## 5 Data Analysis and Results
### SEM Analysis
#### 5.2.1 Measurement Model  
CFA was used to evaluate the properties of the instrument items. In fact, the measurement model signifies how hypothetical constructs are measured in terms of the observed variables and personifies the validity and reliability of the observed variables' responses for the latent variables as in [74; 75; 76; 77]. Table 5 presents the factor loadings, Cronbach alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) for the variables. All the indicators of the factor loadings exceeded 0.50, except for certain items, specifically: IL3 = 0.110, and IL6 = 0.044. The aforementioned items were eliminated, thus constituting evidence of convergent validity as in [74; 78]. While the measurement reached convergent validity at the item level because all the factor loadings were above 0.50, all the composite reliability values exceeded 0.60, demonstrating a high level of internal consistency for the latent variables. Additionally, since each value of AVE exceeded 0.50, as in [74; 79], the convergent validity was proved. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **Constructs** \\ **and Indicators** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Factor** \\ **Loadings** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Std. Error** \\ **Std. Error** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Square** \\ **Multiple** \\ **Correlation** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Error Variance** \\ **Alpha** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Cronbach** \\ **Reliability** * \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Composite** \\ **AVE** ** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Source Credibility (SC)} & 0.952 & 0.97 & 0.98 \\ \hline SC1 & 0.722 & *** & 0.521 & 0.137 & & \\ \hline SC2 & 0.855 & 0.074 & 0.911 & 0.054 & & \\ \hline SC3 & 0.842 & 0.083 & 0.708 & 0.219 & & \\ \hline SC4 & 0.930 & 0.080 & 0.865 & 0.094 & & \\ \hline SC5 & 0.908 & 0.077 & 0.824 & 0.114 & & \\ \hline SC6 & 0.845 & 0.077 & 0.893 & 0.071 & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Information Language (IL)} & 0.895 & 0.95 & 0.96 \\ \hline IL1 & 0.577 & *** & 0.333 & 0.160 & & \\ \hline IL2 & 0.668 & 0.101 & 0.446 & 0.213 & & \\ \hline IL4 & 0.920 & 0.137 & 0.846 & 0.084 & & \\ \hline IL5 & 0.874 & 0.165 & 0.950 & 0.037 & & \\ \hline IL7 & 0.708 & 0.098 & 0.501 & 0.171 & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Intrinsic Information Quality (IIQ)} & 0.958 & 0.95 & 0.96 \\ \hline IIQ1 & 0.878 & *** & 0.956 & 0.061 & & \\ \hline IIQ2 & 0.778 & 0.018 & 0.606 & 0.271 & & \\ \hline IIQ3 & 0.838 & 0.014 & 0.879 & 0.145 & & \\ \hline IIQ4 & 0.856 & 0.015 & 0.733 & 0.180 & & \\ \hline IIQ5 & 0.848 & 0.015 & 0.899 & 0.144 & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Contextual Information Quality (CIQ)} & 0.989 & 0.65 & 0.99 \\ \hline CIQ1 & 0.508 & *** & 0.248 & 0.263 & & \\ \hline CIQ2 & 0.875 & 0.261 & 0.950 & 0.070 & & \\ \hline CIQ3 & 0.871 & 0.260 & 0.942 & 0.081 & & \\ \hline CIQ4 & 0.814 & 0.232 & 0.835 & 0.200 & & \\ \hline CIQ5 & 0.870 & 0.180 & 0.940 & 0.040 & & \\ \hline CIQ6 & 0.878 & 0.254 & 0.957 & 0.057 & & \\ \hline CIQ7 & 0.829 & 0.156 & 0.687 & 0.193 & & \\ \hline CIQ8 & 0.882 & 0.259 & 0.963 & 0.050 & & \\ \hline CIQ9 & 0.853 & 0.155 & 0.728 & 0.161 & & \\ \hline CIQ10 & 0.884 & 0.259 & 0.967 & 0.045 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Properties of the final measurement model. Additionally, as seen in Table 6, to provide discriminant validity [75], intercorrelations between constructs-pairs are less than the square root of the AVE estimates. Subsequently, the measurement results indicated that this study had adequate levels of convergent and discriminant validity. According to Table 6, the least correlated constructs are SC and IL with (0.714), while the most correlated were SC with AIQ, SC with IQ, and SC with IA (0.900, 0.923, 0.921), respectively. Other correlations were above 0.800 and below 0.900. Hence, there is a high correlation between the source credibility (SC) and information quality (IQ)  
and information adoption (IA).