## 4 Results  
Based on the means, standard deviations, and differences based on gender, certain distinctions were found in the adoption of the IoT by men and women (Table 1). Men obtained higher scores in all the constructs of the UTAUT model. However, these differences were only significant in EE (\(p\) = 0.020), FC (\(p\) = 0.002), and ATUT (\(p\) = 0.005). On the other hand, means, standard deviations, and differences based on age also showed certain distinctions (Table 2). The age group over 36 years obtained the highest mean scores in almost all constructs (EE, PE, SI, and ATUT). While teachers in the 21-35 age range only excelled in FC and BI. Significant differences were established in the PE (\(p=0.031\)) and EE (\(p=0.020\)) constructs. Thus, the degree of acceptance of university professors was above 16 on average, in terms of gender and age. Taking into account that the BI scores range from 1 to 21, the value is high. Furthermore, the scores obtained by the teachers in the value 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 add up to 62.5% of responses, corresponding to a high acceptance of the IoT. Regarding convergent validity and reliability of the instrument, the composite reliability (CR) values of the constructs were above 0.8 and the average variance extracted (AVE) was above 0.5 in all of them [60] (Table 3). The reliability values of Cronbach's alpha coefficient were acceptable in all constructs [63], with the majority being above 0.8 and an overall reliability of 0.946. In discriminant validity analysis, the square root of AVE was taken to correlate the latent constructs (Table 4). It was found that each factor represented a different dimension, so the psychometric characteristics of the instrument were acceptable [64]. Therefore, factor loads were adequate and the instrument was found to have strong convergent and discriminant validity [65]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Construct**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Men**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Women**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{t}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{df}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{p}\)} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & **M** & **SD** & **M** & & & & \\ \hline PE & 18.64 & 6.532 & 17.98 & 6.480 & 1.088 & 585 & 0.277 \\ EE & 20.56 & 5.660 & 19.28 & 6.078 & 2.327 & 585 & 0.020 \\ SI & 17.85 & 6.980 & 17.32 & 6.902 & 0.826 & 585 & 0.409 \\ FC & 17.77 & 5.390 & 16.27 & 5.207 & 3.079 & 585 & 0.002 \\ ATUT & 21.17 & 5.524 & 19.68 & 5.843 & 2.808 & 585 & 0.005 \\ BI & 16.63 & 5.156 & 16.04 & 5.143 & 1.251 & 585 & 0.212 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \(df=\) degrees of freedom.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Mean and standard deviation of scores by scale and differences based on gender. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Construct**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**21–35**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(\geq\)**36**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{t}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{df}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{p}\)} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{5-8}  & **M** & **SD** & **M** & & & \\ \hline PE & 17.40 & 6.608 & 18.60 & 6.397 & \(-\)1.697 & 551 & 0.031 \\ EE & 18.88 & 6.132 & 20.07 & 5.867 & \(-\)2.083 & 551 & 0.020 \\ SI & 17.23 & 7.026 & 17.60 & 6.866 & \(-\)0.242 & 551 & 0.540 \\ FC & 17.06 & 5.091 & 16.47 & 5.406 & 1.545 & 551 & 0.190 \\ ATUT & 20 & 5.876 & 20.15 & 5.748 & \(-\)0.366 & 551 & 0.759 \\ BI & 16.27 & 5.103 & 16.16 & 5.182 & 0.322 & 551 & 0.814 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \(df=\) degrees of freedom.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean and standard deviation of scores by scale and differences based on age. With regard to the establishment of the SEM, the hypothesis of multivariate data normality was confirmed. To do this, it was necessary for the value obtained in the Mardia coefficient to be below \(p^{*}(p+2)\)[66], where \(p\) corresponded to 23, with this being the total number of variables in the scale. Likewise, the value of the Mardia coefficient was 158,341, less than 575.