## 6 Evaluation Results
### Results of the Applied TRAM Model
Consequently, a second CFA was performed, using a revised item set for the questionnaire. According to the suggested modifications, as indicated by the Lagrange multiplier and Wald tests, and the largest standardized residuals as well, five items (Items 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the original questionnaire) that failed to come up with a one-factor solution corresponding to the discomfortquestionnaire, were dropped. Using the revised item set, the model yielded a better fit to data compared to the initial model: Satorra-Bentler scaled \(\chi 2\) (3, N = 44) = 0.21, \(p\) = 0.99, CFI = 1.00, and RMSEA = 0.00. Thus, we derived one factor, which could be explained by the users' discomfort regarding the system under study. * The procedure followed in the case of the optimism, innovativeness, insecurity, and discomfort questionnaires is similar to the analysis described in another article which reviewed the same items applied to 35 subjects [16]. * Perceived usefulness questionnaire: CFA verified the one-factor structure-based on six items of the original perceived usefulness questionnaire for this sample [Satorra-Bentler scaled \(\chi 2\) (8, N = 44) = 2.23, \(p\) = 0.97, CFI = 1.00, and RMSEA = 0.00]. We derived one factor, whose variance could be explained by the users' perceived usefulness of the system under study. * Perceived ease of use questionnaire: The one-factor structure of the questionnaire based on six items was not confirmed by the initial CFA. The results of the initial one-factor model were as follows: Satorra-Bentler scaled \(\chi 2\) (7, N = 44) = 9.12, \(p\) = 0.24, CFI = 0.98, and RMSEA = 0.84 (CI90% 0.00 to 0.21). Consequently, a second CFA was performed, using a revised item set for the questionnaire. In the revised item set, according to the suggested modifications, indicated by the Lagrange multiplier and Wald tests, and the largest standardized residuals as well, one item (Item 5 of the original questionnaire) that did not enable us to come up with a one-factor solution corresponding to the discomfort questionnaire, was dropped. Using the revised item set, the model yielded better fit to data compared to the initial model: Satorra-Bentler scaled \(\chi 2\)(3, N = 44) = 1.78, \(p\) = 0.62, CFI = 1.00, and RMSEA = 0.00 (CI90% 0.00 to 0.21). Thus, we derived one factor, which could be explained by the users' perceived ease of use of the system under study. * based on two items of the initial attitude towards using questionnaire for this sample [Satorra-Bentler scaled \(\chi 2\)(0, N = 44) = 0.00, \(p\) = \(-\)1.00, NFI = 1.00]. The NNFI, CFI and RMSEA were not computed because the degrees of freedom were zero. The aforementioned model should be considered as just-identified. In order for this limitation to be addressed, in accordance with [PERSON] [40], the variance of both variables was fixed to values under 1.0, and consequently, the aforementioned solution was provided, with one derived factor explained by the users' attitude towards using. * Behavioral intention questionnaire: The CFA verified the one-factor structure -based on two items of the initial behavioral intention questionnaire for this sample [Satorra-Bentler scaled \(\chi 2\)(0, N = 44) = 0.00, \(p\) = \(-\)1.00, NFI = 1.00]. The NNFI, CFI and RMSEA were not computed (degrees of freedom = 0). We followed the same procedure as in the case of attitude towards using questionnaire and derived one factor, whose variance could be explained by the users' behavioral intention. The [PERSON]'s alpha internal consistency estimates obtained in the present study for each questionnaire, the sum of which are included in the path model based on TRAM, were satisfactory and ranged from 0.74 to 0.88. We then applied path analysis in order to test the hypotheses of the integrated TRAM model [29]. The TRAM model was not verified by the initial path analysis [Satorra-Bentler scaled \(\chi 2\) (15, N = 44) = 165.11, \(p\) = 0.000, CFI = 0.20, and RMSEA = 0.48 (CI90% 0.41 to 0.54)].