## 4 Results
### The Analysis of the Structural Model  
In the goodness of fit test, the \(\chi 2\)/df ratio in this study is 1.274, which entered into the range of the parsimonious fit value (\(<\)3) proposed by [PERSON] et al. (2017); the GFI is 0.826, which also reached the acceptable level (\(>\)0.8) proposed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2018). The AGFI is 0.807 and the NFI is 0.831; both achieved the acceptable level (\(>\)0.8) proposed by [PERSON] et al. (2018). The CFI is 0.958 and the TLI is 0.955 which both reached the good level (\(>\)0.9) suggested by [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2018). Furthermore, the RMR is 0.042, which meets the suggestion (\(<\)0.08) of [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2018). The RMSEA is 0.033, which also meets the suggestion (\(<\)0.08) of [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2018). The overall results indicated that goodness-of-fit of the structural model is within the favorable range. The results of the model fit test are shown in Table 5.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & **T1** &  
The path analysis results of the structural model showed that all causal relationships have reached a significant level. The values of coefficient are shown in Figure 3. Moreover, all hypotheses have been supported by the analysis results of the structural model. A total of 15 determinants reached the significant level. The results are shown in Table 6.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Factors** & & **Context** & **Estimate** & **S.E.** & **C.R.** & **P** \\ \hline Performance & & Internal & & & \\ Ex- & \(\leftarrow\) & Users & 1.551 & 0.291 & 5.331 & *** \\ Effort Ex- & \(\leftarrow\) & Internal & & & \\ pectancy & \(\leftarrow\) & Users & 0.995 & 0.151 & 6.604 & *** \\ User Habit & \(\leftarrow\) & Internal & & & \\ \(\leftarrow\) & Users & 1.040 & 0.158 & 6.563 & *** \\ Relative & \(\leftarrow\) & Technology & 1.093 & 0.125 & 8.744 & *** \\ Advantage & \(\leftarrow\) & Technology & 1.654 & 0.211 & 7.841 & *** \\ Compatibility & \(\leftarrow\) & Technology & 1.450 & 0.187 & 7.770 & *** \\ Trialability & \(\leftarrow\) & Technology & 1.551 & 0.204 & 7.590 & *** \\ Observability & \(\leftarrow\) & Organization & 1.217 & 0.165 & 7.368 & *** \\ Data & \(\leftarrow\) & Organization & 1.508 & 0.226 & 6.681 & *** \\ \(\leftarrow\) & \(\leftarrow\) & Organization & 1.368 & 0.193 & 7.079 & *** \\ Absorptive & \(\leftarrow\) & Organization & 1.515 & 0.233 & 6.492 & *** \\ Capability & \(\leftarrow\) & Organization & 2.522 & 0.387 & 6.516 & *** \\ \(\leftarrow\) & Environment & 1.979 & 0.272 & 7.269 & *** \\ Partner & \(\leftarrow\) & Environment & 2.603 & 0.381 & 6.828 & *** \\ Support & \(\leftarrow\) & Environment & 2.828 & 0.423 & 6.680 & *** \\ Internal & \(\leftarrow\) & Internal & & & \\ Users & \(\leftarrow\) & Users’ & 2.284 & 0.564 & 4.049 & *** \\  & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* * Significant at \(p<0.001\).  
\end{table}
Table 6: Results of regression weights.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Indicator of** & **Standard Value** & **Test Result** & **Level** \\
**Goodness-of-Fit** & **Standard Value** & **Test Result** & **Level** \\ \hline \(\chi\)2/d.f. & \textless{}3 [50] & 1.274 & good \\ GFI & \textgreater{}0.8 [54] & 0.826 & acceptable \\ AGFI & \textgreater{}0.8 [55] & 0.807 & acceptable \\ NFI & \textgreater{}0.8 [55] & 0.831 & acceptable \\ CFI & \textgreater{}0.9 [56] & 0.958 & good \\ RMR & \textless{}0.08 [49] & 0.042 & good \\ RMSEA & \textless{}0.08 [57] & 0.033 & good \\ TLI (NNFI) & \textgreater{}0.9 [56] & 0.955 & good \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The path analysis results of the structural model showed that all causal relationships have reached a significant level. The values of coefficient are shown in Figure 3. Moreover, all hypotheses have been supported by the analysis results of the structural model. A total of 15 determinants reached the significant level. The results are shown in Table 6.  
\end{table}
Table 5: Overall fits of research model.