## 5 Data Analysis and Results
### Descriptive Analysis  
The mean and standard deviation were estimated to describe the responses and thus the attitude of the respondents toward each question asked in the survey. While the mean represents the data's central tendency, the standard deviation measures their dispersion and provides an index of the data's spread or variability [72; 73]. In other words, a small standard deviation for a set of values indicates that these values are clustered closely around or close to the mean; a large standard deviation indicates the opposite. The level of each item was determined by the following (1)  
\[\text{Level}=\frac{\text{highestpointList}\text{Lextscale}-\text{lowestpoint }\text{Likertscale}}{\text{thenumberofthelevelsused}}=\frac{5-1}{5}=0.80 \tag{1}\] \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Category** & **Category** & **Frequency** & **Percentage \%** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Gender} & Male & 293 & 41.6 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Female & 411 & 58.4 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Total & 704 & 100 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Age (Year)} & 18 to less than 34 & 496 & 70.5 \\ \cline{2-4}  & 34 to less than 44 & 175 & 24.9 \\ \cline{2-4}  & 44 to less than 54 & 20 & 2.8 \\ \cline{2-4}  & 54 to less than 64 & 10 & 1.4 \\ \cline{2-4}  & 64 and over & 3 & 0.4 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Total & 704 & 100 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Education level} & Bachelor & 350 & 49.7 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Master & 339 & 48.2 \\ \cline{2-4}  & PhD & 15 & 2.1 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Total & 704 & 100 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Previous experience} & Low & 186 & 26.4 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Good & 237 & 33.7 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-4}  & Excellent & 281 & 39.9 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-4}  & Total & 704 & 100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Description of the respondents’ demographic profiles. Hence, producing the following lookup Table 2 of values. As presented in Table 3, the data analysis results show that all research variables were ranked from \"moderate\" to \"very high\". The independent variables contextual information quality (CIQ) and accessibility information quality (AIQ) and the mediating variable information usefulness (IU) all ranked as \"very high\", while five other variables ranked as \"high\", namely: the independent variables source credibility (SC) and intrinsic information quality (IIQ), the mediating variables information quality (IQ) and information adoption (IA), and the dependent variable academic achievement (AA). On the other hand, the independent variable information language (IL) ranked as \"moderate\". As such, this reflects the respondents' feelings regarding the importance of some variables. Accessibility information quality (AIQ) ranked the highest with a mean (4.3102) that reflects that AIQ is more important than the other factors. AIQ was followed by CIQ and AIU. Table 4 exhibits the mean, standard deviation, level, and scores the order for each item belonging to a construct. The highest item in the construct source credibility (SC) is SC3, which directly asks the credibility question. The highest item in the construct information language (IL) was LI3, which asks the respondents about their reading language. The highest item in the construct intrinsic information quality (IIQ) was IIQ5, which asks the responders about the impartially of the YouTube channels utilized by the responder. The highest item in the construct contextual information quality (CIQ) was CIQ5, which asks the responders about the clarity and easiness to understand the topic. The highest item in the construct accessibility information quality (AIQ) was AIQ1, which asks the responders about the availability 24/7 of the channel. The highest item in the construct information usefulness (IU) was IU1, which asks the responders about the evaluability of information provided by YouTube channels. The highest item in the construct information quality (IQ) was IQ1, which asks the responders about the high-quality information.