Table 5 Results of structural model assessment.

From: Convenient or risky? Investigating the behavioral intention to use facial recognition payment in smart hospitals

Hypothesis

Relationship

Coefficient

Std. dev.

t-value

f2

Confidence interval

VIF

p-value

Supported

H1

PE → BI

0.134

0.026

5.095

0.035

0.083, 0.187

1.090

0.000***

Yes

H2

EE → BI

0.156

0.039

4.017

0.026

0.080, 0.231

1.982

0.000***

Yes

H3

SI → BI

0.198

0.037

5.407

0.043

0.126, 0.270

1.955

0.000***

Yes

H4

FC → BI

0.198

0.038

5.241

0.043

0.125, 0.272

1.924

0.000***

Yes

H5

PC → TIF

−0.279

0.036

7.828

0.078

−0.351, −0.210

1.362

0.000***

Yes

H6

PR → TIF

−0.121

0.035

3.461

0.014

−0.189, −0.052

1.437

0.001**

Yes

H7

FA → TIF

0.273

0.036

7.603

0.087

0.203, 0.345

1.168

0.000***

Yes

H8

TIF → BI

0.168

0.034

4.913

0.035

0.099, 0.233

1.727

0.000***

Yes

H9

PI → BI

0.100

0.035

2.814

0.013

0.030, 0.170

1.661

0.005**

Yes

H10

PI*TIF → BI

0.076

0.029

2.654

0.011

0.021, 0.133

1.085

0.008**

Yes

Model fit

   

Q2

R2

    

SRMR

0.048

 

TIF

0.174

0.268

    
   

BI

0.288

0.530

    
  1. PE performance expectancy, EE effort expectancy, SI social influence, FC facilitating conditions, PC privacy concerns, PR perceived risks, FA familiarity, TIF trust in FRP, PI personal innovativeness, BI behavioral intention to use FRP, Std. dev. standard deviation, VIF variance information factor.
  2. **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001.
Back to article page