VUI for older adults as well as planning actionable communication strategies for promoting VUI among Chinese older adults.Entities:
Keywords: older adults; senior technology adoption model (STAM); technology adoption model (TAM); trust voice-user interface (VUI)
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35214513 PMCID: PMC8879749 DOI: 10.3390/s22041614
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The conceptual framework of this study.
Constructs and measurements.
| Construct | Measurement Item | References |
|---|---|---|
| Behavior Intention (BI) | BI1: I predict I would use voice interaction in my smartphone to conduct tasks. | [ |
| BI2: In the future, I will often use voice interaction to manage my smartphone. | ||
| Perceived Usefulness (PU) | PU1: I think that using a voice interface increases productivity. | [ |
| PU2: I think that a voice interface is useful. | ||
| PU3: Using a voice interface would make my life convenient. | ||
| Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) | PEOU1: It would be easy for me to become skillful at using a voice interface. | [ |
| PEOU2: It would be easy for me to use voice interaction in the way I like to. | ||
| PEOU3: Leaning to use voice interaction is entirely within my capability. | ||
| Trust (TRU) | TRU1: I trust that my personal information will not be used for any other purpose. | [ |
| TRU2: I believe that my personal information is protected. | ||
| TRU3: I am assured that my information is secure. | ||
| Perceived Physical Conditions (PPC) | PPC1: How is your hearing? | [ |
| PPC2: How is your vision? | ||
| PPC3: How is your mobility ability? | ||
| Mobile Self-Efficacy (SE) | SE1: I am fluent in the use of a mobile device. | [ |
| SE2: I can figure out almost any mobile application with a minimum of effort. | ||
| SE3: I feel I am able to use the mobile internet to browse the world wide web. | ||
| Technology Anxiety (TA) | TA1: Using voice interaction would make me very nervous. | [ |
| TA2: Using voice interaction would make me worried. | ||
| TA3: Using voice interaction would make me feel uncomfortable. | ||
| TA4: Using voice interaction would make me feel uneasily unconfused. | ||
| Self-actualization needs (SA) | SA1: Learning to use voice interaction increases my feeling of self-fulfillment. | [ |
| SA2: Learning to use voice interaction gives me a feeling of accomplishment. |
Descriptive analysis of participants.
| Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 55–59 | 216 | 51.4% |
| 60–64 | 160 | 38.1% | |
| 65–69 | 30 | 7% | |
| Above 70 | 14 | 3.5% | |
| Gender | Male | 210 | 50% |
| Female | 210 | 50% | |
| Education | Elementary | 7 | 1.7% |
| Junior High School | 51 | 12.1% | |
| High School | 134 | 31.9% | |
| College/university | 216 | 51.4% | |
| Postgraduate | 12 | 2.9% | |
| Income | Below 50 k RMB | 63 | 15% |
| 50 k–10 k RMB | 117 | 27.9% | |
| 10 k–15 k RMB | 88 | 21% | |
| 15 k–20 k RMB | 88 | 21% | |
| 20 k–30 k RMB | 52 | 12.4% | |
| Above 30 k RMB | 12 | 2.9% |
Figure 2Frequency table of participants’ experience with VUI.
Reliability and unidimensionality.
| Construct | Variables | Cronbach’s | Standardized Loading | C.R/t-Value. | AVE | Composite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BI | BI1 | 0.786 | 0.813 | - | 0.649 | 0.787 |
| BI2 | 0.798 | 17.376 | ||||
| PU | PU1 | 0.755 | 0.742 | - | 0.509 | 0.756 |
| PU2 | 0.705 | 13.035 | ||||
| PU3 | 0.692 | 12.814 | ||||
| PEOU | PEOU1 | 0.747 | 0.733 | - | 0.547 | 0.783 |
| PEOU2 | 0.747 | 12.648 | ||||
| PEOU3 | 0.739 | 12.549 | ||||
| TRU | TRU1 | 0.875 | 0.875 | - | 0.708 | 0.879 |
| TRU2 | 0.768 | 18.5 | ||||
| TRU3 | 0.877 | 22.132 | ||||
| PPC | PPC1 | 0.641 | 0.753 | - | 0.444 | 0.700 |
| PPC2 | 0.703 | 6.286 | ||||
| PPC3 | 0.521 | 5.637 | ||||
| SE | SE1 | 0.833 | 0.752 | - | 0.633 | 0.838 |
| SE2 | 0.828 | 16.006 | ||||
| SE3 | 0.806 | 15.687 | ||||
| TA | TA1 | 0.950 | 0.926 | - | 0.826 | 0.950 |
| TA2 | 0.921 | 32.861 | ||||
| TA3 | 0.883 | 29.25 | ||||
| TA4 | 0.905 | 31.302 | ||||
| SA | SA1 | 0.763 | 0.733 | - | 0.623 | 0.767 |
| SA2 | 0.842 | 14.013 |
Constructs correlation matrix.
| PPC | SE | TA | SA | TRU | PU | PEOU | BI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.499 |
| ||||||
|
| −0.009 | 0.153 |
| |||||
|
| 0.360 | 0.411 | −0.086 |
| ||||
|
| 0.378 | 0.563 | 0.105 | 0.610 |
| |||
|
| 0.340 | 0.347 | −0.177 | 0.734 | 0.439 |
| ||
|
| 0.441 | 0.697 | −0.057 | 0.658 | 0.672 | 0.683 |
| |
|
| 0.405 | 0.523 | −0.115 | 0.764 | 0.610 | 0.853 | 0.840 |
|
The HTMT Analysis of discriminate validity.
| PPC | SE | TA | SA | TRU | PU | PEOU | BI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
|
| 0.556 |
| ||||||
|
| 0.015 | 0.153 |
| |||||
|
| 0.405 | 0.403 | 0.081 |
| ||||
|
| 0.415 | 0.575 | 0.096 | 0.644 |
| |||
|
| 0.397 | 0.340 | 0.177 | 0.720 | 0.437 |
| ||
|
| 0.520 | 0.726 | 0.058 | 0.693 | 0.729 | 0.712 |
| |
|
| 0.444 | 0.525 | 0.115 | 0.757 | 0.622 | 0.852 | 0.881 |
|
Goodness-of-fit test.
| Category | Measure | Acceptable Values | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute fit indices | Chi-square/d.f. | 1–5 | 2.248 |
| GFI | 0.90 or above | 0.913 | |
| SRMR | 0.08 or below [ | 0.065 | |
| RMSEA | 0.08 or below [ | 0.055 | |
| NFI | 0.90 or above | 0.920 | |
| Incremental fit indices | IFI | 0.90 or above | 0.954 |
| TLI | 0.90 or above | 0.942 | |
| CFI | 0.90 or above | 0.953 |
Note: GFI = goodness-of-fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NFI = normed fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index.
Figure 3Results of SEM. Note: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
Results of hypotheses testing.
| Path Direction | Path Coefficients | Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1-1 | PU → BI | 0.655 | *** | Supported |
| H1-2 | PEOU → BI | 0.458 | *** | Supported |
| H1-3 | PEOU → PU | 0.595 | *** | Supported |
| H2 | TRU → BI | 0.068 | 0.028 ** | Supported |
| H3-1 | PPC → PEOU | 0.015 | 0.209 | Not supported |
| H3-2 | PPC → PU | 0.078 | 0.277 | Not supported |
| H4-1 | SE → PEOU | 0.407 | *** | Supported |
| H4-2 | SE → PU | −0.216 | 0.005 ** | Supported |
| H4-3 | SE → TRU | 0.735 | *** | Supported |
| H5-1 | TA → PEOU | −0.019 | 0.090 * | Partially supported |
| H5-2 | TA → PU | −0.015 | 0.188 | Not supported |
| H6-1 | SA → PEOU | 0.367 | *** | Supported |
| H6-2 | SA → PU | 0.332 | *** | Supported |
Note: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.