## 4 Empirical Research
### Structural Model Test  
First, the collinearity problem is tested. The VIFs of variables are less than 5, which indicates this study does not have collinearity problems. After ensuring the reliability, validity, and collinearity of the model, the structural model is analyzed to verify the relationship between hypotheses. The path coefficient of the structural model and the overall explanatory power are shown in Table 4. It can be seen that comparative advantage (\(\beta\) = 0.231, \(p\) < 0.001) and compatibility (\(\beta\) = 0.184, \(p\) < 0.001) have significant positive impacts on the intention of SMEs to adopt collaborative robots; thus, H1 and H2 are supported. Complexity (\(\beta\) = \(-\)0.326, \(p\) < 0.001) has a significant negative effect on the intention of SMEs to adopt collaborative robots; thus, H3 is supported. Observability (\(\beta\) = 0.192, \(p\) < 0.001) and trialability (\(\beta\) = 0.227, \(p\) < 0.001) have significant positive impacts on the intention of SMEs to adopt collaborative robots; thus, H4 and H5 are supported. Top management support (\(\beta\) = 0.150, \(p\) < 0.005) and organizational readiness (\(\beta\) = 0.149, \(p\) < 0.005) have significant positive impacts on the intention of SMEs to adopt collaborative robots; thus, H6 and H7 are supported. Vendor support (\(\beta\) = 0.181, \(p\) < 0.001) has a significant positive effect on the intention of SMEs to adopt collaborative robots; thus, H9 is supported. However, competitive pressure (\(\beta\) = 0.047, \(p\) > 0.05) and government support (\(\beta\) = \(-\)0.006, \(p\) > 0.05) \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Latent Variable** & **Item** & **Loading** & **Mean (SD)** & **Cronbach’s \(\alpha\)** & **CR** & **AVE** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{TR} & TR1 & 0.915 & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & TR2 & 0.861 & 2.986 (1.049) & 0.802 & 0.874 & 0.700 \\ \cline{2-6}  & TR3 & 0.722 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{TMS} & TMS1 & 0.876 & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & TMS2 & 0.921 & 3.065 (1.009) & 0.819 & 0.887 & 0.725 \\ \cline{2-6}  & TMS3 & 0.748 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{OR} & OR1 & 0.784 & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & OR2 & 0.927 & 2.995 (0.964) & 0.803 & 0.885 & 0.720 \\ \cline{2-6}  & OR3 & 0.829 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CP} & CP1 & 0.728 & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & CP2 & 0.854 & 3.057 (1.065) & 0.867 & 0.887 & 0.726 \\ \cline{2-6}  & CP3 & 0.958 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{VS} & VS1 & 0.833 & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & VS2 & 0.902 & 3.116 (1.025) & 0.821 & 0.894 & 0.737 \\ \cline{2-6}  & VS3 & 0.839 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{GS} & GS1 & 0.942 & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & GS2 & 0.871 & 2.993 (1.113) & 0.845 & 0.897 & 0.744 \\ \cline{2-6}  & GS3 & 0.766 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{AI} & AI1 & 0.886 & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & AI2 & 0.812 & 3.533 (0.752) & 0.770 & 0.867 & 0.685 \\ \cline{2-6}  & AI3 & 0.781 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: RA—Relative Advantage, CB—Compatibility, CX—Complexity, OB—Observability, TR—Triability, TMS—Top Management Support, OR—Organizational Readiness, CP—Competitive Pressure, VS—Vendor Support, GS—Government Support, AI—Adoption Intention.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._have no significant impacts on the intention of SMEs to adopt collaborative robots; thus, H8 and H10 are not supported. This study also measured the impact of control variables (gender, age, education, Job position) on the intention of SMEs to adopt collaborative robots. The results show that there was no significant impact.