## 4 Analysis of Results
### Overall Model Analysis  
Testing of Hypotheses  
The estimated coefficients of observed variables for each potential dimension are shown in Tables 4-10, and the estimated results of the overall model are shown in Figure 3.  
**Hypothesis 1 (H1). **_Perceived ease of use of proximity mobile payment function positively impacts attitude towards using_. This hypothesis means that, when the users of the proximity mobile payment function think that the operation of the proximity mobile payment is simple and easy to learn, they will have a positive and accepting attitude towards the proximity mobile payment function. Table 10 shows, through structural model coefficient and hypothesis verification, that there is a positive correlation coefficient between perceived ease of use and attitude to use (\(p\)-value \(<0.05\)), that is, there is a significant positive direct effect (standardized factor loading is 0.326), so H1 is valid. **Hypothesis 2 (H2). **_Perceived usefulness of proximity mobile payment function positively impacts attitude towards using_. This hypothesis means that users can improve their work or life performance when operating ear-end mobile payment and make them have a positive and accepting attitude towards fear-end mobile payment functionalities. Table 10 shows a positive correlation \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Construct** & **PEOU** & **PU** & **ATT** & **BI** & **TS** \\ \hline PEOU & 0.7578 & & & & \\ PU & 0.6209 & 0.7623 & & & \\ ATT & 0.5670 & 0.6464 & 0.7579 & & \\ BI & 0.4475 & 0.4610 & 0.7046 & 0.827 & \\ TS & 0.3136 & 0.2470 & 0.4212 & 0.5256 & 0.799 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Source: Calculated by this research.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Discriminant validity between constructs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Goodness-of-Fit** & **Fit Model** & **Ideal Indicator** & **Fit Level** \\ \hline CMIN/DF & 2.904 & \textless{}3 & Good \\ GFI & 0.808 & \textgreater{}0.9 & Not Good \\ AGFI & 0.902 & \textgreater{}0.9 & Good \\ RMSEA & 0.085 & \textless{}0.07 & Not Good \\ PGFI & 0.680 & \textgreater{}0.5 & Good \\ PNFI & 0.828 & \textgreater{}0.5 & Good \\ NFI & 0.914 & Between 0 and 1 and closer to 1 & Good \\ RFI & 0.905 & Between 0 and 1 and closer to 1 & Good \\ IFI & 0.935 & Between 0 and 1 and closer to 1 & Good \\ CFI & 0.935 & Between 0 and 1 and closer to 1 & Good \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Source: Summarized by this research.  
\end{table} 
Table 9: Goodness-of-fit test for SEM of this research. coefficient between perceived usefulness and attitude toward use (_p_-value \(<\) 0.05), that is, there is a significant positive direct effect (standardized factor loading is 0.541), so H2 is valid. **Hypothesis 3 (H3). **_Mobile payment users' perceived ease of use of proximity mobile payment positively impact on perceived usefulness._  
This hypothesis means that, when users think that the ear-end mobile payment is easy to use, they will consider the proximity mobile payment to be a useful tool. Table 10 shows a positive correlation coefficient between perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (_p_-value \(<\) 0.05), that is, there is a significant positive direct effect (standardized factor loading is 0.789), so H3 is valid. **Hypothesis 4 (H4). **_Attitude toward using positively impacts behavioral intention to use._  
This hypothesis means that, when users perceive that using the function of proximal action payment will help them to learn or work efficiently, they will have a more positive