Use of Latent Dirichlet Allocation and Structural Equation Modeling in Determining the Factors for Continuance Intention of Knowledge Payment Platform
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Technology Acceptance Model Perspectives of E-Learning
2.2. Latent Dirichlet Allocation in E-Learning
3. Study 1: Exploring the Factors Based on Review Mining with Latent Dirichlet Allocation
3.1. Data
3.2. Methods
- (1)
- Word segmentation and part-of-speech filtering
- (2)
- Removing stopwords and word frequency statistics
- (3)
- Data processing
- (4)
- Weighting based on term frequency-inverse document frequency
- (5)
- LDA model training
3.3. Topic Identification
3.4. Results Analysis
4. Study 2: Empirical Test of Influencing Factors Based on Technology Acceptance Model and Is Success Model
4.1. Conceptual Model Based on Technology Acceptance Model
4.2. Construct Definition and Hypothesis Development
- (1)
- Continuance intention
- (2)
- User satisfaction
- (3)
- Perceived usefulness
- (4)
- Perceived ease of use
- (5)
- Content quality
- (6)
- System quality
- (7)
- Perceived enjoyment
- (8)
- Auditory experience
- (9)
- Membership experience
- (10)
- Spokesperson identity
- (11)
- Perceived costs
4.3. Questionnaires and Data
4.4. Structural Equation Model Testing
- (1)
- Fitness test of the model
- (2)
- Hypothesis testing of the model
- (3)
- Mediating effect test
4.5. Results Analysis
- (1)
- Correlations of content quality, system quality, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use with user satisfaction
- (2)
- Correlations of perceived enjoyment, auditory experience, and membership experience with user satisfaction
- (3)
- Correlations of perceived usefulness, perceived costs, sense of identity to spokespersons, and user satisfaction with continuance intention
5. Conclusions
5.1. Academic Contributions
5.2. Implications for Practice
- (1)
- Improving content quality and system quality
- (2)
- Paying attention to influences of spokespersons
- (3)
- Improving the management system of members
- (4)
- Improving auditory experience of users
5.3. Limitations and Further Study
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Constructs | Items | Measures | References |
---|---|---|---|
Content quality (CQ) | CQ1 | The knowledge payment platform contains diverse programs and abundant resources. | Delone et al. (1992) [29] Ozkan et al. (2009) [62] Wang et al. [78] |
CQ2 | The quality of teaching contents on the knowledge payment platform is reliable. | ||
CQ3 | The teaching quality of course instructors on the knowledge payment platform is high. | ||
CQ4 | The course chapters of the knowledge payment platform are set up scientifically and rationally. | ||
Perceived usefulness (PU) | PU1 | The knowledge payment platform can provide useful information or knowledge for me in many aspects. | Davis (1989) [79] Agarwal et al. (2000) [80] Teo et al. (2001) [81] |
PU2 | The knowledge payment platform allows me to make full use of spare time. | ||
PU3 | The knowledge payment platform can improve my learning ability. | ||
PU4 | The knowledge payment platform can improve my skill ability. | ||
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) | PEOU1 | I think it is very easy to learn to use the knowledge payment platform. | Davis (1989) [79] Thong et al. (2006) [82] Venkatesh et al. (2003) [83] |
PEOU2 | I think the operation steps of the knowledge payment platform are simple and easy to learn. | ||
PEOU3 | I consider it is easy to access the knowledge payment platform anytime and anywhere. | ||
System quality (SQ) | SQ1 | The knowledge payment platform starts quickly, works well and breaks down infrequently. | Mailizar et al. [30] Ozkan et al. (2009) [62] |
SQ2 | The knowledge payment platform can quickly respond to users’ requests. | ||
SQ3 | The knowledge payment platform has reasonable interface layout, and clear navigation that conforms to users’ habits. | ||
Perceived enjoyment (PE) | PE1 | Time flies when using the knowledge payment platform. | Moon et al. (2001) [84] Lee et al. (2005) [68] |
PE2 | It is relaxed and pleasant to use the knowledge payment platform. | ||
PE3 | I think it is interesting to acquire knowledge through the knowledge payment platform. | ||
Auditory experience (AE) | AE1 | The video and audio lecturers/anchors on the knowledge payment platform have vivid voice, clear speech and moderate speaking speed. | Chen et al. (2019) [85] Ye et al. (2018) [86] |
AE2 | The audio of the knowledge payment platform is smooth without buffering. | ||
AE3 | The knowledge payment platform has rich and vivid sound effects. | ||
Membership experience (ME) | ME1 | I can obtain more content privileges after becoming the member of the knowledge payment platform. | Wang et al. (2019) [87] |
ME2 | I can enjoy more function privileges after becoming the member of the knowledge payment platform. | ||
ME3 | I can enjoy more welfare privileges after becoming the member of the knowledge payment platform. | ||
Perceived costs (PC) | PC1 | I consider that the price of paid information on the knowledge payment platform is high. | Kuo et al. (2009) [77] |
PC2 | I believe that the knowledge payment platform costs a lot of data traffic. | ||
PC3 | I believe that irrelevant contents on the knowledge payment platform waste much of unnecessary time and energy. | ||
Spokesperson identity (SI) | SI1 | I think that the spokespersons of the knowledge payment platform have excellent characteristics. | Wu et al. (2007) [71] |
SI2 | I believe that the spokespersons of the knowledge payment platform conform to the image of the platform. | ||
SI3 | I will pay attention to the latest development of the spokespersons of knowledge payment platform. | ||
User satisfaction (US) | US1 | I am very satisfied with my experience on the knowledge payment platform. | Bhattacherjee et al. (2001) [14] Chen et al. (2017) [88] |
US2 | I am very satisfied with the learning effects through the knowledge payment platform. | ||
US3 | I am very satisfied with the overall functions and services of the knowledge payment platform. | ||
Continuance intention (CI) | CI1 | I would like to continue to use this knowledge payment platform. | Bhattacherjee et al. (2001) [14] Chen et al. (2017) [88] |
CI2 | I would like to recommend the knowledge payment platform to others. | ||
CI3 | I make positive comments on the knowledge payment platform. |
Knowledge Payment Platforms | Response | Percentage of Cases (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Number of Cases | Percentage (%) | ||
Himalaya FM | 322 | 22.80 | 65.20 |
Iget | 74 | 5.20 | 15.00 |
Fandengread | 87 | 6.10 | 17.60 |
Dragonfly FM | 60 | 4.20 | 12.10 |
Zhihu University (Including Zhihu Live) | 187 | 13.20 | 37.90 |
LAIX | 113 | 8.00 | 22.90 |
Qlchat | 13 | 0.90 | 2.60 |
Hundun Academy | 12 | 0.80 | 2.40 |
Cloud classroom of Netease | 119 | 8.40 | 24.10 |
Netease CloudMusic (Paid radio) | 252 | 17.80 | 51.00 |
Douban Time | 25 | 1.80 | 5.10 |
Zaih | 4 | 0.30 | 0.80 |
Lizhiweike | 31 | 2.20 | 6.30 |
Lifeweek Zhongdu | 1 | 0.10 | 0.20 |
Kaishu Story | 40 | 2.80 | 8.10 |
Mtedu | 4 | 0.30 | 0.80 |
Others | 71 | 5.00 | 14.40 |
Total | 1415 | 100.00 | 286.40 |
Component | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loading | Rotation Sums of Squared Loading | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | |
1 | 12.671 | 36.202 | 36.202 | 12.671 | 36.202 | 36.202 | 3.320 | 9.486 | 9.486 |
2 | 2.250 | 6.427 | 42.630 | 2.250 | 6.427 | 42.630 | 3.218 | 9.195 | 18.682 |
3 | 1.935 | 5.530 | 48.160 | 1.935 | 5.530 | 48.160 | 2.378 | 6.793 | 25.475 |
4 | 1.661 | 4.744 | 52.904 | 1.661 | 4.744 | 52.904 | 2.368 | 6.766 | 32.241 |
5 | 1.494 | 4.269 | 57.173 | 1.494 | 4.269 | 57.173 | 2.366 | 6.761 | 39.001 |
6 | 1.449 | 4.141 | 61.314 | 1.449 | 4.141 | 61.314 | 2.331 | 6.661 | 45.663 |
7 | 1.277 | 3.649 | 64.964 | 1.277 | 3.649 | 64.964 | 2.296 | 6.560 | 52.223 |
8 | 1.220 | 3.485 | 68.448 | 1.220 | 3.485 | 68.448 | 2.285 | 6.530 | 58.752 |
9 | 1.078 | 3.080 | 71.528 | 1.078 | 3.080 | 71.528 | 2.268 | 6.481 | 65.234 |
10 | 1.025 | 2.929 | 74.456 | 1.025 | 2.929 | 74.456 | 2.122 | 6.063 | 71.297 |
11 | 1.010 | 2.887 | 77.343 | 1.010 | 2.887 | 77.343 | 2.116 | 6.047 | 77.343 |
12 | 0.519 | 1.483 | 78.827 | ||||||
...... | |||||||||
35 | 0.147 | 0.421 | 100.000 |
References
- Kanetaki, Z.; Stergiou, C.; Bekas, G.; Jacques, S.; Troussas, C.; Sgouropoulou, C.; Ouahabi, A. Grade Prediction Modeling in Hybird Learning Environments for Sustainbale Engineering Engineering Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Calatayud, V.; Prendes-Espinosa, P.; Roig-Vila, R. Artificial Intelligence for Student Assessment: A Systematic Review. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacques, S.; Ouahabi, A.; Lequeu, T. Synchronous E-learning in Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Vienna, Austria, 21–23 April 2021; pp. 1102–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Chang, J.; Zhou, Y. The Study of Charging Mechanism of Knowledge Payment Platform Based on Tripartite Game Model. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2020, 16, 1846791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security. AGENDA 2030. Available online: https://www.un.org/humansecurity/agenda-2030/ (accessed on 11 June 2022).
- Xu, H.; Wang, J.; Tai, Z.; Lin, H.-C. Empirical Study on the Factors Affecting User Switching Behavior of Online Learning Platform Based on Push-Pull-Mooring Theory. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, M. From free to paid: Customer expertise and customer satisfaction on knowledge payment platforms. Decis. Support. Syst. 2019, 127, 113140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matei, S.A. Cognitive surplus. Inform. Soc. 2012, 28, 128–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Yuan, X.; Zhou, R. How knowledge contributor characteristics and reputation affect user payment decision in paid Q&A? An empirical analysis from the perspective of trust theory. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2018, 31, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, L.; Chen, Z.; Yao, P.; Liu, H. A Study on the Factors Influencing Users’ Online Knowledge Paying-Behavior Based on the UTAUT Model. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1768–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huo, H.; Li, Q. Influencing Factors of the Continuous Use of a Knowledge Payment Platform—Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis Based on Triadic Reciprocal Determinism. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, C.; Liu, S. Evaluating On-Line Courses via Reviews Mining. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 35439–35451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malloch, Y.Z.; Zhang, J. Seeing Others Receive Support Online: Effects of Self-Disclosure and Similarity on Perceived Similarity and Health Behavior Intention. J. Health Commun. 2019, 24, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-confirmation Model. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 2001, 25, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salloum, S.A.; Alhamad, M.Q.A.; Al-Emran, M.; Monem, A.A.; Shaalan, K. Exploring Students’ Acceptance of E-Learning Through the Development of a Comprehensive Technology Acceptance Model. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 128445–128462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zardari, B.A.; Hussain, Z.; Arain, A.A.; Rizvi, W.H.; Vighio, M.S. Development and Validation of User Experience-Based E-Learning Acceptance Model for Sustainable Higher Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humida, T.; Al Mamun, M.H.; Keikhosrokiani, P. Predicting behavioral intention to use e-learning system: A case-study in Begum Rokeya University, Rangpur, Bangladesh. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 2241–2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukendro, S.; Habibi, A.; Khaeruddin, K.; Indrayana, B.; Syahruddin, S.; Makadada, F.A.; Hakim, H. Using an extended Technology Acceptance Model to understand students’ use of E-learning during COVID-19: Indonesian sport science education context. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanwal, F.; Rehman, M. Factors Affecting E-Learning Adoption in Developing Countries–Empirical Evidence from Pakistan’s Higher Education Sector. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 10968–10978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David, G. TAM or Just Plain Habit: A Look at Experienced Online Shoppers. J. Organ. End User Comput. 2003, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, J.H.; Ha, K.S. The Study of the Effects of the Enterprise Mobile Social Network Service on User Satisfaction and the Continuous Use Intention. J. Digit. Converg. 2012, 10, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mijin, N.; Jang, H.; Choi, B.; Khongorzul, G. Attitude toward the use of electronic medical record systems: Exploring moderating effects of self-image. Inf. Dev. 2019, 35, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vladova, G.; Ullrich, A.; Bender, B.; Gronau, N. Students’ Acceptance of Technology-Mediated Teaching—How It Was Influenced During the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020: A Study from Germany. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 636086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alyoussef, I.Y. E-Learning Acceptance: The Role of Task–Technology Fit as Sustainability in Higher Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Rahmi, W.; Yahaya, N.; Aldraiweesh, A.A.; Alamri, M.M.; Aljarboa, N.A.; Alturki, U.; Aljeraiwi, A.A. Integrating Technology Acceptance Model with Innovation Diffusion Theory: An Empirical Investigation on Students’ Intention to Use E-Learning Systems. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 26797–26809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, M.Y.; Jong, M.S.; Lau, W.W.; Meng, Y.; Chai, C.; Chen, M. Validating the General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning: Evidence from an Online English as a Foreign Language Course Amid COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 671615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prendes-Espinosa, P.; Solano-Fernández, I.M.; García-Tudela, P.A. EmDigital to Promote Digital Entrepreneurship: The Relation with Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 1992, 3, 60–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mailizar, M.; Burg, D.; Maulina, S. Examining university students’ behavioural intention to use E-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended TAM model. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 7057–7077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.M. Why do users intend to continue using the digital library? An integrated Perspective. Aslib. J. Inform. Manag. 2014, 66, 640–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Zhang, C. Empirical study on continuance intentions towards E-Learning 2.0 systems. Behav. Inform. Technol. 2014, 33, 1027–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Adwan, A.S.; Albelbisi, N.A.; Hujran, O.; Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Alkhalifah, A. Developing a Holistic Success Model for Sustainable E-Learning: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Q.; He, S.; Deng, Y. Method of personalized educational resource recommendation based on LDA and learner’s behavior. Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borakati, A. Evaluation of an international medical E-learning course with natural language processing and machine learning. BMC Med. Educ. 2021, 21, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nilashi, M.; Minaei-Bidgoli, B.; Alghamdi, A.; Alrizq, M.; Alghamdi, O.; Nayer, F.K.O.; Aljehane, N.; Khosravi, A.; Mohd, S. Knowledge discovery for course choice decision in Massive Open Online Courses using machine learning approaches. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 199, 117092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ray, A.; Bala, P.K.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Exploring values affecting e-Learning adoption from the user-generated-content: A consumption-value-theory perspective. J. Strateg. Mark. 2020, 29, 430–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ray, A.; Bala, P.K.; Kumar, R. An NLP-SEM approach to examine the gratifications affecting user’s choice of different e-learning providers from user tweets. J. Decis. Syst. 2021, 30, 439–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ray, A.; Bala, P.K.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Exploring barriers affecting eLearning usage intentions: An NLP-based multi-method approach. Behav. Inform. Technol. 2022, 41, 1002–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nanda, G.; Douglas, K.A.; Waller, D.R.; Merzdorf, H.E.; Goldwasser, D. Analyzing large collections of open-ended feedback from MOOC learners using LDA topic modeling and qualitative analysis. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2021, 14, 146–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuchuan. Himalaya APP ⌈Listening Community⌋ Radio Audiobooks Comic Book Reviews丨iOS丨Real-Time Rankings丨Help Companies Get More Customers-Kuchuan. Available online: https://ios.kuchuan.com/page/appInfo?infoId=596&site=0&market=xiaomi#rank (accessed on 17 December 2021).
- BigData-Research. China Paid Knowledge Industry Market Research Report, 1Q 2018. Available online: http://www.bigdata-research.cn/content/201806/705.html (accessed on 19 June 2018).
- Blei, D.M.; Ng, A.Y.; Jordan, M.I. Latent dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2003, 3, 993–1022. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, C.N. The problem of word separation in Chinese information processing. Lang. Text. Appl. 1997, 1, 74–80. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Dai, D.; Ma, Y.; Zhao, M. Analysis of big data job requirements based on K-means text clustering in China. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0255419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, F.A. Wembedder: Wikidata entity embedding web service. Mach. Learn. 2017. [CrossRef]
- Wang, B.; Liu, S.; Ding, K.; Liu, Z.; Xu, J. Identifying technological topics and institution-topic distribution probability for patent competitive intelligence analysis: A case study in LTE technology. Scientometrics 2014, 101, 685–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jian, F.; Wang, Y.; Ding, Y. Microblog topic evolution computing based on LDA algorithm. Open Phys. 2018, 16, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Limayem, M.; Hirt, S.G.; Cheung, C.M.K. How Habit Limits the Predictive Power of Intention: The Case of Information Systems Continuance. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 2007, 31, 705–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liao, C.; Palvia, P.; Chen, J.L. Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: Toward a Technology Continuance Theory (TCT). Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2009, 29, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, R.L. Sati Sfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer; Irwin/McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Bhattacherjee, A.; Perols, J.; Sanford, C. Information Technology Continuance: A Theoretic Extension and Empirical Test. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2007, 49, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, H.M.; Teo, T.; Rappa, N.A.; Huang, F. Explaining Chinese university students’ continuance learning intention in the MOOC setting: A modified expectation confirmation model perspective. Comput. Educ. 2020, 150, 103850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, S.J.; Vidgen, R.T. Technology socialness and Web site satisfaction. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 89, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.C. Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward E-learning: An extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 506–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, S.Y.; Liang, T.P.; Chang, C.M. A meta-analysis of empirical research using TAM. Inf. Manag. 2005, 12, 211–234. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, K.M. E-Learning continuance intention: Moderating effects of user e-learning experience. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 516–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calisir, F.; Gumussoy, C.A.; Bayraktaroglu, A.E.; Karaali, D. Predicting the Intention to Use a Web-Based Learning System: Perceived Content Quality, Anxiety, Perceived System Quality, Image, and the Technology Acceptance Model. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 2014, 24, 515–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joo, Y.J.; Lim, K.Y.; Kim, E.K. Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 1654–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, P.C.; Tsai, R.J.; Finger, G.; Chen, Y.Y.; Yeh, D. What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Comput. Educ. 2008, 50, 1183–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, W.S.; Wang, C.H. Antecedence to Continued Intentions of Adopting E-learning System in Blended Learning Instruction: A Contingency Framework Based on Models of Information System Success and Task-technology Fit. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozkan, S.; Koseler, R. Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 1285–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- William, H.D.; Ephraim, R.M. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2003, 19, 9–30. [Google Scholar]
- Rivard, S.; Poirier, G.; Raymond, L.; Bergeron, F. Development of a measure to assess the quality of user-developed applications. ACM SIGMIS Database 1997, 28, 44–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petter, S.; Delone, W.; Mclean, E. Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 2008, 17, 236–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 22, 1111–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.S.; Wu, S.; Tsai, R.J. Integrating perceived playfulness into expectation-confirmation model for web portal context. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 683–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, I.; Kim, J.; Kim, J. Use Contexts for the Mobile Internet: A Longitudinal Study Monitoring Actual Use of Mobile Internet Services. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2005, 18, 269–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schifferstein, H.N.J.; Otten, J.J.; Thoolen, F.; Hekkert, P. The experimental assessment of sensory dominance in a product development context. J. Des. Res. 2010, 8, 119–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kagan, J. The concept of identification. Psychol. Rev. 1958, 65, 296–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, W.Y.; Tsai, C.H. The Empirical Study of CRM: Consumer Company Identification and Purchase Intention in the Direct Selling Industry. Int. J. Commer. Manag. 2007, 7, 194–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCrackern, G. Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. J. Consumer Res. 1989, 16, 310–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanna, P.; Kantenbacher, J.; Cohen, S.; Gössling, S. Role model advocacy for sustainable transport. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 61, 1361–9209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elberse, A.; Verleun, J. The Economic Value of Celebrity Endorsements. J. Advert. Res. 2012, 52, 149–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilicic, J.; Webster, C.M. Celebrity co-branding partners as irrelevant brand information in advertisements. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 941–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luarn, P.; Lin, H.H. Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2005, 21, 873–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, Y.F.; Yen, S.N. Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use 3G mobile value-added services. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2009, 25, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.T.; Wang, Y.S.; Liu, E.R. The stickiness intention of group-buying websites: The integration of the commitment-trust theory and E-commerce success model. Inf. Manag. 2016, 53, 625–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 1989, 13, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agardwal, R.; Karahanna, E. Time Flies When You’re Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs about Information Technology Usage. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 2000, 24, 665–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teo, T.S.H. Demographic and motivation variables associated with Internet usage activities. Internet Res. 2001, 11, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thong, J.; Hong, Y.L.; Tam, K.Y. The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2006, 64, 799–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moon, J.W.; Kim, Y.G. Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Inf. Manag. 2001, 38, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Zhu, H.H. User experience scale development and validity testing from customer perspective. Stat. Decis. Mak. 2019, 35, 60–64. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ye, Y.; Wang, H. Research on factors influencing users’ willingness to pay for content on audiobook platforms. Librariansh. Res. 2018, 1, 82–88. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y. Empirical analysis of factors influencing the willingness to pay for e-commerce membership system. Bus. Econ. Res. 2019, 23, 93–96. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.; Li, S. Understanding Continuance Intention of Mobile Payment Services: An Empirical Study. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 2017, 57, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Author | Method | Research Object | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|
Nilashi et al. (2022) [36] | LDA | Course choice decision in massive open online courses | The data collected from the online platform is evaluated by LDA method and the results show that this method can accurately provide relevant courses for users according to their preferences. |
Ray et al. (2020) [37] | LDA-SEM | Values affecting E-Learning adoption | Emotional connection and facilitator quality, are important predictors of user’s intention to take up courses from E-learning platforms. |
Ray et al. (2021) [38] | LDA-SEM | Gratifications affecting user’s choice of different E-learning providers | Users have generally posted comments which relate to trust, anticipation, and joy, and they have an overall positive sentiment towards the providers. |
Ray et al. (2022) [39] | LDA-SEM | Barriers affecting E-Learning usage intentions | Value and facilitator issues, tradition, and risk barriers have a notable negative impact on usage-intention. |
Nanda et al. (2021) [40] | LDA | Large collections of open-ended feedback from MOOC learners | Content quality, accurate description of prerequisites and required time commitment in course syllabus, quality of assessment and feedback, meaningful interaction with peers and educators, engaging instructor and videos, accessibility of learning materials, and usability of platform significantly affect the learning experience of users. |
Lin et al. (2021) [34] | LDA | Personalized educational resource recommendation | Building a user interest model through LDA and calculating the user’s preference for the topic can effectively improve the effect of personalized learning resource recommendation. |
App Store | Time Period | Comment Text Volume/Items | Download Time |
---|---|---|---|
iOS AppStore | 1 January 2018~17 April 2022 | 87,492 | 17 April 2022 |
HUAWEI AppGallery | 1 January 2018~17 April 2022 | 89,236 | |
Total | 176,728 |
Word | Frequency | Word | Frequency | Word | Frequency | Word | Frequency |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Advertisement | 14,363 | Learning | 2734 | Flash back | 1742 | System | 1073 |
Software | 11,791 | Mobile phone | 2520 | Function | 1704 | English | 1068 |
Member | 6964 | Free | 2451 | Customer Service | 1688 | Children | 1059 |
Game | 5944 | Money | 2163 | User | 1654 | Crosstalk | 963 |
Content | 5227 | Platform | 2086 | Version | 1507 | Radio station | 961 |
Fiction | 4792 | Network | 1971 | Music | 1360 | Wang Yibo | 951 |
Sound | 4613 | Audio | 1937 | Eye | 1309 | Teacher | 915 |
Time | 3651 | Resource | 1898 | Comment | 1270 | Works | 796 |
Book | 3364 | Knowledge | 1823 | Anchor | 1239 | Tone quality | 768 |
Story | 2983 | Rich in content | 1817 | Spokesperson | 1160 | Dubbing | 684 |
No. | Topic Identification | Intensity of Topics | Feature Words |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Content quality | 0.1123 | Content, program, time, function, good book, quality, music, radio, work, sound effect |
2 | Advertising content | 0.1121 | Advertisement, cover, fiction, member, unlock screen, comment, content, audio, video, payment |
3 | Perceived enjoyment | 0.1075 | Storytelling, life, Deyunshe (A cultural communication Co., Ltd. engaged in professional crosstalk art performance), joke, mood, culture, leisure, software, reading material, radio |
4 | Resource experience | 0.1065 | Book, platform, rich in content, reading, lazy person, category, course, classification, comprehensiveness, caption |
5 | Membership experience | 0.1061 | Member, story, audio, profession, English, children, customer service, accompany, spending money, earphone |
6 | Auditory experience | 0.0989 | Sound, resource, eyes, sound effect, ear, audience, information, dub, pageviews, category |
7 | Lecturer quality | 0.0954 | Teacher, product, quality, taping, author, team, album, humanization, network, copyright |
8 | Spokespersons of platforms | 0.0908 | Spokesperson, experience, Wang Yibo, endorsement, Yiyang Qianxi (Jackson), interface, friend, habit, mode, fans |
9 | System quality | 0.0894 | Mobile phone, version, system, tone quality, button, program, page, account, server, Bluetooth |
10 | Perceived costs | 0.0799 | Charge, money, defraudation, waste, hour, recharge, spending money to buy something, standard, Xiaoya (radio of Himalayan FM), cost-free listening |
Survey Object | Options | Quantity | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 190 | 38.5 |
Female | 304 | 61.5 | |
Age | Under 18 | 21 | 4.2 |
18–25 | 210 | 42.5 | |
26–35 | 190 | 38.5 | |
36–45 | 63 | 12.8 | |
Above 45 years old | 10 | 1.9 | |
Education | High school and below | 30 | 6.1 |
Specialist | 35 | 7.1 | |
Undergraduate | 275 | 55.6 | |
Postgraduate and above | 154 | 31.2 | |
Profession | Student | 198 | 40.1 |
Enterprise Employees | 133 | 26.9 | |
Staff in Government agencies | 35 | 7.1 | |
Liberal professions | 61 | 12.3 | |
Others | 67 | 13.6 |
Constructs | Items | Loading | CR | AVE | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content quality (CQ) | CQ1 | 0.808 | 0.892 | 0.675 | 0.888 |
CQ2 | 0.798 | ||||
CQ3 | 0.760 | ||||
CQ4 | 0.912 | ||||
Perceived usefulness (PU) | PU1 | 0.819 | 0.910 | 0.716 | 0.840 |
PU2 | 0.806 | ||||
PU3 | 0.948 | ||||
PU4 | 0.804 | ||||
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) | PEOU1 | 0.887 | 0.857 | 0.668 | 0.879 |
PEOU2 | 0.769 | ||||
PEOU3 | 0.791 | ||||
System quality (SQ) | SQ1 | 0.856 | 0.842 | 0.640 | 0.817 |
SQ2 | 0.763 | ||||
SQ3 | 0.778 | ||||
Perceived enjoyment (PE) | PE1 | 0.869 | 0.880 | 0.710 | 0.829 |
PE2 | 0.850 | ||||
PE3 | 0.807 | ||||
Auditory experience (AE) | AE1 | 0.805 | 0.830 | 0.619 | 0.870 |
AE2 | 0.753 | ||||
AE3 | 0.801 | ||||
Membership experience (ME) | ME1 | 0.793 | 0.818 | 0.600 | 0.830 |
ME2 | 0.744 | ||||
ME3 | 0.786 | ||||
Perceived costs (PC) | PC1 | 0.838 | 0.834 | 0.626 | 0.906 |
PC2 | 0.753 | ||||
PC3 | 0.780 | ||||
Spokesperson identity (SI) | SI1 | 0.890 | 0.872 | 0.695 | 0.855 |
SI2 | 0.798 | ||||
SI3 | 0.810 | ||||
Users’ satisfaction (US) | US1 | 0.843 | 0.864 | 0.680 | 0.863 |
US2 | 0.803 | ||||
US3 | 0.827 | ||||
Continuance intention (CI) | CI1 | 0.876 | 0.841 | 0.639 | 0.837 |
CI2 | 0.720 | ||||
CI3 | 0.794 |
CQ | SQ | PE | ME | AE | PC | SI | PU | PEOU | US | CI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CQ | 0.822 | ||||||||||
SQ | 0.391 ** | 0.800 | |||||||||
PE | 0.361 ** | 0.444 ** | 0.842 | ||||||||
ME | 0.435 ** | 0.453 ** | 0.483 ** | 0.775 | |||||||
AE | 0.429 ** | 0.477 ** | 0.418 ** | 0.422 ** | 0.787 | ||||||
PC | −0.255 ** | −0.285 ** | −0.431 ** | −0.307 ** | −0.285 ** | 0.791 | |||||
SI | 0.404 ** | 0.425 ** | 0.407 ** | 0.492 ** | 0.393 ** | −0.381 ** | 0.834 | ||||
PU | 0.342 ** | 0.375 ** | 0.414 ** | 0.420 ** | 0.376 ** | −0.332 ** | 0.380 ** | 0.846 | |||
PEOU | 0.473 ** | 0.462 ** | 0.480 ** | 0.500 ** | 0.499 ** | −0.316 ** | 0.450 ** | 0.330 ** | 0.817 | ||
US | 0.473 ** | 0.507 ** | 0.504 ** | 0.521 ** | 0.503 ** | −0.396 ** | 0.477 ** | 0.449 ** | 0.536 ** | 0.825 | |
CI | 0.370 ** | 0.401 ** | 0.502 ** | 0.452 ** | 0.398 ** | −0.331 ** | 0.439 ** | 0.395 ** | 0.398 ** | 0.439 ** | 0.799 |
Index | Indicator | Standard | Estimation Result | Fitness Level |
---|---|---|---|---|
Absolute Fitness Indicator | CMIN/DF | <3.00 | 1.653 | Good Fit |
RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.036 | Good Fit | |
GFI | >0.90 | 0.912 | Good Fit | |
Relative Fitness Indicator | NFI | >0.90 | 0.920 | Good Fit |
IFI | >0.90 | 0.967 | Good Fit | |
CFI | >0.90 | 0.967 | Good Fit | |
Simple Fitness Indicator | PGFI | >0.50 | 0.760 | Good Fit |
PNFI | >0.50 | 0.812 | Good Fit | |
PCFI | >0.50 | 0.853 | Good Fit |
Hypothesis | Relationship | Unstandardized Path Coefficient | S.E. | C.R. | p | Standard Path Coefficient | Supported |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | CI←US | 0.259 | 0.053 | 4.887 | *** | 0.282 | Yes |
H2 | US←PU | 0.129 | 0.041 | 3.180 | 0.001 | 0.130 | Yes |
H3 | CI←PU | 0.120 | 0.043 | 2.785 | 0.005 | 0.131 | Yes |
H4 | PU←PEOU | 0.219 | 0.049 | 4.439 | *** | 0.221 | Yes |
H5 | US←PEOU | 0.174 | 0.054 | 3.213 | 0.001 | 0.176 | Yes |
H6 | PU←CQ | 0.319 | 0.056 | 5.713 | *** | 0.284 | Yes |
H7 | US←CQ | 0.144 | 0.056 | 2.587 | 0.010 | 0.128 | Yes |
H8 | PEOU←SQ | 0.655 | 0.051 | 12.744 | *** | 0.633 | Yes |
H9 | US←SQ | 0.167 | 0.078 | 2.153 | 0.031 | 0.164 | Yes |
H10 | US←PE | 0.147 | 0.050 | 2.918 | 0.004 | 0.153 | Yes |
H11 | US←AE | 0.164 | 0.064 | 2.570 | 0.010 | 0.147 | Yes |
H12 | US←ME | 0.164 | 0.058 | 2.799 | 0.005 | 0.168 | Yes |
H13 | CI←SI | 0.226 | 0.050 | 4.556 | *** | 0.259 | Yes |
H14 | CI←PC | –0.133 | 0.056 | –2.359 | 0.018 | –0.127 | Yes |
Path | Indirect Effects | Estimate | Bias-Corrected 95% | Percentile 95% | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | ||||
1 | CQ—US—CI | 0.036 | 0.008 | 0.080 | 0.007 | 0.078 | Significant |
2 | PU—US—CI | 0.037 | 0.009 | 0.078 | 0.007 | 0.074 | Significant |
3 | PEOU—US—CI | 0.050 | 0.014 | 0.110 | 0.009 | 0.102 | Significant |
4 | SQ—US—CI | 0.046 | 0.010 | 0.110 | 0.008 | 0.102 | Significant |
5 | PE—US—CI | 0.043 | 0.007 | 0.109 | 0.004 | 0.103 | Significant |
6 | AE—US—CI | 0.042 | 0.008 | 0.094 | 0.005 | 0.087 | Significant |
7 | ME—US—CI | 0.047 | 0.011 | 0.111 | 0.008 | 0.104 | Significant |
8 | CQ—PU—US | 0.037 | 0.009 | 0.079 | 0.007 | 0.073 | Significant |
9 | PEOU—PU—US | 0.029 | 0.008 | 0.062 | 0.005 | 0.057 | Significant |
10 | SI—PEOU—US | 0.112 | 0.027 | 0.215 | 0.024 | 0.210 | Significant |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xu, H.; Zhang, M.; Zeng, J.; Hao, H.; Lin, H.-C.K.; Xiao, M. Use of Latent Dirichlet Allocation and Structural Equation Modeling in Determining the Factors for Continuance Intention of Knowledge Payment Platform. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14158992
Xu H, Zhang M, Zeng J, Hao H, Lin H-CK, Xiao M. Use of Latent Dirichlet Allocation and Structural Equation Modeling in Determining the Factors for Continuance Intention of Knowledge Payment Platform. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):8992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14158992
Chicago/Turabian StyleXu, Heng, Menglu Zhang, Jun Zeng, Huihui Hao, Hao-Chiang Koong Lin, and Mengyun Xiao. 2022. "Use of Latent Dirichlet Allocation and Structural Equation Modeling in Determining the Factors for Continuance Intention of Knowledge Payment Platform" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 8992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14158992
APA StyleXu, H., Zhang, M., Zeng, J., Hao, H., Lin, H. -C. K., & Xiao, M. (2022). Use of Latent Dirichlet Allocation and Structural Equation Modeling in Determining the Factors for Continuance Intention of Knowledge Payment Platform. Sustainability, 14(15), 8992. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14158992