## 8 Results
### Measurement Model Assessment  
An indicator had to load over 0.6 into its posited construct to be retained and to ensure good convergent validity [45]. Eight indicators (SQ6, SQ7, SVQ5, SVQ6, SU1, SU2, SU3, and SU4) were removed, considering the previously defined rule-of-thumb across three constructs. One exception was made with the indicator SVQ4, which was retained for theoretical reasons, and it did not impact the internal consistency reliability to a greater extent. Items that did not converge on the predicted construct or had cross-loads on the two constructs were removed from the reflective measurement model. Those items were SQ5, IQ2, NI1, and NI2.  
The assessment of the reflective measurement model is shown in Table 2. Indicator loadings were higher than already mentioned 0.60, which was a criterion of a good measurement of the latent variables. All Cronbach's alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR) values were higher than 0.70 [45,51], which showed satisfactory internal consistency reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) values were also greater than 0.50, indicating good convergent validity [51]. After removing the indicators whose cross-loadings were higher than the outer loadings on prospective constructs, the HTMT statistics indicated that discriminant validity was established (see Table 3). This was additionally examined by conducting the bootstrapping procedure. There were no HTMT confidence intervals (97.5%) found containing the value of one, indicating the lack of discriminant validity [51].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Latent** \\ **Variable** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Indicators**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Item** \\ **Mean** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Convergent** \\ **Validity** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Internal Consistency** \\ **Reliability** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{5-8}  & & SQ1 & 2.81 & 1.10 & 0.83 & & \\ System & SQ2 & 2.94 & 1.07 & 0.78 & & \\ Quality & SQ3 & 2.72 & 1.02 & 0.79 & & 0.63 & 0.87 & 0.81 \\  & SQ4 & 3.31 & 0.98 & 0.77 & & & \\ \hline  & IQ1 & 3.46 & 0.96 & 0.78 & & & \\  & IQ3 & 3.13 & 1.00 & 0.85 & & & \\ Information & IQ4 & 3.32 & 0.93 & 0.85 & & & \\ Quality & IQ5 & 3.51 & 0.92 & 0.83 & 0.66 & 0.92 & 0.89 \\  & IQ6 & 3.26 & 1.06 & 0.76 & & & \\  & IQ7 & 3.34 & 1.09 & 0.79 & & & \\ \hline  & SVQ1 & 3.66 & 0.94 & 0.88 & & & \\ Service & SVQ2 & 3.51 & 0.97 & 0.90 & 0.71 & 0.90 & 0.85 \\ Quality & SVQ3 & 3.42 & 1.03 & 0.91 & 0.71 & 0.90 & 0.85 \\  & SVQ4 & 3.52 & 0.83 & 0.65 & & & \\ \hline  & SU5 & 2.66 & 1.08 & 0.76 & & & \\  & SU6 & 3.02 & 1.20 & 0.81 & & & \\ System & SU7 & 2.60 & 1.09 & 0.80 & & & \\ Use & SU8 & 3.39 & 1.10 & 0.76 & & & \\  & SU9 & 2.63 & 1.16 & 0.82 & & & \\  & SU10 & 3.07 & 1.19 & 0.81 & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Reflective measurement model.  
After omitting the mentioned indicators, the analysis showed that construct measures had adequate convergent and discriminant validity and showed good reliability. The final instrument with 36 remaining indicators is presented in Table A1 of Appendix B.