## 5 Results
### Hypotheses Testing  
We tested our hypotheses using the PLS-SEM method. A bootstrap resampling procedure was performed to test the significance of the paths. The results, including the path coefficients and the overall explanatory power, are shown in Table 6.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & **VI** & **IN** & **PV** & **PS** & **PU** & **PEOU** & **TS** & **TT** \\ \hline VI & & & & & & & \\ IN & 0.744 & & & & & & \\ PV & 0.097 & 0.131 & & & & & \\ PS & 0.180 & 0.179 & 0.556 & & & & \\ PU & 0.521 & 0.443 & 0.069 & 0.260 & & & \\ PEOU & 0.487 & 0.487 & 0.094 & 0.185 & 0.775 & & \\ TS & 0.701 & 0.677 & 0.155 & 0.171 & 0.642 & 0.585 & \\ TT & 0.638 & 0.533 & 0.069 & 0.165 & 0.588 & 0.588 & 0.757 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Discriminant Validity (HTMT).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Factor Loadings** & **AVE** & **CR** & **Cronbach’s \(\alpha\)** \\ \hline Vividness & 0.784, 0.871, 0.888, 0.902 & 0.744 & 0.921 & 0.885 \\ Interactivity & 0.881, 0.902, 0.832, 0.790 & 0.726 & 0.914 & 0.875 \\ Perceived Vulnerability & 0.903, 0.942, 0.951, 0.954 & 0.879 & 0.967 & 0.954 \\ Perceived Severity & 0.967, 0.962, 0.962, 0.948 & 0.921 & 0.979 & 0.971 \\ Perceived Usefulness & 0.934, 0.942, 0.907 & 0.861 & 0.949 & 0.919 \\ Perceived Ease of Use & 0.936, 0.947, 0.940 & 0.886 & 0.959 & 0.936 \\ Training Satisfaction & 0.867, 0.878, 0.888, 0.875 & 0.769 & 0.930 & 0.900 \\ Training Transfer & 0.921, 0.925, 0.914, 0.882 & 0.829 & 0.951 & 0.931 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Convergent Validity.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & **PU** & **PEOU** & **TS** & **TT** \\ \hline VI & 1.903 & 1.772 & & & \\ IN & 1.867 & 1.772 & & & \\ PV & 1.408 & & & & \\ PS & 1.449 & & & & \\ PEOU & 1.362 & 2.074 & & \\ PU & & 2.074 & & 1.000 \\ TS & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Collinearity Test (VIF).  
The results of the hypotheses test showed that the effects of interactivity and perceived vulnerability on perceived usefulness were statistically insignificant at \(p<0.05\). Thus, H5(a) and H6 were rejected. However, all the other hypotheses were statistically significant and thus supported. Vividness (\(\beta=0.160\)), perceived severity (\(\beta=0.155\)), and perceived ease of use (\(\beta=0.621\)) had a significant effect on perceived usefulness, whereas vividness (\(\beta=0.303\)) and interactivity (\(\beta=0.255\)) significantly affected the perceived ease of use. Moreover, both perceived usefulness (\(\beta=0.403\)) and perceived ease of use (\(\beta=0.254\)) significantly affected training satisfaction, which led to training transfer (\(\beta=0.698\)).  
Additionally, while H1, H2, H4(a), H4(b), H5(b), and H7 showed weak effect size (f2 \(\geq\) 0.02), H3 and H8 showed strong effect size (f2 \(\geq\) 0.35) [56]. The specific f2 value of each hypothesis along with its significance is presented in Table 6.  
Finally, the explanatory power (R^2) of perceived usefulness (R^2 = 0.559), perceived ease of use (R^2 = 0.258), training satisfaction (R^2 = 0.374), and training transfer (R^2 = 0.487) all exceeded the required threshold of 0.10, proposed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [57].