# User Acceptance of Smart Watch for Medical Purposes: An Empirical Study
## 5 Findings and Discussion
### Convergent Validity  
In [69], to assess the measurement model, it was proposed to determine construct reliability (consisting of Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability), as well as validity (consisting of convergent and discriminant validity). In the context of the measurement of construct reliability, Table 5 shows that the values of Cronbach's alpha lie between 0.741 and 0.899, which is quite high from the suggested threshold value of 0.7 [74]. The following table also depicts that the value of composite reliability (CR) lies within 0.705 and 0.903, which is more than the suggested value of 0.7 [75]. Construct reliability is verified through these results, indicating the free-of-error constructs.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Constructs** & **Items** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Factor** \\ **Loading** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Cronbach’s** \\ **Alpha** \\ \end{tabular} & **CR** & **AVE** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Adoption of SW} & ASW1 & 0.857 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.848} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.859} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.658} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & ASW2 & 0.851 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Perceived ease of use} & PEOU1 & 0.849 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.833} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.688} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & PEOU2 & 0.800 & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & PEOU3 & 0.786 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Perceived usefulness} & PU1 & 0.881 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.833} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.903} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.779} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & PU2 & 0.881 & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & PU3 & 0.844 & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & PU4 & 0.859 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Relevance} & REL1 & 0.843 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.812} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.789} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.703} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & REL2 & 0.859 & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & REL3 & 0.806 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Timeliness} & TIM1 & 0.794 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.828} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.799} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & TIM1 & 0.822 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Sufficiency} & SUF1 & 0.835 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.820} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.796} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.760} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & SUF2 & 0.874 & & & \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & SUF3 & 0.824 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Personal Innovativeness} & PER1 & 0.897 & \multirow{3}{*}{0.861} & \multirow{3}{*}{0.782} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & PER1 & 0.821 & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-2} \cline{6-6}  & PER1 & 0.847 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Convergent validity results which assure acceptable values (Factor loading, Cronbach’s Alpha, composite reliability \(\geq\) 0.70 & AVE > 0.5).  
The factor loading and average variance extracted (AVE) must be determined to measure convergent validity [69]. Table 5 indicates that the values of factor loadings are seemingly more than the standard value of 0.7. Table 5 also displays the AVE values which are found to be from 0.609 to 0.799, which cross the standard threshold value of 0.5. With the following findings, convergent validity has been properly satisfied for each of the mentioned constructs.