# A Predictive Model on the Intention to Accept Taekwondo Electronic Protection Devices
## 4 Results
### Structural Equation Modeling  
Maximum likelihood (ML) was used as an SEM parameter estimation method; as Table 4 shows, the goodness-of-fit indices indicate that the structural model is an acceptable fit to the data (\(\chi^{2}\) = 445.814, DF = 235, CFI = 0.936, IFI = 0.937, TLI = 0.925, RMSEA = 0.064).  
A closer look at the results of the structural model analysis confirms the following (Figure 2). First, perceived quality positively (+) affects PEU (\(\beta\) = 0.380, \(t\) = 3.481) and PU (\(\beta\) = 0.544, \(t\) = 5.089). Second, visual attractiveness does not significantly affect either PEU (\(\beta\) = 0.159, \(t\) = 1.798) or PU (\(\beta\) = -0.100, \(t\) = -0.131). Third, wearability had a positive (+) effect on PEU (\(\beta\) = 0.234, \(t\) = 2.867), but a negative (-) effect on PU (\(\beta\) = -0.218 and \(t\) = -2.932). Fourth, functionality did not significantly affect either PEU (\(\beta\) = 0.116, \(t\) = 1.031) or PU (\(\beta\) = 0.107, \(t\) = 1.093). Fifth, PEU had a positive (+) effect on PU (\(\beta\) = 0.418, \(t\) = 4.361) and acceptance intention (\(\beta\) = 0.361, \(t\) = 4.031). Sixth, PU had a positive (+) effect on acceptance intention (\(\beta\) = 0.525, \(t\) = 5.758).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Items** & **Path** & \(\beta\) & **SE** & **C.R** & \(p\) \\ \hline
1–1 & Perceived quality - Perceived ease of use & 0.380 & 0.078 & 3.481 & 0.000 \\ \hline
1–2 & Perceived quality - Perceived usefulness & 0.544 & 0.088 & 5.089 & 0.000 \\ \hline
2–1 & Visual attractiveness - Perceived ease of use & 0.159 & 0.076 & 1.798 & 0.072 \\ \hline
2-2 & Visual attractiveness - Perceived usefulness & \(-\)0.010 & 0.076 & \(-\)0.131 & 0.896 \\ \hline
3–1 & Wearability - Perceived ease of use & 0.234 & 0.061 & 2.867 & 0.004 \\ \hline
3-2 & Wearability - Perceived usefulness & \(-\)0.218 & 0.064 & \(-\)2.932 & 0.003 \\ \hline
4–1 & Functionality - Perceived ease of use & 0.116 & 0.117 & 1.031 & 0.302 \\ \hline
4–2 & Functionality - Perceived usefulness & 0.107 & 0.117 & 1.093 & 0.274 \\ \hline
5–1 & Perceived ease of use - Perceived usefulness & 0.418 & 0.109 & 4.361 & 0.000 \\ \hline
5–2 & Perceived ease of use - Acceptance intention & 0.361 & 0.116 & 4.031 & 0.000 \\ \hline
6 & Perceived usefulness - Acceptance intention & 0.525 & 0.104 & 5.758 & 0.000 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(X^{2}\) = 445.814, DF = 235, Q = 1.897, CFI = 0.936, IFI = 0.937, TLI = 0.925, RMSEA = 0.064} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \(\beta\) = standard coefficient, SE = standard error; C.R = critical ratio, \(x^{2}\) = chi square, DF = degrees of freedom, Q = \(x^{2}\)/DE, CFI = comparative fit index, IFI = incremental fit index, TLI = Tucker–Lewis index, RESEA = root mean square error of approximation.  
\end{table}
Table 4: Result for structural equation modeling.  
Figure 2: Acceptance intention prediction model for Taekwondo electronic protection devices. Note: *** \(p\) < 0.001, ** \(p\) < 0.01, PQ = perceived quality, VA = visual attractiveness, W = wearability, F = functionality, PEU = perceived ease of use, PU = perceived usefulness, AI = acceptance intention.