Research Project

Fiza Masood

17U00574

Section B

Topic: Impact of mobile marketing on consumer purchase intention

 Chapter IV

Results

4.1 Pre Test

Before carrying out the final survey for this study, a pretest of the questionnaire was conducted
with 30 respondents in order to avoid and get rid of any issue that comes in the pre test. Since, no
issues were observed in the pre test; hence the same questionnaire was circulated for collecting
the responses and the participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire.

4.2 Administrative Procedure

A Google form was created in order to get the responses. The link of the form was sent to the
respondents via Whatsapp, Instagram and Email. The pen and paper format was not followed in
this research as due to Covid-19, the face to face interaction has been restricted to a great extent.
Hence, in order to collect the maximum number of responses, the questionnaire was circulated
online. Respondents were asked to fill the questionnaire which contained items for Consumer
Purchase Intention, Informativeness, Perceived Entertainment, Permission, and Perceived
Usefulness in regard to mobile marketing. The respondents were asked to fill the questionnaire
based on their discretion and judgment of the impact of mobile marketing.

4.3 Sample Statistics:

The usable questionnaires for the final analysis were 250 out of a total of 270 responses. The
responses in the final analysis did not have missing values at all. Out of 250 respondents, 106
were male whereas 144 respondents were female. Around 70% of the respondents were between
the age of 20 and 25 years. Table 4.1 shows the demographic data of the respondents.
 Table 4.1

Demographic data

Variable Category Frequency Percentage

Male 106 42%

Gender
Female 144 58%

Below 20 5 2%

20-25 176 70%

Age
26-34 62 25%

Above 34 7 3%

A Levels/ FSc 2 1%

Undergraduate 160 64%

Formal years of
education Graduate 27 11%

Postgraduate 61 24%

Employed 75 30%

Unemployed 9 4%
Occupation

Student 164 66%

 Below PKR 50,000 69 33%

PKR 50,001-
PKR150,000 79 38%
Monthly household
income PKR 150,001- PKR
250,000 43 20%

Above PKR 250,000 59 28%

The following table 4.2 report means and standard deviations of the latent constructs which are
Consumer Purchase Intention, Informativeness, Perceived Entertainment, Permission, and
Perceived Usefulness in regard to mobile marketing used in this study. Scores of latent
constructs for each respondent were saved during CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis).

Table 4.2

Mean and Standard Deviations of Latent Constructs

Latent Construct Mean Std. Deviation

Consumer Purchase
Intention
3.86 0.565
Informativeness
3.87 0.620
Perceived
Entertainment
3.81 0.688
Permission
3.82 0.693
Perceived Usefulness
3.88 0.629
4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis-Results (Measurement Model):

In context with the discussion in the preceding chapter, confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted in order to verify the reliability and validity of the latent constructs being used in this
study. In the PLS-SEM context the reliability and validity of constructs are assessed by
measurement model or the outer-model through assessing the item composite reliability;
construct reliability, convergent reliability, and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2009; Hair et
al., 2011; Hair et al., 2012; Lowry & Gaskin, 2014). Subsequent were the results of the
measurement model or the confirmatory factor analysis.

4.4.1 Reliability:

Internal consistency or reliability of reflective construct estimates the degree to which a latent
variable (or a set of latent variables) is reliable with what it intends to calculate (Straub et al.,
2004). The internal consistency can be gauged through Cronbach's alpha of a construct (Roldan
& Sanchez-Franco, 2012). The value Cronbach alpha ranging from 0.60 to 0.70 is satisfactory
for exploratory research while for more advanced stages, the value should be more than 0.70
(Hair et al., 2016). In this study, the all the latent variables had Cronbach's alpha greater than 0.6.
As a result, it can be contingent that the latent constructs were internally consistent. Convergent
validity of the constructs can be judged by average variance extracted (AVE), which is a more
conservative criteria, and convergent validity can also be assessed from composite reliability
(CR) of a construct (Malhotra & Dash, 2011). A latent factor is considered to have convergent
validity if its CR is 0.5 and exceeding; and AVE for each latent variable is above 0.5. For this
study, CR of all the constructs was greater than 0.50; and AVE was as well greater than 0.5.
Values for Cronbach's alpha, CR and AVE are reported in table 4.3 below
 Table 4.3

Reliability of Constructs

Construct Cronbach's Composite Average Variance Extracted

Alpha Reliability (AVE) Convergent Validity
(CR)
Consumer Purchase 0.754 0.836 0.504
Intention
Informativeness 0.701 0.834 0.627
Perceived 0.772 0.854 0.595
Entertainment
Permission 0.756 0.845 0.577
Perceived 0.667 0.818 0.600
Usefulness

The next step in judging the reliability of the latent construct was examination of the reliability
of individual items of the questionnaire that were used to measure respective latent constructs.
Individual item reliability is sufficient when an item has a factor loading of greater than 0.5 (Hair
et al., 2009).

In this study, all the reflective indicators for Consumer Purchase Intention, Informativeness,
Perceived Entertainment, Permission, and Perceived Usefulness in regard to mobile marketing
have factor loadings greater than 0.50 except for two indicators of informativeness (item 1 and
item 4), one indicator of perceived entertainment (item 4), one indicator of permission (item 2)
and two indicators of perceived usefulness (item 2 and 3). Hence these were dropped for better
model fit (table 4.4 reports factor loadings of the indicators of latent constructs). The rest of the
items and constructs were considered internally consistent.
 Table 4.4

Factor Loadings for Latent Constructs

Consumer
Perceived Perceived
Indicator/Item Purchase Informativeness Permission
Entertainment Usefulness
Intention
CPI1 0.751
CPI2 0.690
CPI3 0.681
CPI4 0.689
CPI5 0.738
INFO1 Dropped
INFO2 0.739
INFO3 0.819
INFO4 Dropped
INFO5 0.814
PE1 0.741
PE2 0.743
PE3 0.785
PE4 Dropped
PE5 0.813
PER1 0.758
PER2 Dropped
PER3 0.763
PER4 0.733
PER5 0.783
PU1 0.773
PU2 Dropped
PU3 Dropped
PU4 0.794
PU5 0.756
4.4.2. Validity & Multi-co linearity:

Discriminant validity of latent constructs can be confirmed by Fornell-Lacker criteria as to which

the square root of AVE of each latent construct should be bigger than correlation of that
construct with any other construct. Table 4.5 below reports the discriminant validity for each
construct, from this table it can be observed that the diagonal elements (the square root of AVE)
for each construct is larger than all the other entries in the table. Therefore, we can wrap up that
discriminant validity holds for all the constructs in this study. Another measure for assessing
discriminant validity in Smart PLS3 is the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio. The ratio is
calculated by dividing the correlations of the items of all the constructs by the correlations of the
items of the same constructs. The constructs is considered to have discriminant validity if the
ratio is less than 1 (Hensler et al., 2015). Table 4.6 reports the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) for
each construct; it can be observed from the table that ratios calculated for each latent construct
when compared to other constructs is less than 1. So we can say that discriminant validity holds
for all the latent constructs in this study.
 Table 4.5

Forenll-Lacker Criteria for Discriminant Validity

Construct Consumer Informativeness Perceived Permission Perceived

Purchase Entertainment Usefulness
Intention
Consumer 0.710
Purchase
Intention
Informativeness 0.664 0.792
Perceived 0.685 0.681 0.771
Entertainment
Permission 0.808 0.623 0.644 0.760
Perceived 0.635 0.671 0.654 0.587 0.774
Usefulness

Table 4.6

Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Ratio Comparisons

Construct Consumer Informativeness Perceived Permission

Purchase Entertainment
Intention
Informativeness 0.912
Perceived 0.896 0.925
Entertainment
Permission 1.065 0.859 0.841
Perceived 0.889 0.991 0.911 0.826
Usefulness
Using Smart PLS3 , In CFA, multi-collinearity among independent (exogenous) variables can
also be estimated via variance inflation factor (VIF) of a latent constructs which should be
smaller than 3.3 (Lowry & Gaskin, 2014). Table 4.7 below states the VIF values for all the
independent latent constructs employed in this study. It can be observed from the table that VIF
values for all the independent latent constructs are less than 3.3 which indicates that there is no
issue of multi-co linearity amongst the latent constructs in this study

Table 4.7

VIF values for constructs

VIF recommended values

Construct < 3.3
Informativeness 2.374
Perceived Entertainment 2.379
Permission 1.979
Perceived Usefulness 2.162
 References

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of

Marketing theory and Practice, 19 (2), 139-152.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. (2009). Multivariate data

analysis. (7th, Ed.) (Vol. 7). Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant

validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of

marketing science, 43(1), 115-135.

Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014). Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling

(SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to
use it. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 57 (2), 123-146.

Malhotra N. K, Dash S. (2011). Market Research an applied orientation. London, Pearson

Publishing

Roldán, J. L., & Sánchez-Franco, M. J. (2012). Variance-based structural equation modeling:

Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. In Research
methodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering and
information systems (pp. 193-221). IGI Global.