Background
Background of the study
Research model
- Hypothesis 1 (H1): Perceived usefulness will influence the intention to use VR;
- Hypothesis 2 (H2): Perceived ease of use will influence the intention to use VR; and
- Hypothesis 3 (H3): Perceived ease of use will influence the perceived usefulness of VR.
- Hypothesis 4 (H4): Social norms influence the intention to use VR.
- Hypothesis 5 (H5): Perceived enjoyment influences the intention to use VR.
- Hypothesis 6 (H6): User experience has an effect on perceived usefulness; and
- Hypothesis 7 (H7): User experience has an effect on the perceived ease of use.
Methodology
Study setting and participants
Data collection
Data analysis
Results
Characteristics of participants
Age (years) | Male 6 (20%) | Female 24 (80%) | Total (%) n = 30 |
---|---|---|---|
60~65 | 1 | 7 | 8 (26.7%) |
65~70 | 3 | 4 | 7 (23.3%) |
70~75 | 1 | 7 | 8 (26.7%) |
75~80 | 1 | 3 | 4 (13.3%) |
80~85 | 0 | 2 | 2 (6.7%) |
85~90 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
> 90 | 0 | 1 | 1 (3.3%) |
Summary statistics of variables
Variable description | Mean | Std. deviation (SD) |
---|---|---|
Perceived usefulness (PU) | ||
PU1 | 3.87 | 0.571 |
PU2 | 3.80 | 0.610 |
PU3 | 4.07 | 0.583 |
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) | ||
PEOU1 | 3.87 | 0.571 |
PEOU2 | 3.27 | 0.556 |
PEOU3 | 3.67 | 0.583 |
Social norms (SNs) | ||
SN1 | 3.43 | 0.626 |
SN2 | 3.77 | 0.626 |
SN3 | 3.67 | 0.661 |
User experience (UE) | ||
UE1 | 4.07 | 0.583 |
UE2 | 3.77 | 0.626 |
UE3 | 3.83 | 0.592 |
Intention to use (IU) | ||
IU1 | 3.63 | 0.615 |
IU2 | 3.90 | 0.607 |
Validity testing of the questionnaire
Item in the questionnaire | rxy | p value |
---|---|---|
VR is useful to me for entertainment. (PU1) | 0.727 | 0.000 |
VR improves engagement and motivates daily activities. (PU2) | 0.706 | 0.000 |
VR is an efficient tool to raise my mood. (PU3) | 0.590 | 0.001 |
It is easy for me to become skillful at using VR. (PEOU1) | 0.752 | 0.000 |
Learning to operate VR was easy for me. (PEOU2) | 0.678 | 0.000 |
Overall I find it easy to use VR. (PEOU3) | 0.797 | 0.000 |
I find VR very attractive to use. (PE1) | 0.842 | 0.000 |
I enjoy using VR. (PE2) | 0.791 | 0.000 |
I have fun when I use VR. (PE3) | 0.813 | 0.000 |
My family members think I should use VR. (SN1) | 0.787 | 0.000 |
People who are friends and acquaintances have influence on my intention to use VR. (SN2) | 0.842 | 0.000 |
People who take care of me encourage me to use VR. (SN3) | 0.629 | 0.000 |
VR will give me new experiences. (UE1) | 0.526 | 0.003 |
VR was comfortable to use. (UE2) | 0.829 | 0.000 |
Overall, I had a positive experience when using VR. (UE3) | 0.829 | 0.000 |
In the future, I intend to use the device for mental relaxation. (IU1) | 0.813 | 0.000 |
In the future, VR will help keep my mind sharp and alert. (IU2) | 0.838 | 0.000 |
Cronbach’s α reliability analysis
Item | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|
Perceived usefulness | 0.922 |
Perceived ease of use | 0.925 |
Perceived enjoyment | 0.903 |
Social norms | 0.910 |
User experience | 0.913 |
Intention to use | 0.899 |
Hypothesis testing using a linear regression analysis
Hypothesis | Independent variable | Dependent variable | Un-standardized coefficients | F | t | p | R2 | Hypothesis supported? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | Standard Error | ||||||||
H1 | PU | IU | 0.625 | 0.125 | 25.205 | 5.020 | 0.000 | 0.474 | Yes |
H2 | PEOU | IU | 3.113 | 0.527 | 34.920 | 5.909 | 0.000 | 0.555 | Yes |
H3 | PEOU | PU | 2.523 | 0.727 | 12.058 | 3.472 | 0.002 | 0.301 | Yes |
H4 | SNs | IU | 0.717 | 0.131 | 29.845 | 5.463 | 0.000 | 0.516 | Yes |
H5 | PE | IU | 0.784 | 0.095 | 67.870 | 8.238 | 0.000 | 0.708 | Yes |
H6 | UE | PU | 2.065 | 0.439 | 22.137 | 4.705 | 0.000 | 0.442 | Yes |
H7 | UE | PEOU | 0.401 | 0.103 | 15.170 | 3.895 | 0.001 | 0.351 | Yes |
- H1: For H1, the regression analysis gave a p value of 0.000, which indicated that PU had a significant influence on IU. R2 for the regression equation was 0.474, indicating that the predictor factor PU explained 47.4% of IU. The un-standardized β coefficient indicated that for every unit of increase in PU, a 0.625 increase in the units of IU was predicted.
- H2: For H2, the regression analysis gave a p value of 0.000, which indicated that PEOU had a significant influence on IU. R2 for the regression equation was 0.555, indicating that the predictor factor PEOU explained 55.5% of IU. The un-standardized β coefficient indicated that for every unit of increase in PU, a 3.113 increase in the units of IU was predicted.
- H3: For H3, the regression analysis gave a p value of 0.002, which indicated that PEOU had a significant influence on PU. R2 for the regression equation was 0.301, indicating that the predictor factor PEOU explained 30.1% of PU. The un-standardized β coefficient indicated that for every unit of increase in PEOU, a 2.523 increase in the units of PU was predicted.
- H4: For H4, the regression analysis gave a p value of 0.000, which indicated that SNs had a significant influence on IU. R2 for the regression equation was 0.516, indicating that the predictor factor PEOU explained 51.61% of IU. The un-standardized β coefficient indicated that for every unit of increase in PEOU, a 0.717 increase in the units of IU was predicted.
- H5: For H5, the regression analysis gave a p value of 0.000, which indicated that PE had a significant influence on IU. R2 for the regression equation was 0.708, indicating that the predictor factor PE explained 70.8% of IU. The un-standardized β coefficient indicated that for every unit of increase in PE, a 0.784 increase in the units of IU was predicted.
- H6: For H5, the regression analysis gave a p value of 0.000, which indicated that UE had a significant influence on PU. R2 for the regression equation was 0.442, indicating that the predictor factor UE explained 44.2% of IU. The un-standardized β coefficient indicated that for every unit of increase in UE, a 2.065 increase in the units of PU was predicted.
- H7: For H7, the regression analysis gave a p value of 0.001, which indicated that UE had a significant influence on PEOU. R2 for the regression equation was 0.351, indicating that the predictor factor UE explained 35.1% of PEOU. The un-standardized β coefficient indicated that for every unit of increase in UE, a 0.401increase in the unit of PEOU was predicted.
Mediation analysis
No | Path A | Path B | Path C′ | Mediating factor | Mediation effect (full/partial) | Indirect effect (value) | p value | 95% CI lower | 95% CI upper |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | UE ➔ PEOU | PEOU ➔ PU | UE ➔ PU | PEOU | Partial | 0.1305 | 0.2054 | - 0.0066 | 0.3072 |
2 | PEOU ➔ PU | PU ➔ SNs | PEOU ➔ SNs | PU | Partial | 0.1051 | 0.1161 | - 0.0442 | 0.3480 |
3 | PU ➔ SNs | SNs ➔ IU | PU ➔ IU | SN | Full | 0.3124 | 0.0142 | 0.0713 | 0.8124 |
4 | PEOU ➔ SNs | SNs ➔ IU | PEOU ➔ IU | SN | Partial | 0.1962 | 0.0534 | - 0.0373 | 0.4613 |
5 | PU ➔ PE | PE ➔ IU | PU ➔ IU | PE | Full | 0.5064 | 0.0005 | 0.2799 | 0.8206 |
6 | PEOU ➔ PE | PE ➔ IU | PEOU ➔ IU | PE | Partial | 0.6427 | 0.0005 | 0.3372 | 1.3620 |
7 | PEOU ➔ PU | PU ➔ IU | PEOU ➔ IU | PU | Partial | 0.1575 | 0.0263 | 0.0558 | 0.3539 |