## 4 Result
### Measurement Model  
The first one is related to reliability. [PERSON]'s alpha coefficient can vary from 0 to 1, with the higher values meaning better internal consistency of the questionnaire or test used. As revealed in Table 2 below, [PERSON]'s alpha lies between 0.827 and 0.927, which reflects good internal consistency among the constructed items. Secondly, as shown in Table 3, the results of [PERSON]'s single-factor test performed on the data showed that the unrotated first factor accounted for 32.378% of the variance, which is less than 50%. The total variance explained was 73.743%, which can be explained by the fact that there is no severe issue of heteroscedasticity in this study. Thirdly, the data presented in Table 4 represent a series of model fit indices from a validated factor analysis (CFA). The data show that the CMIN/DF ratio is 1.167, which is lower than the standard 2, indicating that the model is well fitted. The SRMR value of 0.026 represents the average size of the model residuals, which is lower than 0.08, indicating a good model fit. The CFI, which measures how well the data fit the model in relation to a perfect fit, is 0.935, close to 1, indicating a good fit. The IFI, TLI, and CFI values, all incremental fit indicators, are each 0.992, very close to 1, signifying an excellent model fit. The RMSEA value, which assesses the magnitude of the model error, is 0.017. A value under 0.05 is considered a good fit. These results indicate that the model fits the data excellently. Fourthly, in the validity test, the composite reliability (CR) values exceed the established cutoff of 0.7 for the constructs, reaching 0.933 for IN and 0.828 for SP. This indicates \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Measurement** & **CMIN** & **DF** & **CMIN/DF** & **SRMR** & **GFI** & **IFI** & **TLI** & **CFI** & **RMSEA** \\ \hline Measured value & 821.272 & 704 & 1.167 & 0.026 & 0.935 & 0.992 & 0.992 & 0.017 \\ Reference standard & - & - & \textless{}3 & \textless{}0.08 & \textgreater{}0.9 & \textgreater{}0.9 & \textgreater{}0.9 & \textgreater{}0.9 & \textless{}0.08 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Measurement** & **CMIN** & **DF** & **CMIN/DF** & **SRMR** & **GFI** & **IFI** & **TLI** & **CFI** & **RMSEA** \\ \hline Measured value & 821.272 & 704 & 1.167 & 0.026 & 0.935 & 0.992 & 0.992 & 0.992 & 0.017 \\ Reference standard & - & - & \textless{}3 & \textless{}0.08 & \textgreater{}0.9 & \textgreater{}0.9 & \textgreater{}0.9 & \textgreater{}0.9 & \textgreater{}0.9 & \textless{}0.08 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Cronbach’s Alpha** & **N of Items** \\ \hline Relative Advantages & 0.899 & 4 \\ Compatibility & 0.827 & 4 \\ Trialability & 0.897 & 4 \\ Gamification & 0.895 & 4 \\ Observability & 0.858 & 4 \\ Perceived Ease of Use & 0.899 & 5 \\ Perceived Usefulness & 0.927 & 5 \\ Behavioral Intention of Use & 0.884 & 5 \\ Behavior of Use & 0.915 & 5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Reliability analysis. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Cronbach’s Alpha** & **N of Items** \\ \hline Relative Advantages & 0.899 & 4 \\ Compatibility & 0.827 & 4 \\ Trialability & 0.897 & 4 \\ Gamification & 0.895 & 4 \\ Observability & 0.858 & 4 \\ Perceived Ease of Use & 0.899 & 5 \\ Perceived Usefulness & 0.927 & 5 \\ Behavioral Intention of Use & 0.884 & 5 \\ Behavior of Use & 0.915 & 5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Common method bias analysis. that the construct is reliably measured and exhibits excellent internal consistency. A higher average variance extracted (AVE) value indicates that the construct's indicator explains the construct better, thus reflecting higher convergent validity. Table 5 displays the AVE values (ranging from 0.547 to 0.738), and a value above 0.5 was considered acceptable, as it means that the latent factor explains a large part of the variance of its indicator.