EVALUATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF END USER SATISFACTION HEALTHY
INFORMATION SYSTEM (HIS) IN LAYANAN KESEHATAN CUMA-CUMA
DOMPET DHUAFA
Ihdi Syahputra Ritonga, Nia Kumaladewi, Suci Ratnawati
Abstract-Evaluasi of acceptance and satisfaction of users is
one way to assess the success of a system. Healthy
Information System (HIS) is a system used by the unit LKC
Services (LKC) as an operational tool in our employees and
to provide information or data to all levels of management.
In LKC Ciputat there are constraints on the HIS as a server
system that is sometimes down, then the patient data report
generation, employees find it difficult because of incomplete
data and information according to user needs in patient data
reporting features. This study aims to evaluate and assess the
success of his implementation of the system by measuring
the level of acceptance and satisfaction of his users in LKC
based on variables that exist in the model of the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) and End User Computing
Satisfaction (EUCS). This research is a quantitative amount
of 73 respondents surveyed. The process of data analysis
using PLS-SEM approach with SmartPLS Version 3.0. The
results of this study are rejected 2 of 5 hypothesis being
tested is ease of use and content. Relationship variables that
have the greatest influence in this study is the attitude
towards user satisfaction, the format of the attitude and
relationship smallest variable is ease of use of the attitude.
Keywords: HIS, Acceptance and satisfaction of users of the
system, TAM, EUCS, PLS-SEM, SmartPLS
I. PRELIMINARY
Current technological developments so rapidly that
almost all companies have them, the benefits gained from the
development of technology that was so much one of them
presenting that information quickly, reliably, and accurately
and facilitate its work [1]. After applying the information
system, it becomes important for companies to know the
success in the implementation of information systems, one
way to find out is to measure the extent of acceptance and
satisfaction of users the system [24].
Health Services was charity (LKC) is a poor wallet
services Institutions engaged in health aimed at helping the
poor health-related problems. LKC has inpatient and
outpatient already functioning as it should as Hospital. In
operation LKC has implemented an information system that
is Healthy Information System (HIS), where his aims as a
tool in its operations and provides information regarding
health care, a report on health outcomes as well as data about
the patient to all those who need it LKC management.
In the study, researchers focused more on the problems
of acceptance and satisfaction of users of information
systems and models used in relation to these problems,
namely TAM and EUCS, where TAM focuses on acceptance
1
by users of the system [12] and EUCS focused to measure
factors satisfaction level of users of the system information
[9].
The purpose of this study was to determine how the
response of his users associated with the acceptance and
satisfaction in using his information system in order to
contribute to the continued development of information
systems in determining the corrective measures.
This research was conducted using the method of data
collection and data analysis methods. Methods of data
collection consists of observation, interviews, questionnaires
and literature. MethodData analysis in this study using
SmartPLS 3.0 with 2 stages, namely measurement test model
(outer model) and Structural Models (inner model).
II. THEORETICAL BASIS
Evaluation is a study to collect, analyze, and present
useful information about the object of evaluation, to judge
by comparison with indicators of evaluation and the results
are used to make decisions about the object of evaluation
[26].
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) or the
Technology Acceptance Model is a theory about the use of
information systems technology systems that are considered
very influential and is commonly used to describe the
individual acceptance of the use of information technology
systems [8].
End User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) is a form of
an overall evaluation of the users of information systems
based on their experience in using the system [5].
The reasons for selecting the merger of the two models
above are based on the focus of researchers will examine the
variables that exist in two models of the theory related to the
existence of a relationship between acceptance and
satisfaction in using the system [13], The information system
of an organization reliable if it has a good quality and able to
give satisfaction to the users. With the user satisfaction that
will arise in the acceptance of information systems used in
the organization [21].
Sampling in data collection techniques in this study
using the method of sampling nonprobability with saturated
sampling technique. Saturated Sampling is a sampling
technique when the members of the population used as a
sample. This is often done when a relatively small number
of the population. Another term saturation sampling is a
census, where all members of the population used as a
sample [23].
PLS-SEM is one of the methods used in analyzing and
considered strong for use on any kind of scale of such data,
interval data, nominal data and ratios as well as the Table 1 Demographic Analysis Results
assumption that more flexible terms [27]. respondents Frequency Percent
husband 29 40%
Gender
woman 44 60%
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 20-29tahun 34 46%
30-39tahun 30 41%
The research method for this study is the method of mix Age
40-49tahun 7 10%
method (quantitative and qualitative). Quantitative data > 50tahun 2 3%
collection method is done by providing a questionnaire Very helpful 13 18%
containing questions based on the theory of TAM and perananan
Help 36 49%
EUCS. While the methods of qualitative data collection is System
Self help 24 33%
done by the process of interviews and direct observation to
Very satisfied 12 16%
the study. user
In this study, there are two methodologies of research Satisfied 38 52%
satisfaction
conducted by the author, namely: Quite satisfied 23 32%

a. Method of collecting data
1) Observation, in the form of direct observation of the
activities related to the services included in the LKC
and use of information systems applied in LKC,
2) Interviews, related to the duties and powers, duties
and functions, scope of work, information system
services are implemented, the problems and the
impact of the application of existing systems, IT
management and expectations of the management
information system better future.
3) Literature, namely reading and studying various
literature references in the form of journals, books and
previous research related to the study authors.
4) Questionnaires, the method of data collection
indirectly, where researchers interact with the
respondent. Questionnaire itself is a number of
questions related to what is observed then answered
by respondents [10],
b. Data analysis method using SmartPLS in two stages:
1) Outer Model, At the analysis stage model
measurements (measurement models) Performed four
testing stages, four stages are individual item
reliability, internal consistency reliability, average
variance extracted and discriminant validity,
2) Inner models, At this stage of the analysis model of
the structure of this model there are six stages of
testing, ie testing the path coefficient (β), the
coefficient of determination (R ²), T-test using the
method of bootstrapping, the effect size (f²),
predictive relevance (Q²), and the relative impact (q²).
From a total of 73 samples of the study there were
differences away from the sex male and female, with
40% of men versus 60% of women. Then the role of
the system, from 73 samples of 18% said they felt
themselves greatly helped in completing the work, and
49% feel that the system is, and the rest as many as 24
people (33%) find it quite helpful in completing its
task. As for the user satisfaction as indicated in the
table above most of the sample declared themselves
very satisfied when using the system as many as 12
people 16%, then expressed his satisfaction as much
as 52% and the remaining 32% stated very pretty
satisfied in using the system.
4.2 Outer Analysis Results Model
4.2.1 The individual test item reliability
In this test, done by looking at the value of
standardizes the loading factor. This value will indicate
the magnitude of correlation between each item
measurement or indicator with konstraknya. Said ideal
value is above 0.7 (Afthanorhan, 2013; Hair et al., 2012;
Wong K, 2013; Subiyakto et al. 2015; Yamin &
Kurniawan, 2011). Refers to the standard value loading
factor, after testing on SmartPLS 3.0, with the results in
the table below, after testing there are eight indicators is
removed is EOU5, EOU3, for3, USE5, USE3, for1,
CON4, TIM3 which has a value below 0 , 7. But the
value of the standardized loading factor above 0.5 is
acceptable for research testing phase so that the indicator
has a value of about 0.6 would be retained[10],

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Demographic Analysis Results

At this stage, by conducting analysis of responses
to the questions in the questionnaire, especially the
question on the profile of respondents to produce
information relevant demographic characteristics of
respondents. Table below summarizes the results of
demographic analysis.

2
 Table 2 The test results Loading factor said that there is no problem in the test Average Variance
ACC ATT CON EOU FOR TIM US USE Extracted (AVE).
ACC1 0,749
ACC2 0,699
ACC3 0,652 4.2.4 Discriminant Test Validity
ACC4 0,831
ATT1 0,669 The test is performed through two stages of
ATT2 0,872
ATT3 0,753
loading cross examination, which is to see the value of
ATT4
CON1
0,677
0,738
cross loading between indicators and cross loading
CON2 0,707 Fornell-Lacker's (Yamin & Kurniawan, 2011; Hair et al.
CON3 0,741
EOU1 0,766 2014). On the measurement of cross loading between
EOU2
EOU4
0,761
0,734
indicators, carried out by comparing the correlation of
FOR2 0,734 indicators with kostruknya and construct another block.
FOR4 0,903
TIM1 0,860 When the correlation between the indicators with
TIM2 0,770
TIM4 0,645
konstruknya higher than the correlation to construct
US1 0,860 another block, this shows the construct of the predicted
US2 0,715
US3 0,778 size of the block they are better than the other block
US4 0,840
USE1 0,839
(Afthanorhan, 2013; Hair et al., 2012; Wong K, 2013;
USE2
USE4
0,809
0,757
Subiyakto et al. 2015; Yamin & Kurniawan, 2011).
Examination of the cross loading Fornell-Lacker's
done by looking at the roots of the AVE value should be
4.2.2 Test Internal consistency reliability higher than the correlation between a construct with
The test is performed by using a composite value other construct. Here are the test results:
realibility (CR) with a threshold of 0.7 (Afthanorhan,
2013; Hair et al., 2012; Wong K, 2013; Subiyakto et al. Table 5 Discriminant Validity of test
2015; Yamin & Kurniawan, 2011). CR better in ACC ATT CON results
EOU FOR TIM US USE
measuring the internal consistency with Cronbach's ACC 0,736
alpha compared in SEM models because CR does not ATT 0,416 0,747
assume all the same indicators in a variable, CON 0,349 0,237 0,729
EOU 0,336 0,168 0,189 0,754
FOR 0,239 0,504 0,051 0,210 0,823
Table 3 Composite test results Reliability TIM 0,102 0,400 0,154 0,017 0,213 0,764
US 0,228 0,630 0,312 0,164 0,394 0,486 0,800
Variabel Composite Reliability
ACC 0,824
USE 0,298 0,365 0,175 0,481 0,191 0,100 0,400 0,802
ATT 0,833
CON 0,772 The table above shows that the value of the root of
EOU 0,798 AVE higher than the correlation between the construct
FOR 0,806 with other constructs. So based on the results of a two-
TIM 0,805 stage cross loading is known that there is no problem in
US 0,876
the test discriminant validity.
USE 0,844

4.2.3 Test Average Variance Extracted (AVE) 4.3 Results Analysis inner models
Convergent validity testing next is to look at the 4.3.1 Path Coefficient Test
value of Average Variance Extracted (AVE). This value On the path coefficient testing conducted by
represents the amount of variants or diversity manifest researchers at seeing the value of the path (path). Above
variables that can be contained by the latent variables. a threshold value of 0.1 means that the path (path) that
AVE value of at least 0.5 shows the size of convergent has an influence in our model (Afthanorhan, 2013; Hair
validity (Afthanorhan, 2013; Hair et al., 2012; Wong K, et al., 2012; Wong K, 2013; Yamin & Kurniawan, 2011).
2013; Subiyakto et al. 2015; Yamin & Kurniawan, 2011).
Table 4 AVE test results 4.3.2 Test Coefficient of Determination (R-Square)
This test is used to explain the variance of each of
Variabel Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
ACC 0,541
the target variables endogeneous (a variable that is
ATT 0,558 thought to be influenced by other variables in the model)
CON 0,531 with a standard measuring approximately 0.670
EOU 0,568 considered strong, the range of 0.333 rated moderate, and
FOR 0,677
0.190 were considered weak (Hair et al., 2013; Ringle,
TIM 0,583
US 0,641
2015; Wong, 2016).
USE 0,644
4.3.3 T-Tests
From the table above can be seen that the entire In this phase of testing was conducted using
value AVE has a value greater than 0.5 so that it can be bootstrapping is in SmartPLS 3.0 using a two-tailed test
with significance level of 5% in order to test the
3
hypothesis in the research. That hypothesis will be
accepted if it has a t-test value is greater than 1.96 (Hair
et al., 2012; Afthanorhan, 2013; Wong, 2016; Hair et al.
2017).
4.3.4 Test Effect Size (f2)
In this stage of testing to determine the effect of
certain variable to another variable in the model structure
with a threshold value of about 0.02 for a small effect,
0.15 for medium, and 0.35 for a major influence (Hair et
al., 2012; Wong, 2013).
4.3.5 Predictive Test Relevance (Q2)
In the testing phase is done by the method of
blindfolding in order to provide evidence that the
particular variables used in the model is linked predictive
(predictive relevance) with other variables in the research
model and has a threshold value measurement is above
zero (Hair et al. 2012; Wong, 2016; Hair et al. 2017).
4.3.6 Relative Impact Test (Q2)
At the last stage is conducted by blindfolding
method for measuring the relative effect of a particular
variable predictive association with other variables with
the threshold value of about 0.02 for a small effect, 0.15
for medium effect, and 0.35 for a major influence
(Subiyakto et al. 2015; Hair et al. 2017).
The table below summarizes the overall results of the
inner test models.
Table 6 Model Inner test results
4
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the results of the discussion of research on
measuring the success of the system that has been done
using TAM and EUCS integration model, it can be
concluded that:
1. Relationship variables that have the greatest
influence in this study are: ATT → US with the value path
coefficient 0.630, FOR → ATT with the path coefficient
0366, and TIM → ATT with the path coefficient 0.263 and
variable relation smallest is EOU → ATT with the value
path coefficient-0.127 ,
2. Rejection of the hypothesis that two of the seven
EOU → ATT, CON → ATT for testing by t-test, both
paths are rejected. While based on the path coefficient
testing, both showed no significant effect. In fact, the
employees as users think that his not providing adequate
information, since there are reports that are not vague or
incomplete so the user must input the data again, by it that
the user is not satisfied with the ease of use of the system.
5.2 Suggestion
Based on the research that has been done, researchers
have several suggestions for further research based on the
results and limitations described earlier:
1. Researchers gave suggestions for further research in
order to review the indicators that will be used, the
input / advice of experts should be made to
strengthen the indicators on specific variables and
also to reduce the elimination of many indicators.
2. The study was conducted with the addition of the
sample due to the calculation SmartPLS less suitable
tools with a relatively small population is not
recommended, suggestions for the sample used is
the minimum number of respondents in the
calculation SmartPLS 10% of the total population.
3. To give originiality value that can be used as
background in the study in the journal
merepresantasikan suggested a minimum of four
elements, namely the determination of the level of
satisfaction, determining indicators, sampling,
developing hypotheses.
Reference
[1] Adityawarman, A. (2012). Maturity level
measurement Alignment Strategy Toward Information
Technology Business Strategy Analysis Using COBIT
Framework 4.1 (Case Study PT. BRI, PT). Journal of
Accounting and Auditing, 166-177.
[2] Afthanorhan, W. (2013). Comparison of Partial Least
Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and
Covariance Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-
SEM) for Confirmatory Factor Analysis. International
Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative
Technology, 2 (5), 198-205.
[3] Al-Gahtani, S. (2001). The Applicabilitycof TAM
Outside North America: An Empirical Test in the
United Kingdom.
[4] Arikunto, S. (2002). Research Procedure A Practice
Approach. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Reserved.
[5] Arthur, A., Andry, E., & Abdurachman, E. (2008).
Analysis of User Satisfaction Underwriting
Information Systems at PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia.
Devices Journal News, 28-44.
[6] Brown, S., Massey, A., Montoya-Weiss, M., &
Burkman, J. (2002). Do I really have to? User
acceptance of mandatory technology. European
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 11, 283-295.
[7] Chang, E. (2010). A Model for Mandatory Use of
Software Technolgies: An Integrative Approach by
Applying Multiple Levels of Abstraction of informong
Science. Information Science: the International Journal
of an Emerging Transdicipline Volume 13.
[8] Davis, FD (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived
Ease Of Use, And User Acceptance Of Information
Technology. MIS Quarterly, Management Information
Systems Research Center University of Minnesota
Vol. 13, No. 3, 319-340, 331.
[9] Doll, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1998). The Measurement
of End-User Computing Satisfaction. Management
Information Systems Quarterly, 259-274.
[10] Guritno, S., & Sudaryono, R. (2011). Theory and
Application of IT Research: Methodology for
Information Technology Research. Yogyakarta: Andi.
[11] Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., & Mena, J. (2012).
An assessment of the use of partial least squares
structural equation modeling in marketing research.
Journal of the academy of marketing science, Vol. 40
No. 3, 414-433.
[12] Hartono, J. (2007). Behavioral Information Systems.
Yogyakarta: Andi.
[13] Istiarni, A. (2016). Revenue Analysis Information
Systems Technology Acceptance Model-Based
Library and End-User Computing Satisfaction at
UMM Library. Yogyakarta: Graduate UIN Sunan
Kalijaga Yogyakarta.
[14] Putra Jaya, S., Subiyakto, A., Yunita, I., Nur Gunawan,
M., & Durachman, Y. (2018). Assessing the User
Satisfaction Perspectives of Information Systems: A
Case Study Library in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.
[15] Jogiyanto. (2008). Keprilakuan Information Systems.
Yogyakarta: Edivsi Revision. Yogyakarta.
5
[16] Lin, C., Shih, H., & Sher, P. (2007). Integrating
technology into technology acceptance readiness: The
TRAM models. Psychology and Marketing, 641-657.
[17] Linders, S. (2004). Using the Technology Acceptance
Model in Determining strategies for the
implementation of mandatory IS. Mathematics and
Computer Science.
[18] Nazir, M. (2009). Research methods. Jakarta:
GhaliaIndonesia.
[19] Ringle, C., Da Silva, D., & Bido, D. (2015). Structural
equation modeling with the Smartpls.
[20] Means. (2000). Effect of Perceived Ease, Perceived
usefulness, Anxiety, Attitude and Usage Micro
Computer to Work results Accounting Educators.
Thesis, Master of Accounting Postgraduate Program
Diponegoro University.
[21] Sekundera, C. (2006). Analysis of End-User Revenue
by Using TAM and EUCS Against Core Banking
Application System. Thesis. Diponegoro University.
[22] Subiyakto, A., Ahlan, AR, & et al. (2016). The User
Satisfaction Perspective of the Information System
Projects. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering
and Computer Science, 215-223.
[23] Sugiyono. (2016). Research Methodology
Quantitative, Qualitative, and R & D. Bandung: CV
Alfabeta.
[24] Suryawan, MB, & Prihandoko. (2017). Evaluation of
SIAKAD Polytechnic of Madiun Using TAM and
EUCS.
[25] Wong, K. (2013). Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using
SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 24 No. 1, 1-32.
[26] Hero. (2011). Evaluation: Theory, Models, Standards,
Applications, and Professional. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
[27] Yamin, S., & Kurniawan, H. (2011). New Generation
of Data Processing with Partial Least Square Path
Modeling. Jakarta: Salemba Infotek.