## 4 Results and Discussion
### Reliability and Validity Tests of the Scale
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable Dimension**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Item**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**CITC**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Square Multiple**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cronbach’s Alpha**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cronbach’s Alpha**} \\  & & & & **Correlation** & **Value of Deleted Items** & **Alpha** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Intelligence strategy (IS)} & ISA1 & 0.893 & 0.802 & 0.862 & \\  & ISA2 & 0.849 & 0.752 & 0.895 & 0.926 \\  & ISA3 & 0.812 & 0.673 & 0.922 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Intelligence technology (IT)} & ITA1 & 0.837 & 0.701 & 0.859 & \\  & ITA2 & 0.826 & 0.683 & 0.881 & 0.911 \\  & ITA3 & 0.832 & 0.692 & 0.875 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Intelligence technology (IT)} & IBA1 & 0.877 & 0.868 & 0.939 & \\  & IBA2 & 0.772 & 0.785 & 0.945 & \\  & IBB1 & 0.777 & 0.735 & 0.945 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & IBB2 & 0.860 & 0.879 & 0.940 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & IBB3 & 0.781 & 0.775 & 0.945 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & IBB4 & 0.852 & 0.854 & 0.941 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & IBB5 & 0.804 & 0.739 & 0.943 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & IBC1 & 0.784 & 0.730 & 0.944 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & IBC2 & 0.716 & 0.689 & 0.948 & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Intelligent organizational  management (IO)} & IOA1 & 0.841 & 0.748 & 0.939 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & IOA2 & 0.841 & 0.743 & 0.937 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & IOA3 & 0.807 & 0.698 & 0.941 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & IOA4 & 0.783 & 0.631 & 0.943 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & IOA5 & 0.901 & 0.877 & 0.929 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & IOB1 & 0.880 & 0.859 & 0.932 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The reliability test results using the scale. Both aggregate validity and discriminative validity were studied via a confirmatory factor analysis. AMOS 26.0 software was used for the confirmatory factor analysis. The relevant results of the scale are summarized in Table 8. After the aggregation validity test, the CR value of each factor was greater than 0.7, and the AVE value was greater than 0.5. Therefore, the scale had high aggregation validity. To evaluate whether the discriminative validity among various factors of enterprise AI technology application maturity was sufficient, this study used the AVE square root judgment method to test discriminative validity. The relevant results of the scale are shown in Table 9. According to the discriminant validity test, the AVE square root value of the factor intelligence strategy was greater than the maximum value (0.575) of the absolute value of the correlation coefficient between the factor intelligence strategy and the other three factors, indicating that it has good discriminant validity. Similarly, the AVE square root values of the factors intelligence technology, intelligent business operations, and intelligent organizational management were greater than the correlation coefficients between them and the other three factors, indicating that the scale in this study has good discriminant validity. After an expert consultation on the evaluation index system, and the reliability and validity tests of the scale, items ITB1 and IBC3 were deleted to increase the reliability and validity of the items and, ultimately, the remaining 21 items were retained in the enterprise AI technology application maturity scale to provide support for the subsequent research. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Component**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** \\ \hline ISA1 & & & 0.913 \\ ISA2 & & & 0.878 \\ ISA3 & & & 0.829 \\ ITA1 & & & 0.661 \\ ITA2 & & & 0.821 \\ ITA3 & & & 0.744 \\ IBA1 & 0.826 & & \\ IBA2 & 0.807 & & \\ IBB1 & 0.758 & & \\ IBB2 & 0.794 & & \\ IBB3 & 0.692 & & \\ IBB4 & 0.773 & & \\ IBB5 & 0.774 & & \\ IBC1 & 0.636 & & \\ IBC2 & 0.613 & & \\ IOA1 & & 0.735 & \\ IOA2 & & 0.747 & \\ IOA3 & & 0.753 & \\ IOA4 & & 0.651 & \\ IOA5 & & 0.718 & \\ IOB1 & & 0.773 & \\ \hline \end{tabular} The value of the blank spaces is less than 0.5.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Load matrix after rotating the propagation effect index factor.