## 5 Experiment 2: Deployment of Biofeedback System during Online Academic Examinations
### Results  
The present experiment tries to discover and put forward a preliminary model of the relationships between the students' personality traits, their current anxiety level as detected by the presented system, and their performance. The path analysis was conducted using SPSS AMOS version 20. The data used for this evaluation was collected from 35 participants during the examination phase. We therefore collected the classified anxiety levels provided by the biofeedback device, the students' TRI questionnaire responses, and their academic performance. The anxiety levels were collected within the same time window with the examination taken. Figure 6: Procedure protocol of Experiment 2. We initially examined the factor structure of the Greek version of the four subscales that measure each of the TRI dimensions. More specifically, we conducted Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) in EQS 6.1 [60], in order to compare the a priori factor structures, as implied by previous theoretical and empirical research, as follows:  
* Optimism Scale: The Optimism scale captures positive feelings about technology and consists of 10 items. In the present study, we excluded the item referring to \"You like the idea of doing business via computers because you are not limited to regular business hours.\" from the outset, since the sample used for our research was not familiar with a regular business context [7; 61]. The one-factor structure of the scale, based on the nine remaining items, was not verified by the initially applied CFA. The initial one-factor model results with the Satorra-Bentler scaled \(\chi^{2}\) (27, N = 35) = 103.95, \(p\) = 0.00, CFI = 0.11, and RMSEA = 0.26 (CI90% 0.20 to 0.31). Consequently, a second CFA was performed, using a revised item set of the scale. In the revised item set, according to the suggested modifications, as indicated by the Lagrange Multiplier and Wald tests, and the Largest Standardized Residuals as well, the one item (item 10 of the original scale) that failed to come up with a one-factor solution corresponding to the Optimism Scale was dropped. The model using the revised item set yielded a noticeably better fit to the data than the first model [Satorra-Bentler scaled \(\chi^{2}\) (16, N = 35) = 16.78, \(p\) = 0.40, CFI = 0.99, and RMSEA = 0.03 (CI90% 0.00 to 0.14)]. Thus, with respect to that one factor--consisting of 8 items--, we came to the conclusion that its variance is probably explained by the users' optimism related to the studied biofeedback system. * Innovativeness Scale: This scale measures the extent to which the individuals perceive themselves as being at the forefront of technology adoption. The one-factor structure of the scale, based on seven items, was not confirmed by the initially applied CFA. The initial one-factor model results with the Satorra-Bentler scaled \(\chi^{2}\) (14, N = 35) = 78.02, \(p\) = 0.00, CFI = 0.33, and RMSEA = 0.33 (CI90% 0.25 to 0.39). Consequently, a second CFA was performed, using a revised item set of the questionnaire. In the revised item set, according to the suggested modifications, as indicated by the Lagrange Multiplier and Wald tests, and the Largest Standardized Residuals as well, two items (item 4 and 6 of the original scale) that failed to come up with a one-factor solution corresponding to the Innovativeness Scale were dropped. The model using the revised item set yielded a better fit to the data than the first model [Satorra-Bentler scaled \(\chi^{2}\) (4, N = 35) = 1.63, \(p\) = 0.80, CFI = 1.00, and RMSEA = 0.00 (CI90% 0.00 to 0.14)]. Thus, we derived one factor--consisting of five items--, which could be explained by the users' innovative attitude according to the system under study. * Insecurity Scale: It taps into concerns people may have when faced with technology-based transactions. The one-factor structure of the scale, based on nine items, was not confirmed by the initially applied CFA.