System Design Features and Repeated Use of Electronic Data Exchanges



Download 269.61 Kb.
Page5/5
Date09.08.2017
Size269.61 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5

TABLE 6

Measured Model Results

Panel A: T1 Measured Model Results



Including PIQ Effects on Intent

Excluding PIQ Effects on Intent

PiQ




Intent

PiQ




Intent

-Control Transparency

- Outcome Feedback

- Perceived Info Quality

-Structural Assurance


.45;7.16**


.11;1.43ns



.04;0.66ns


.25;4.47**
.40;4.89**
.37;4.34**

.49;10.07**


.10;1.13n.s.



.16;2.68**


.29;5.15**
------
.59;11.39**

R2

21.4%




58.4%

25%




50.5%


Panel B: T2 Measured Model Results



Including PIQ Effects on Intent

Excluding PIQ Effects on Intent

PiQ T2




Intent T2

PiQ T2




Intent T2

-Control Transparency

- Outcome Feedback

- Perceived Info Quality

-Structural Assurance


.50;8.02**


.21;2.97**





.04;0.74ns


.30;4.99**
.48;6.46**
.31;5.12**

.51;8.98**


.21;3.02**



.21;3.77**


.39;7.10**
------
.57;9.91**

R2

30.0%




70.7%

31.1%




60.8%

Numbers in cells represent path coefficients and corresponding t-values after the semi-colon.

One-tailed Significance Levels: *: p<.05 (2.326>t>1.645); **: p<.01 (t>=2.326)


TABLE 7

Differences In Path Coefficients Between T1 And T2 Measured Model Results




Perceived information quality ξ

Intent to Use

- Control Transparency

- Outcome Feedback

- PIQ

- Structural Assurance



-7.20 **

-12.48 **




-0.31 n.s.

-7.78 **


-8.78 **

7.03 **


ξ : Numbers in cells represent t-values on differences of respective path coefficients as measured in the T1 and T2 research models (as shown on left half of Table 6).
Note: Negative t-values denote increases from T1 to T2; positive t-values denote decreases.

One-tailed Significance Levels: *: p<.05 (2.326>t>1.645); **: p<.01 (t>=2.326)


TABLE 8

Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results



Research Hypothesis:

Test (table reporting results):


H1a

(PIQ will not be affected by positive outcome feedback at T1; but it will be affected at T2)


H1b

(High PIQ at both time periods under high control transparency)


H2

(At T2, negative outcome feedback will eliminate effects of control transparency on Intent to Use)


H3

(mediation hypothesis: PIQ will mediate effects of control transparency on Intent to Use at both T1 and T2)

MANOVA (Table 4)


Supported


Supported


n/a

n/a

Planned Contrasts (Table 5)


Supported


Supported


Supported


n/a

Structural Model – PLS (Table 6)

n/a

n/a

n/a

Supported

Structural Model – differences in PLS path coefficients (Table 7)


n/a

Supported

n/a

n/a

Sobel mediation tests (untabulated)


n/a

n/a

n/a

Supported




TABLE 9

Areas for Future Research

Topic

Author(s)

Issues/Models

Cross-Theory Tests

Petty and Cacioppo [69]
Karney and Bradbury [42]

Elaboration Likelihood Model and similar multi-process models.

Vulnerability-stress-adaptation model.




Cross-IS Research Domain Tests

Rustagi et al. [75]

Robey et al. [73]



Outsourcing.

Information systems development.



Cross-Methods Tests

Cole and Maxwell [14]
Karney and Bradbury [42]

Expand measurement to more time periods.

Use methods other than self-reports.













System Design Interventions:

- Control Transparency (T1, T2) - Outcome Feedback (T1, T2)

autoshape 10autoshape 12autoshape 15autoshape 19autoshape 23autoshape 25autoshape 26autoshape 28


Perceived Information Quality T2

Perceived Information Quality T1
oval 13


oval 7
autoshape 31


line 6autoshape 30


Intention to Use T1
oval 9


oval 16
Intention to Use T2


autoshape 37autoshape 39

oval 20oval 33
Structural Assurance T1

Structural Assurance T2

Figure 1. Research Model

rectangle 40rectangle 42
Data Validation:

-under high control transparency only


oval 46
Validity
oval 48 group 50 rectangle 53 rectangle 55
Parse XML file
group 65 rectangle 68 group 69 group 76 group 79 group 82 group 85 group 114 group 143 group 171 group 237 group 292

Data Input



Generate XML
group 72

oval 44
Completion

Content

rectangle 63
Feedback

to Customer:

-General

-Positive

-Negative


rectangle 57

Database


Processing


group 60

Figure 2. Workflow of Simulated Data Exchange System



Figure 3. Screenshot of Validation Screen -- High Control Transparency Condition




Figure 4. Screenshot of Outcome Feedback -- Negative Feedback Condition

Personality variables measurement



autoshape 343


T1

Training

autoshape 344


autoshape 341

T1


Experimental Treatments (T1, T2)

Measurement Instrument

(T1, T2)


2 weeks interval


autoshape 339


autoshape 337


T2


T2

Training




Figure 5. Progression of Experimental Steps

1 Subject attrition was mainly due to work responsibilities of participants that caused their absence from their location of contact within the two-week interval in which our study was conducted.

2 We also tested our models by splitting the sample between students (N=55) and non-students (N=90) with no changes in our hypothesis test conclusions.

3 The test statistic is estimated as T= (b1-b2) / [ Sp √ (1/N1 + 1/N2) ] (1a)

where, T has the t-distribution with (N1+N2-2) degrees of freedom;

b1 and b2 are the T1 (phase 1) and T2 (phase 2) path coefficients being compared;

N1 and N2 are the sizes of the T1 and T2 samples;

Sp is the estimator of the pooled sample variance, which is constructed using the standard deviations of the T1 and T2 samples and equals the square root of:

S2p = [(N1-1) S2T1 + (N2-1) S2T2 ] / [N1+N2-2] (1b)







Download 269.61 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2020
send message

    Main page