SPSS Tutorial

1
Assignment No.: _____
Assignment Cover Sheet

Student Information (For group assignment, please state names of
Grade/Marks
all members)
Name ID
Office
Module/Subject Information
Acknowledgement
Module/Subject Code MKT 303
Module/Subject Name Marketing Research
Lecturer/Tutor/Facilitator Ms Sumathi
Due Date 16/4/2021
Factors affecting Generation Z in using
Assignment Title/Topic
eWallet in Klang Valley
Intake (where applicable) February
Word Count Date/Time
Declaration
. I/We have read and understood the Programme Handbook that explains on plagiarism, and I/we testify that,
unless otherwise acknowledged, the work submitted herein is entirely my/our own.
. I/We declare that no part of this assignment has been written for me/us by any other person(s) except where
such collaboration has been authorized by the lecturer concerned.
. I/We authorize the University to test any work submitted by me/us, using text comparison software, for
instances of plagiarism. I/We understand this will involve the University or its contractors copying my/our
work and storing it on a database to be used in future to test work submitted by others.
Note: 1) The attachment of this statement on any electronically submitted assignments will be deemed to have
the same authority as a signed statement.
2) The Group Leader signs the declaration on behalf of all members.
Updated 22 February 2016-sue
Page 1 of 47
1
Signature: Date: 15/4/2021

E-mail:

Page 2 of 47
1
Feedback/Comments*
Main Strengths
Main Weaknesses
Suggestions for improvement
Student acknowledge feedback/comments
Grader’s signature Student’s signature:

Date: Date:
Note:
1)A soft and hard copy of the assignment shall be submitted.
2)The signed copy of the assignment cover sheet shall be retained by the marker.
3)If the Turnitin report is required, students have to submit it with the assignment. However, departments may allow students
up to THREE (3) working days after submission of the assignment to submit the Turnitin report. The assignment shall only
be marked upon the submission of the Turnitin report.
*Use additional sheets if required.

Page 3 of 47
1
Abstract
In this research, the problem statement is “What are the factors affecting Generation Z
in using eWallet in Klang Valley?” Besides, the research objective is to investigate the
positive and negative factors affecting Gen Z in using eWallet in Klang Valley. Moreover,
this research is classified as a descriptive research whereby online survey via the Google
Forms was used to collect the primary data. Furthermore, the secondary data are from the 30
online journals. The major findings in this research are there is a relationship between both
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use with the use of eWallet among Gen Z in
Klang Valley. In contrast, there is no relationship between perceived security and the use of
eWallet among Gen Z in Klang Valley. The findings are significant as perceived security was
hypothesised to be the major factor affecting Gen Z in using eWallet. However, it was found
to be false. In conclusion, perceived security is not a factor affecting Gen Z in using eWallet
in Klang Valley, which is inconsistent with most of the existing studies.

Page 4 of 47
1
Table of Contents
3.0 Research Methodology…………………………………………………………………….8
3.1 Research Paradigm……………………………………………………………………..8
3.2 Research Data…………………………………………………………………..………8
3.2.1 Secondary Data……………………………………………………………………8
3.2.2 Primary Data………………………………………………………………………8
3.3 Research Method……………………………………………………………………….9
3.4 Sampling………………………………………………………………………………..9
3.4.1 Sample Population………………………………………………………………...9
3.4.2 Sample Frame……………………………………………………………………..9
3.4.3 Sample Technique………………………………………………………………...9
3.4.4 Sample Size……………………………………………………………………...10
3.5 Questionnaire Design…………………………………………………………………10
3.5.1 Questionnaire Matrix…………………………………………………………….10
3.6 Analysis……………………………………………………………………………….12
4.0 Results and Discussion…………………………………………………………………...14
4.1 Respondent Analysis………………………………………………………………….14
4.2 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………15
4.2.1 Preliminary Analysis…………………………………………………………….15
4.2.1.1 Non-Response Bias………………………………………………………...15
4.2.1.2 Normality Test……………………………………………………………...16
4.2.1.3 Harman’s Single Factor / Common Method Variance (CMV)…….………19
4.2.2 Measurement Analysis…………………………………………………………..20
4.2.2.1 Factor Analysis……………………………………………………………..20
4.2.2.2 Common Method Bias (CMB)……………………………………………..21
4.2.2.3 Convergent Validity………………………………………………………..22
4.2.2.4 Discriminant Validity (HTMT)…………………………………………….23
4.2.3 Structural Analysis………………………………………………………………23
4.2.3.1 R Square……………………………………………………………………23
4.2.3.2 Model Fit / Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)…………..24
4.3 Hypothesis Testing……………………………………………………………………24
5.0 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..27
6.0 References………………………………………………………………………………..29
7.0 Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………36

Page 5 of 47
1
8.0 Appendix
B……………………………………………………………………………….38
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Sample size calculator……………………………………...……………………10
Figure 3.2: Cronbach’s alpha for PU…………………………………………………………13
Figure 3.3: Cronbach’s alpha for PEOU……………………………………………………..13
Figure 3.4: Cronbach’s alpha for PS…………………………………………………………13
Figure 3.5: Cronbach’s alpha for use of eWallet……………………………………………..13
Table 4.1: Age of Respondents………………………………………………………………14
Figure 4.1: Age of respondents………………………………………………………………14
Figure 4.2: Partial Least Squares (PLS) model………………………………………………15
Table 4.2: Normality Test Results……………………………………………………………16
Table 4.3: Harman’s Single Factor Results…………………………………………………..19
Table 4.4: Factor Analysis Results…………………………………………………………...20
Table 4.5: Common Method Bias Results……………………………………………………22
Table 4.6: Convergent Validity Results……………………………………………………...23
Table 4.7: Discriminant Validity Results…………………………………………………….23
Table 4.8: R Square Results………………………………………………………………….24
Table 4.9: Model Fit Results…………………………………………………………………24
Table 4.10: Hypothesis Testing Results……………………………………………………...26

Page 6 of 47
1
List of Abbreviations
Gen Z: Generation Z
TAM: Technology Acceptance Model
PU: Perceived Usefulness
PEOU: Perceived Ease of Use
PS: Perceived Security
IT: Information Technology
A: Attitude toward Using
BI: Behavioral Intention to Use
DV: Dependent Variable
IV: Independent Variables

Page 7 of 47
1
Factors affecting Generation Z in using eWallet in Klang Valley

3.0 Research Methodology
3.1 Research Paradigm
This research was classified as a descriptive research, which was a research design
that depicted the characteristics of the investigated population or phenomenon (Nassaji,
2015). It was conducted using the survey method which permitted the collection of primary
data that gave a lot of information even for the forthcoming research. Besides, the diverse and
accurate primary data provided a comprehensive understanding of the research topic. Most
importantly, descriptive research was run in the respondent’s natural surroundings, which
assured that high quality and reliable data was gathered.
3.2 Research Data

3.2.1 Secondary Data
Secondary data was defined as the data that have already been gathered for purposes
other than the issue at hand (Martins, Cunha & Serra, 2018). It was readily accessible and
there were many sources from which related data can be gathered and used, thus time saving.
Besides, the data collection can be completed within a few weeks based on the scale of data
required. In this research context, the secondary data were the 30 online journals related to
the research topic and addressed on the factors affecting people in using eWallet as shown in
Appendix B. Among all, journals by Azman, Tan and Bakri (2020), Chua, Lim and Aye
(2020), Goh (2017), Ibrahim, Hussin and Hussin (2019) and Karim, Haque, Ulfy, Hossain
and Anis (2020) were used more extensively.
3.2.2 Primary Data

Primary data were originated by a researcher for the precise purpose of addressing the
issue at hand (Kabir, 2016). As such, the data gathered was first-hand and authentic since
there was no dilution of data. Moreover, researcher can control how the data was gathered
and how to best make use of it in drawing purposeful research insights. In this research
context, survey whereby the data was gathered from a predefined group of respondents to
gain information and insights into the research topic was used as it was one of the easiest and
fastest ways data collection (Ponto, 2015). To be specific, online survey was used and it was
discussed in the following section.

Page 8 of 47
1
3.3 Research Method

Online survey was defined as a research method whereby a set of survey questions
was sent out to the target samples and they can answer to it over the World Wide Web
(WWW) (Evans & Mathur, 2005). It was a quicker medium to reach the samples, thus
extremely fast in getting responses from them. Most importantly, online survey permitted the
respondents to respond anonymously, hence they normally illustrate a more genuine and
truthful attitude in giving responses. Since this research was carried out under the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic, which was easily transmitted through physical interaction, online
survey was deemed to be the best method in collecting primary data as it did not require
physical interaction between both the researcher and respondents. To be specific, the online
survey was conducted via the use of Google Forms and the link to this Google Forms was
sent out to the samples via online platforms such as WhatsApp and Instagram in getting
responses.
3.4 Sampling
3.4.1 Sample Population
Sample population was defined as a group that was a representative subgroup of the
population being investigated for research purposes (Majid, 2018). Instead of focusing on the
entire population, a smaller sample population was chosen for the ease of analysis. In this
research context, the sample population was Generation Z, hereinafter Gen Z eWallet users in
Klang Valley.
3.4.2 Sample Frame

Sample frame was defined as a series of all the elements in the population (Michael,
Lewis-Beck, Bryman & Liao, 2004). In this research context, the sampling frame was the age
of respondents. Specifically, they were within the age range from age 11 to 25. This was
because Gen Z was defined as individuals who were born after the year of 1995 and up to
2010 as mentioned earlier.
3.4.3 Sample Technique

In this research context, the sample technique used was convenience sampling
whereby it attempted to gather a sample of convenient members (Leiner, 2014). Often,
respondents were chosen because they appeared to be in the right location at the right time for

Page 9 of 47
1
the convenience of researcher. Most importantly, it was the cheapest and yet most convenient
technique among the others.
3.4.4 Sample Size
Sample size was defined as the number of subjects to be included in a research
(Vishwakarma, 2017). In this research context, a sample size calculator was used to
determine the sample size in drawing the results that mirror the target population as
accurately as required. Based on Figure 3.1, a sample size of 196 was needed under a
confidence level of 95%, confidence interval of seven and a population of 7,997,000 in Klang
Valley for the year 2020.
Figure 3.1: Sample size calculator
3.5 Questionnaire Design

Questionnaire was defined as an established set of questions for gathering data from
the respondents (Young, 2015). It was comparatively a simpler approach to plan, design and
conduct since it did not require much specialized proficiency or know-how. In this research
context, a 5-Point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree)
requiring the respondents to imply an extent of agreement or disagreement with each of a
series of statements about the stimulus objects was used as it was easy to understand.
3.5.1 Questionnaire Matrix

In this research context, the questionnaire was mostly taken and designed based on the
journals by Alaeddin, Altounjy, Zainudin & Kamarudin (2018), Aydin & Bumaz (2016), Goh
(2017) and Razif, Misiran, Sapiri & Yusof (2020).
Variable Question Author

Perceived 1) eWallet minimizes the time I spent on payment. Goh (2017)
Usefulness (PU) 2) I believe payment transactions will be difficult to Razif, Misiran,

Page 10 of 47
1
perform without eWallet. Sapiri & Yusof
(2020)
3) I think eWallet is useful for me to buy products. Aydin &
4) I think eWallet makes it easier for me to buy Bumaz (2016)
products.
5) I think eWallet saves time for me to buy products.
6) Using eWallet will make it easier for me to
conduct transactions.
7) I find eWallet to be useless for making payments.
8) Using eWallet will take more time than using
traditional payment methods.
Perceived Ease 1) I do not get frustrated when using eWallet. Goh (2017)
of Use (PEOU) 2) I feel flexible in performing eWallet.
3) Less effort is needed when I perform eWallet.
4) It is easy to remember how to use eWallet. Alaeddin,
Altounjy,
Zainudin &
Kamarudin
(2018)
5) I think using eWallet is easy. Aydin &
6) It will be difficult for me to become skillful at Bumaz (2016)
using eWallet.
7) I think it is easy for me to learn how to use
eWallet.
8) It is easy to perform the steps required to use
eWallet.
Perceived 1) Most eWallets provide adequate payment Goh (2017)
Security (PS) security.
2) I prefer to use eWallet that provides security
insurance.
3) I believe my personal information is secure when Razif, Misiran,
using eWallet. Sapiri & Yusof
4) I believe eWallet is secure. (2020)
5) Security features do not affect my decision to use

Page 11 of 47
1
eWallet.
6) I find eWallet secure for conducting my payment Aydin &
transactions. Bumaz (2016)
7) I am afraid for unreasonable charges when using
eWallet.
8) I am comfortable with having my credit card
integrated into my eWallet.
Use of eWallet 1) I am likely to use eWallet in the future. Aydin &
2) I am willing to use eWallet in near future rather Bumaz (2016)
than not using it.
3) I intend to use eWallet when it is one of the
payment methods.
4) I intend to increase my use of eWallet if Razif, Misiran,
possible. Sapiri & Yusof
(2020)
3.6 Analysis
Four different test and analysis on data testing, namely pre-test, preliminary,
measurement and structural analysis were carried out prior to the hypothesis testing for
validity. Pre-test one was conducted by asking three respondents to check on the potential
grammar and spelling error in the questionnaire before the link to the Google Forms was sent
out (Ng, 2006). After it was completed, pre-test two, which was reliability tests were
conducted separately for each independent (IV) and dependent variable (DV) for the first 30
respondents to examine its Cronbach’s alpha. According to Yusoff (2012), the items were
considered to represent an adequate level of internal consistency if the Cronbach’s alpha was
within 0.5 to 0.7 and a good level if it was above 0.7. Based on Figure 3.2 to Figure 3.5, the
Cronbach’s alpha for PU and PS were 0.675 and 0.625 respectively, at an adequate level
while the Cronbach’s Alpha for PEOU and use of eWallet were 0.750 and 0.926 respectively,
at a good level. Following, preliminary analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS) while both measurement and structural analysis were
conducted using the Partial Least Squares (PLS).

Page 12 of 47
1
Figure 3.2: Cronbach’s alpha for PU Figure 3.3: Cronbach’s alpha for PEOU
Figure 3.4: Cronbach’s alpha for PS Figure 3.5: Cronbach’s alpha for use of eWallet
4.0 Results and Discussion

4.1 Respondent Analysis
Based on Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1, majority of the respondents, 164 out of 196, which
is about 84% are within the age range from age 21 to 25. This is because convenience
sampling was used and hence the respondents from this age range are the most readily

Page 13 of 47
1
available samples to the researcher. Following, 31 respondents, which is about 16% are
within the age range from age 16 to 20 and only one respondent is within 11- to 15-year-old.
Table 4.1: Age of Respondents
Figure 4.1: Age of respondents
4.2 Data Analysis

Page 14 of 47
1
Based on Figure 4.2, the three IVs are PU, PEOU and PS while the DV is use of
eWallet.
Figure 4.2: Partial Least Squares (PLS) model
4.2.1 Preliminary Analysis

4.2.1.1 Non-Response Bias
Non-response bias arises when there is a significant disparity between those who
answered the survey and those who did not (Sedgwick, 2014). This may happen for three
major reasons. First, when the respondents are rejecting to participate in the survey. This has
been reduced to a minimal level whereby the samples who have a connection with the
researcher were approached, thus they are more likely to respond to the survey. This is also
consistent with the concept of convenience sampling. Second, when the respondents did not
answer all the questions. This has been eliminated completely as the setting in the Google
Forms required them to answer all questions to submit their responses. Third, when the
respondents answered the questions but there was an anticipated sequence in their answers.
This has again been reduced to a minimal level with the process of data cleaning and the
deleted data were replaced by other acceptable responses. As such, the non-response bias in

Page 15 of 47
1
this research is said to be at a minimal level and the data are in an excellent condition to
continue with other analysis.
4.2.1.2 Normality Test

Table 4.2 presents the results from two famous normality tests, namely the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) and Shapiro-Wilk test, which is based on the interrelationship
between the data and the reciprocal normal scores, thus serves a better power as compared to
the K-S test even after the Lilliefors correction. Besides, it is more appropriate for smaller
sample sizes but it can also examine sample sizes as large as 2000. For this reason, it is the
best numerical measures for determining the normality in this research context. According to
Ghasemi and Zahediasi (2012), probabilities larger than 0.05 suggest that the data are normal
and vice versa. Since the significance value under the Shapiro-Wilk are all 0.000, which is
smaller than 0.05, it is said that the data are not normally distributed. Hence, the null
hypothesis which suggests that the data are normally distributed is rejected while the
alternative hypothesis which suggests the opposite is accepted.
Table 4.2: Normality Test Results

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
eWallet minimizes the .263 196 .000 .793 196 .000
time I spent on
payment.
I believe payment .179 196 .000 .914 196 .000
transactions will be
difficult to perform
without eWallet.
I think eWallet is useful .253 196 .000 .777 196 .000
for me to buy products.
I think eWallet makes it .257 196 .000 .793 196 .000
easier for me to buy
products.
I think eWallet saves .251 196 .000 .776 196 .000
time for me to buy
products.
Page 16 of 47
1
Using eWallet will .283 196 .000 .765 196 .000
make it easier for me to
conduct transactions.
I find eWallet to be .276 196 .000 .787 196 .000
useless for making
payments.
Using eWallet will take .239 196 .000 .882 196 .000
more time than using
traditional payment
methods.
I do not get frustrated .246 196 .000 .870 196 .000
when using eWallet.
I feel flexible in .243 196 .000 .804 196 .000
performing eWallet.
Less effort is needed .231 196 .000 .826 196 .000
when I perform
eWallet.
It is easy to remember .315 196 .000 .739 196 .000
how to use eWallet.
I think using eWallet is .342 196 .000 .733 196 .000
easy.
It will be difficult for .298 196 .000 .797 196 .000
me to become skilful at
using eWallet.
I think it is easy for me .346 196 .000 .718 196 .000
to learn how to use
eWallet.
It is easy to perform the .309 196 .000 .754 196 .000
steps required to use
eWallet.
Most eWallets provide .254 196 .000 .850 196 .000
adequate payment
security.

Page 17 of 47
1
I prefer to use eWallet .318 196 .000 .735 196 .000
that provides security
insurance.
I believe my personal .213 196 .000 .884 196 .000
information is secure
when using eWallet.
I believe eWallet is .219 196 .000 .881 196 .000
secure.
Security features do not .192 196 .000 .903 196 .000
affect my decision to
use eWallet.
I find eWallet secure .263 196 .000 .863 196 .000
for conducting my
payment transactions.
I am afraid for .230 196 .000 .875 196 .000
unreasonable charges
when using eWallet.
I am comfortable with .157 196 .000 .905 196 .000
having my credit card
integrated into my
eWallet.
I am likely to use .333 196 .000 .731 196 .000
eWallet in the future.
I am willing to use .310 196 .000 .743 196 .000
eWallet in near future
rather than not using it.
I intend to use eWallet .280 196 .000 .785 196 .000
when it is one of the
payment methods.
I intend to use eWallet .265 196 .000 .804 196 .000
when it is one of the
payment methods.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Page 18 of 47
1
4.2.1.3 Harman’s Single Factor / Common Method Variance (CMV)
Based on Table 4.3, if the total variance extracted by one factor is above 50%,
common method bias (CMB) is present in the research (Tehseen, Ramayah & Sajilan, 2017).
One of the simplest methods to examine if CMB is of concern in a research is via the
Harman’s Single Factor, in which all items measuring the latent variables are loaded into one
common factor. In this research context, the highest percentage of variance is 33.774%,
which is lower than the recommended threshold of 50%. Therefore, it suggests that CMB
does not influence the data, hence the results. Besides, Table 4.3 suggests that there are seven
factors and the cumulative percentage of 70.277% suggests that about 70% of the data are
usable, which is deemed to be good.
Table 4.3: Harman’s Single Factor Results

Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Component Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 9.457 33.774 33.774 9.457 33.774 33.774
2 2.935 10.483 44.257 2.935 10.483 44.257
3 1.873 6.690 50.946 1.873 6.690 50.946
4 1.601 5.718 56.664 1.601 5.718 56.664
5 1.452 5.186 61.850 1.452 5.186 61.850
6 1.334 4.764 66.615 1.334 4.764 66.615
7 1.025 3.662 70.277 1.025 3.662 70.277
8 .956 3.414 73.691
9 .742 2.650 76.341
10 .707 2.526 78.868
11 .616 2.199 81.067
12 .576 2.059 83.126
13 .519 1.855 84.981
14 .475 1.695 86.676
15 .450 1.607 88.282
16 .418 1.494 89.776
17 .394 1.408 91.184
18 .353 1.259 92.443

Page 19 of 47
1
19 .325 1.159 93.602
20 .286 1.022 94.624
21 .259 .924 95.547
22 .238 .851 96.399
23 .219 .783 97.182
24 .205 .730 97.912
25 .179 .641 98.553
26 .163 .581 99.133
27 .126 .450 99.583
28 .117 .417 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
4.2.2 Measurement Analysis

4.2.2.1 Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is a numerical approach for determining which elemental factors are
measured by a much larger number of observed variables. In relation to this, Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test are used to measure the strength of the relation among the
variables. According to Hadi, Abdullah and Ilham (2016), KMO measures the sampling
adequacy which should be larger than 0.5 for an adequate factor analysis to continue. In this
research context, seven variables that have a value of less than 0.5 were dropped from the
analysis. Based on Table 4.4, all the remaining variables are greater than 0.5, ranging from
0.602 to 0.904. To be specific, PEOU consists of seven questions with values of 0.812, 0.798,
0.784, 0.861, 0.749, 0.777 and 0.602, PS consists of four questions with values of 0.790,
0.858, 0.904 and 0.879, PU consists of six questions with values of 0.619, 0.845, 0.840,
0.885, 0.860 and 0.787 and use of eWallet consists of four questions with values of 0.872,
0.886, 0.869 and 0.859. As such, the construct validity is ensured.
Table 4.4: Factor Analysis Results

PEOU PS PU Use of eWallet
Q10 0.812
Q11 0.798
Q12 0.784
Q13 0.861
Q15 0.749
Q16 0.777
Page 20 of 47
1
Q17 0.790
Q19 0.858
Q2 0.619
Q20 0.904
Q22 0.879
Q25 0.872
Q26 0.886
Q27 0.869
Q28 0.859
Q3 0.845
Q4 0.840
Q5 0.885
Q6 0.860
Q9 0.602
Q1 0.787
4.2.2.2 Common Method Bias (CMB)

CMB arises when the disparities in responses are provoked by the instrument rather
than the actual predistortions of the respondents that the instrument tries to uncover. This can
be examined via the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) which begins at 1 and has no upper
limit. According to Akinwande, Dikko and Agboola (2015), a general rule of thumb for
explaining VIFs is that a value between 1 and 5 suggests moderate correlation between a
given predictor variable and other predictor variables in the model but this is often not severe
enough to require attention. In contrast, a value larger than 5 suggests possibly severe
correlation between a given predictor variable and other predictor variables in the model. In
this case, the coefficient estimates and p-values in the regression output are presumably to be
unreliable. In this research context, none of the VIF values for the predictor variables are
larger than 5, which suggests that multicollinearity will not be an issue in the regression
model. This also suggests that there is no CMB and each question is different.

Page 21 of 47
1
Table 4.5: Common Method Bias Results
VIF
Q10 2.396
Q11 2.222
Q12 2.337
Q13 3.110
Q15 2.210
Q16 2.514
Q17 1.571
Q19 3.222
Q2 1.358
Q20 3.911
Q22 2.676
Q25 2.455
Q26 2.633
Q27 2.492
Q28 2.358
Q3 2.461
Q4 2.891
Q5 3.454
Q6 2.724
Q9 1.598
Q1 2.055
4.2.2.3 Convergent Validity

Convergent validity refers to how jointly the new scale is linked to other variables and
other measures in the same construct. This can be examined via the Cronbach’s alpha, which
is a measure of internal consistency, that is how closely linked a set of items are as a group.
As mentioned earlier, Yusoff (2012) stated that the Cronbach’s alpha of more than 0.7 is at a
good level. Based on Table 4.6, the Cronbach’s alpha for PEOU is 0.885, PS is 0.881, PU is
0.892 and use of eWallet is 0.895. As such, all of them are above 0.7, indicating a high level
of internal consistency for the scale and deemed to be at a good level.

Page 22 of 47
1
Table 4.6: Convergent Validity Results
Cronbach's Alpha
PEOU 0.885
PS 0.881
PU 0.892
Use of eWallet 0.895
4.2.2.4 Discriminant Validity (HTMT)

Discriminant validity can be examined via the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of
Correlations (HTMT). It is tested by the evidence that measures of construct should not be
highly linked to each other. Practically speaking, discriminant validity coefficients should be
considerably smaller in magnitude than convergent validity coefficients. This condition is
reflected in this research context whereby the highest value in discriminant validity, which is
0.703 is smaller than the smallest value in convergent validity, which is 0.881. According to
Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt (2015), the recommended threshold level of HTMT is 0.9.
Based on Table 4.7, all values are below 0.9, thus the three IVs and one DV are said to be
matching well.
Table 4.7: Discriminant Validity Results

PEOU PS PU Use of eWallet
PEOU
PS 0.414
PU 0.700 0.411
Use of eWallet 0.703 0.410 0.696
4.2.3 Structural Analysis

4.2.3.1 R Square
R Square indicates how much of total variation in the DV, use of eWallet can be
explained by the IVs, which are PU, PEOU and PS. According to Zach (2019), a R Square of
just 0.3 may be sufficient. Hence, in this research context, 49.1% (0.491) of the data can be
explained and used for this research, which is at a moderate level. Despite that, a R Square of
0.5 is more appropriate but this is not seen in this research as it is believed that the research
geographic area is too wide.

Page 23 of 47
1
Table 4.8: R Square Results
R Square R Square Adjusted
Use of eWallet 0.491 0.483
4.2.3.2 Model Fit / Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)

Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is defined as the disparity between
the observed correlation and the model implied correlation matrix. Thus, it allows
determining the average magnitude of the differences between observed and expected
correlation as an absolute measure of the model fit criterion. According to Cangur and Ercan
(2015), a SRMR value of 0.06 will be a criterion that will suffice. Based on Table 4.9, the
SRMR value is 0.062, which is said to be adequate.
Table 4.9: Model Fit Results

Saturated Model Estimated Model
SRMR 0.062 0.062
d_ULS 0.879 0.879
d_G 0.483 0.483
Chi-Square 541.985 541.985
NFI 0.815 0.815
4.3 Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is defined as a mean for the researcher to examine the results of a
survey to test if they are purposeful. This can be examined via the p values which are
calculated using the bootstrapping method in PLS. According to Greenland, Senn, Rothman,
Carlin, Poole, Goodman and Altman (2016), a hypothesis test results of p value smaller or
equal to 0.05 means that the alternative hypothesis, H 1 should be accepted with the null
hypothesis, H0 being rejected and vice versa.
H1: There is a relationship between perceived ease of use and the use of eWallet among Gen
Z
in Klang Valley.
H0: There is no relationship between perceived ease of use and the use of eWallet among Gen
Z in Klang Valley.

Page 24 of 47
1
Based on Table 4.10, the p values of 0.000 is lesser than 0.05. Hence, null hypothesis,
H0 is rejected and it is said that there is a relationship between PEOU and the use of eWallet
among Gen Z in Klang Valley. In this research context, most of the respondents agree that
less effort is needed when using eWallet and it is easy to remember how to use it. As such, it
is said that the respondents regard that using eWallet is easy as it requires little mental and
physical effort. This finding is also consistent with the study by Kadir, Ismail and Wok
(2019) who concluded that overall, more than six in ten of the respondents recognized that
using eWallet was effortless. This result is again consistent with the empirical analysis of
numerous studies. In general, consumers always have the intention to use a more user-
friendly technology. Therefore, behavioral intention to use (BI) technology can be predicted
by PEOU. Hence, PEOU is a very crucial factor in the implementation of eWallet system as it
will directly influence the eWallet usage among consumers.
H2: There is a relationship between perceived security and the use of eWallet among Gen Z
in Klang Valley.
Ho: There is no relationship between perceived security and the use of eWallet among Gen Z
in Klang Valley.
Based on Table 4.10, the p values of 0.062 is greater than 0.05. Hence, null
hypothesis, H0 is accepted and it is said that there is no relationship between PS and the use
of eWallet among Gen Z in Klang Valley. In this research context, most of the respondents
have a neutral stand in the statements “Security features do not affect my decision to use
eWallet” and “I am comfortable with having my credit card integrated into my eWallet”. As
such, it is said that the respondents regard that security is not an important factor affecting
them in using eWallet. This finding is also consistent with the study by Chern, Kong, Lee,
Lim and Ong (2018) and Abdullah, Redzuan and Daud (2020) who concluded that security
did not have a significant impact on the behavioral intention to use eWallet. In other words,
the security of eWallet will not influence consumers’ decision to use eWallet.
H3: There is a relationship between perceived usefulness and the use of eWallet among Gen Z
in Klang Valley.
H0: There is no relationship between perceived usefulness and the use of eWallet among Gen
Z in Klang Valley.

Page 25 of 47
1
Based on Table 4.10, the p values of 0.000 is lesser than 0.05. Hence, null hypothesis,
H0 is rejected and it is said that there is a relationship between PU and the use of eWallet
among Gen Z in Klang Valley. In this research context, most of the respondents agree that
eWallet minimizes the time they spent on payment and ease their transactions. As such, it is
said that the respondents regard that using eWallet will boost their performance experience.
This finding is also consistent with the study by Aji, Berakon and Husin (2020) who
concluded that PU directly influenced the intention to use eWallets especially during the
pandemic. The similar relationship between the two stated variables has also been empirically
verified in many studies on eWallet. In general, consumers always have the intention to use a
technology that will enhance their performance experience. Therefore, behavioral intention to
use technology can be predicted by PU. Hence, PU is another crucial factor in the
implementation of eWallet system as it will directly influence the eWallet usage among
consumers.
In short, this hypothesis testing suggests that there is a relationship between both
PEOU and PU with the use of eWallet among Gen Z in Klang Valley. In contrast, the
relationship between PS and the use of eWallet among Gen Z in Klang Valley is absent.
Table 4.10: Hypothesis Testing Results

Page 26 of 47
1
5.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, Gen Z is said to be well-aware that the transformation towards a
cashless world is on the horizon. This is because they have witnessed how the typical
payment approaches of using cash are being progressively replaced by the eWallet payments.
Despite all the Governmental efforts, some remain using cash and are still unwilling to use
eWallet as they feel insecure about its security issues. As such, the research objective is to
investigate the positive and negative factors affecting Gen Z in using eWallet in Klang
Valley. Besides, this research is deemed to be significant as it provides benefits to the
companies. For instance, developers namely Alipay and Samsung Pay may use the findings
in establishing competent marketing plans to attract more Gen Z users. Moreover, the
findings can also assist the future developers in determining the market acceptance and
market prospect in Malaysia.
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is used in this research due to its high
relevancy to the three factors affecting Gen Z in using eWallet, which are PU, PEOU and PS.
It has a conceptual framework with a theoretical foundation serves to forecast the behavioural
intention of consumers towards the adoption and usage of information technology (IT). Most
importantly, it is a specific research framework, thus having a superior competency in
examining consumers’ adoption of various technologies and in analyzing the attitude toward
using (A) a technology as compared to other models.
This research is classified as a descriptive research whereby the online survey was
used in obtaining the primary data from the Gen Z. To be specific, the link to the Google
Forms was sent out and the samples were required to answer a questionnaire with a 5-Point
Likert scale. On the other hand, secondary data was obtained from the 30 online journals.
Moreover, the samples of this research are Gen Z eWallet users in Klang Valley. They are all
within the age range from age 11 to 25. To be specific, most of the respondents are within the
age range from age 21 to 25. This is because convenience sampling was used in reaching all
the 196 samples.
Four different test and analysis on data testing were carried out prior to the hypothesis
testing for validity. First, pre-test one was conducted by asking three respondents to check on
the potential grammar and spelling error while pre-test two was reliability tests on the three
IVs and one DV. Second, preliminary analysis which consists of non-response bias,
normality test and Harman’s Single Factor was carried out. In this research context, the non-
response bias was at a minimal level as various actions have been taken to reduce this. As for
normality test, the data in this research are said to be not normally distributed. Despite that,
the results from Harman’s Single Factor shows that 70% of the data are usable, which is

Page 27 of 47
1
deemed to be good. Third, measurement analysis consists of factor analysis, CMB,
convergent validity and HTMT. Taking all four into consideration, the data in this research
are said to be good as they fulfill the recommended threshold. Therefore, the data are good to
be used for the structural analysis which consists of R Square and SRMR. In this analysis, the
data in both tests are said to be at an adequate level, which is deemed to be suffice.
PU is the extent to which consumers regard that using a specific technology will boost
their performance experience. In this research context, it is found that there is a relationship
between PU and the use of eWallet among Gen Z in Klang Valley. This is because most of
the respondents agree that eWallet minimizes the time they spent on payment and ease their
transactions. Besides, PEOU is the extent to which consumers regard that using a specific
technology will be free of mental and physical effort. In this research context, it is found that
there is a relationship relationship between PEOU and the use of eWallet among Gen Z in
Klang Valley. This is because most of the respondents agree that less effort is needed when
using eWallet and it is easy to remember how to use it. Most importantly, the respondents
regard that using eWallet is easy as it requires little mental and physical effort. As such, both
PU and PEOU are the positive factors affecting Gen Z in using eWallet in Klang Valley.
On the other hand, PS is the unlawful alteration of data which includes unintentional
and deliberately disclosed of secured information. In this research context, it if found that
there is no relationship relationship between PS and the use of eWallet among Gen Z in
Klang Valley. This is because most of the respondents have a neutral stand in the statements
“Security features do not affect my decision to use eWallet” and “I am comfortable with
having my credit card integrated into my eWallet”. As such, it is said that the respondents
regard that security is not an important factor affecting them in using eWallet. Hence, this is
not a significant factor.
In short, the situation described in the beginning of the research, whereby security
was the major issue in making Gen Z to be unwilling to use eWallet is found to be false. This
is because the results of this research show that Gen Z does not see PS as an important factor.
Hence, it can be concluded that the research objective is achieved as both the positive and
negative factors are determined.

Page 28 of 47
1
6.0 References
Abdullah, N., Redzuan, F., & Daud, N. A. (2020). E-Wallet: Factors Influencing User
Acceptance towards Cashless Society in Malaysia among Public Universities.
Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 20(1), 67-74.
Retrieved on 23 January 2021, Retrieved from doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v20.i1.pp67-74
Aji, H. M., Berakon, I., & Husin, M. M. (2020). Covid-19 and E-Wallet Usage Intention: A
Multigroup Analysis between Indonesia and Malaysia. Cogent Business &
Management, 7(1), 1-16. Retrieved on 23 January 2021, Retrieved from doi:
10.1080/23311975.2020.1804181
Akinwande, O., Dikko, H. G., & Agboola, S. (2015). Variance Inflation Factor: As a
Condition for the Inclusion of Suppressor Variable(s) in Regression Analysis. Open
Journal of Statistics, 5(7), 754-767. Retrieved on 12 April 2021, Retrieved from doi:
10.4236/ojs.2015.57075
Alaeddin, O., Altounjy, R., Zainudin, Z., & Kamarudin, F. (2018). From Physical to Digital:
Investigating Consumer Behavior of Switching to Mobile Wallet. Polish Journal of
Management Studies, 17(2), 18-30. Retrieved on 12 March 2021, Retrieved from doi:
10.17512/pjms.2018.17.2.02
Aydin, G., & Bumaz, S. (2016). Adoption of Mobile Payment Systems: A Study on Mobile
Wallets. Journal of Business, Economics and Finance, 5(1), 73-92. Retrieved on 12
March 2021, Retrieved from doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2016116555
Azman, H., Tan, Z. Y., & Bakri, M. H. (2020). The Factors that Affecting Consumer
Intention to Utilize the Electronic Payment System in Malaysia. Journal of Technology
Management and Technopreneurship, 8(1), 129-138. Retrieved on 24 January 2021,
Retrieved from https://jtmt.utem.edu.my/jtmt/article/view/6027#:~:text=Literature
%20demonstrates%20that%20factors%20such,respondents%20from%20all%20over
%20Malaysia
Busu, S., Karim, N. A., & Haron, H. (2018). Factors of Adoption Intention for Near Field
Communication Mobile Payment. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science, 11(1), 98-104. Retrieved on 12 March 2021, Retrieved from
http://ijeecs.iaescore.com/index.php/IJEECS/article/view/12750/8648

Page 29 of 47
1
Cangur, S., & Ercan, I. (2015). Comparison of Model Fit Indices Used in Structural Equation
Modelling under Multivariate Normality. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical
Methods, 14(1), 1-17. Retrieved on 16 April 2021, Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sengul-Cangur/publication/298697877_Compari
son_of_Model_Fit_Indices_Used_in_Structural_Equation_Modeling_Under_Multivar
iate_Normality/links/5a9d006145851586a2ae767b/Comparison-of-Model-Fit-Indices-
Used-in-Structural-Equation-Modeling-Under-Multivariate-Normality.pdf
Chern, Y. X., Kong, S. Y., Lee, V. A., Lim, S. Y., & Ong, C. P. (2018). Moving into
Cashless Society: Factors Affecting Adoption of E-Wallet. UTAR Institutional
Repository, 1-154. Retrieved on 23 January 2021, Retrieved from
http://eprints.utar.edu.my/3089/1/fyp_BF_2018_CYX.pdf
Chua, C. J., Lim, C. S., & Aye, A. K. (2020). Consumers’ Behavioural Intention to Accept of
the Mobile Wallet in Malaysia. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 55(1), 1-13.
Retrieved on 23 January 2021, Retrieved from doi: 10.35741/issn.0258-2724.55.1.3
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The Value of Online Surveys. Internet Research, 15(2),
195-219. Retrieved on 9 April 2021, Retrieved from doi:
10.1108/10662240510590360
Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasi, S. (2012). Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A Guide for
Non-Statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology Metabolism, 10(2), 486-
489. Retrieved on 12 April 2021, Retrieved from doi: 10.5812/ijem.3505
Goh, S. W. (2017). Factors Affecting Adoption of E-Payment among Private University
Students in Klang Valley. Institute of Postgraduate Studies & Research, 1-122.
Retrieved on 23 January 2021, Retrieved from
http://eprints.utar.edu.my/2487/1/THESIS_HARD_COVER_VERSION.pdf
Greenland, S., Senn, S., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S., &
Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical Tests, P Values, Confidence Intervals, and Power: A
Guide to Misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337-350.
Retrieved on 13 April 2021, Retrieved from doi: 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3
Hadi, N. U., Abdullah, N., & Ilham, S. (2016). An Easy Approach to Exploratory Factor
Analysis: Marketing Perspective. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6(1),
10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n1p215
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A New Criterion for Assessing

Page 30 of 47
1
Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modelling. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115-135. Retrieved on 12 April 2021,
Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11747-014-0403-8
Humbani, M., & Wiese, M. (2017). A Cashless Society for All: Determining Consumers’
Readiness to Adopt Mobile Payment Services. Journal of African Business, 19(3),
409-429. Retrieved on 12 March 2021, Retrieved from doi:
10.1080/15228916.2017.1396792
Ibrahim, M. H., Hussin, S. R., & Hussin, S. H. (2019). Factors Influencing Malaysian
Consumers’ Intention to Use Quick Response (QR) Mobile Payment. Jurnal
Pengurusan, 57, 1-16. Retrieved on 24 January 2021, Retrieved from
https://ejournal.ukm.my/pengurusan/article/view/36831
Kabir, S. M. S. (2016). Methods of Data Collection. Research Project, 201-275. Retrieved on
9 April 2021, Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325846997_METHODS_OF_DATA_COL
LECTION
Kadir, H. A., Ismail, R., & Wok, S. (2019). The Mediating Effect of Attitude on E-Wallet
Usage among Malaysians. International Conference on Media and Communication,
13-36. Retrieved on 24 January 2021, Retrieved from
http://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/39937/1/Socio-Cultural%20Environment%2C%20Types
%20of%20Education%20and%20Use%20of.pdf
Karim, M. W., Haque, A., Ulfy, M. A., Hossain, M. A., & Anis, M. Z. (2020). Factors
Influencing the Use of E-Wallet as a Payment Method among Malaysian Young
Adults. Journal of International Business and Management (JIBM), 3(2), 1-11.
Retrieved on 23 January 2021, Retrieved from doi: 10.37227/jibm-2020-2-21
Koenig-Lewis, N., Morgan, M., Palmer, A., & Zhao, A. (2015). Enjoyment and Social
Influence: Predicting Mobile Payment Adoption. The Services Industries Journal,
35(10), 537-554. Retrieved on 12 March 2021, Retrieved from doi:
10.1080/02642069.2015.1043278
Lai, P. C., & Ahmad, Z. A. (2015a). Consumers Intention to Use a Single Platform E-

Page 31 of 47
1
Payment System: A Study among Malaysian Internet and Mobile Banking Users.
Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 20(1), 1-13. Retrieved on 24 January
2021, Retrieved from https://www.icommercecentral.com/open-access/consumers-
intention-to-use-a-single-platform-epayment-system-a-study-among-malaysian-
internet-and-mobile-banking-users-.php?aid=50515
Lai, P. C., & Ahmad, Z. A. (2015b). Perceived Enjoyment and Malaysian Consumers’
Intention to Use a Single Platform E-Payment. International Conference on Liberal
Arts & Social Sciences, 18, 1-9. Retrieved on 24 January 2021, Retrieved from doi:
10.1051/shsconf/20151801009
Lai, P. C. (2016). Design and Security Impact on Consumers’ Intention to Use Single
Platform E-Payment. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, 22(1), 111-122.
Retrieved on 23 January 2021, Retrieved from doi: 10.4036/iis.2016.R.05
Lai, P. C. (2018). Single Platform E-Payment System Consumers’ Intention to Use. Journal
of Information Technology Management, 29(2), 22-28. Retrieved on 24 January 2021,
Retrieved from https://jitm.ubalt.edu/XXIX-2/article2.pdf
Leiner, D. J. (2014). Convenience Samples from Online Respondents Pools: A Case Study of
the SoSci Panel. Studies in Communication | Media (SCM), 5(4), 367-396. Retrieved
on 9 April 2021, Retrieved from doi: 10.5771/2192-4007-2016-4-36769–134
Lilliecrona, D., & Sundelin, F. (2017). Factors to Consider when Adapting to Mobile
Payment – To Increase Consumer Adoption of Mobile Payment Services.
Examensarbete – Kandidat Ekonomi, 1-43. Retrieved on 24 January 2021, Retrieved
from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1163008/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Majid, U. (2018). Research Fundamentals: Study Design, Population, and Sample Size.
Research Fundamentals Editorial Series, 2(1), 1-7. Retrieved on 9 April 2021,
Retrieved from doi: 10.26685/urncst.16
Martins, F. S., Cunha, J. A. C., & Serra, F. A. R. (2018). Secondary Data in Research – Uses
and Opportunities. Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management, 17(4), 1-4.
Retrieved on 9 April 2021, Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328363920_Secondary_Data_in_Research_-
_Uses_and_Opportunities
Michael, S., Lewis-Beck, Bryman, A., & Liao, T. F. (2004). Sampling Frame. The SAGE

Page 32 of 47
1
Encyclopaedia of Social Science Research Methods, 1-8. Retrieved on 9 April 2021,
Retrieved from https://methods.sagepub.com/reference/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-
social-science-research-methods/n884.xml#:~:text=A%20sampling%20frame%20is
%20a,sample%20of%20the%20target%20population.
Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and Descriptive Research: Data Type versus Data Analysis.
Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129-132. Retrieved on 9 April 2021, Retrieved
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276397426_Qualitative_and_descriptive_re
search_Data_type_versus_data_analysis
Ng, C. J. (2006). Designing a Questionnaire. Malays Fam Physician, 1(1), 32-35. Retrieved
on 11 April 2021, Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797036/
Osakwe, C. N., & Okeke, T. C. (2016). Facilitating mCommerce Growth in Nigeria through
mMoney Usage: A Preliminary Analysis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information,
Knowledge and Management, 11, 115-139. Retrieved on 12 March 2021, Retrieved
from doi: 10.28945/3456
Pal, D., Vanijja, V., & Papasratorn, B. (2015). An Empirical Analysis towards the Adoption
of NFC Mobile Payment System by the End User. Procedia Computer Science, 69,
13-25. Retrieved on 12 March 2021, Retrieved from doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.10.002
Ponto, J. (2015). Understanding and Evaluating Survey Research. Journal of the Advanced
Practitioner in Oncology, 6(2), 168-171. Retrieved on 9 April 2021, Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4601897/#:~:text=Survey
%20research%20is%20defined%20as,utilize%20various%20methods%20of
%20instrumentation.
Punwatkar, S., & Verghese, M. (2018). Adaptation of e-Wallet Payment: An Empirical Study
on Consumers’ Adoption Behavior in Central India. International Journal of
Advanced in Management, Technology and Engineering Sciences, 8(3), 1147-1156.
Retrieved on 12 March 2021, Retrieved from
http://www.ijamtes.org/gallery/154%20conf-mba.pdf
Razif, N. N. M., Misiran, M., Sapiri, H., & Yusof, Z. M. (2020). Perceived Risk for
Acceptance of E-Wallet Platform in Malaysia among Youth: Sem Approach.
Management Research Journal, 9, 1-24. Retrieved on 23 January 2021, Retrieved
from doi: https://doi.org/10.37134/mrj.vol9.sp.1.2020
Rosnidah, I., Muna, A., Musyaffi, A. M., & Siregar, N. F. (2018). Critical Factor of Mobile

Page 33 of 47
1
Payment Acceptance in Millennial Generation: Study on the UTAUT Model.
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 306, 123-127.
Retrieved on 12 March 2021, Retrieved from
https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/isseh-18/55915176
Sedgwick, P. (2014). Non-Response Bias versus Response Bias. British Medical Journal
(BMJ) (Online), 1-2. Retrieved on 10 April 2021, Retrieved from doi:
10.1136/bmj.g2573
Seetharaman, A., Kumar, K. N., Palaniappan, S., & Weber, G. (2017). Factors Influencing
Behavioral Intention to Use the Mobile Wallet in Singapore. Journal of Applied
Economics and Business Research, 7(2), 116-136. Retrieved on 12 March 2021,
Retrieved from
http://www.aebrjournal.org/uploads/6/6/2/2/6622240/joaebrjune2017_116_136.pdf
Syawani, M. A. B. M., Fauzi, M. A. Z. B., Azhar, M. H. B. M., & Mohamad, M. S. B.
(2019). The Factor that Effect Intention to Use E-Wallet among Students in
Polytechnic Shah Alam. DSpace Repository, 1-49. Retrieved on 24 January 2021,
Retrieved from http://repository.psa.edu.my/bitstream/123456789/2169/1/THE
%20FACTOR%20THAT%20EFFECT%20INTENTION%20TO%20USE%20E-
WALLET%20AMONG%20STUDENTS%20IN%20POLYTECHNIC%20SHAH
%20ALAM.pdf
Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., & Sajilan, S. (2017). Testing and Controlling for Common Method
Variance: A Review of Available Methods. Journal of Management Sciences, 4(2),
10.20547/jms.2014.1704202
Teoh, T. T. M., Hoo, C. Y., & Lee, T. H. (2020). E-Wallet Adoption: A Case in Malaysia.
International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management Studies, 2(2), 216-
233. Retrieved on 24 January 2021, Retrieved from
https://ijrcms.com/index.php/ijrcms/article/view/64/57
Vishwakarma, G. (2017). Sample Size and Power Calculation. Nursing Research in 21st
Century, 234-246. Retrieved on 9 April 2021, Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319442443_Sample_Size_and_Power_Calc
ulation
Widayat, W., Masudin, I., & Satiti, N. R. (2020). E-Money Payment: Customers’ Adopting

Page 34 of 47
1
Factors and the Implication for Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market and Complexity, 6(3), 1-14. Retrieved on 24 January 2021,
Retrieved from doi: 10.3390/joitmc6030057
Yap, C. M., & Ng, B. A. (2019). Factors Influencing Consumers’ Perceived Usefulness of M-
Wallet in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Interdisciplinary Business & Economics Research,
8(2), 1-26. Retrieved on 23 January 2021, Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333673692_Factors_Influencing_Consumer
s'_Perceived_Usefulness_of_M-Wallet_in_Klang_Valley_Malaysia
Yeow, P. M., Khalid, H., & Nadarajah, D. (2017). Millennials’ Perception on Mobile
Payment Services in Malaysia. Procedia Computer Science, 124, 397-404. Retrieved
on 23 January 2021, Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050917329381
Young, T. J. (2015). Questionnaires and Surveys. Research Methods in Intercultural
Communication: A Practical Guide, 163-180. Retrieved on 9 April 2021, Retrieved
from doi: 10.1002/9781119166283.ch11
Yusoff, M. S. B. (2012). Stability of DREEM in a Sample of Medical Students: A
Prospective Study. Education Research International, 1-5. Retrieved on 9 April 2021,
Retrieved from https://www.hindawi.com/journals/edri/2012/509638/
Zach. (2019). What is A Good R-Squared Value? Retrieved on 12 April 2021, Retrieved from
https://www.statology.org/good-r-squared-value/
7.0 Appendix A

Page 35 of 47
1
Questionnaire Sample
Section A: Screening Questions
1) Are you born within the year of 1996 to 2010?
 Yes
 No
2) Are you from Klang Valley?

 Yes
 No
3) Are you an eWallet user?

 Yes
 No
Section B: Demographic Profiles

1) Age
 11 – 15
 16 – 20
 21 – 25
2) Education Level
 Primary School
 Secondary School
 Pre-University
 Undergraduate
 Postgraduate
 Other: __________
Section C: Factors affecting Generation Z in using eWallet in Klang Valley

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree nor Disagree
1 2 3 4 5
No. Question
1. eWallet minimizes the time I spent on payment. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I believe payment transactions will be difficult to perform without 1 2 3 4 5
eWallet.

Page 36 of 47
1
3. I think eWallet is useful for me to buy products. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I think eWallet makes it easier for me to buy products. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I think eWallet saves time for me to buy products. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Using eWallet will make it easier for me to conduct transactions. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I find eWallet to be useless for making payments. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Using eWallet will take more time than using traditional payment 1 2 3 4 5
methods.
9. I do not get frustrated when using eWallet. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I feel flexible in performing eWallet. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Less effort is needed when I perform eWallet. 1 2 3 4 5
12. It is easy to remember how to use eWallet. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I think using eWallet is easy. 1 2 3 4 5
14. It will be difficult for me to become skillful at using eWallet. 1 2 3 4 5
15. I think it is easy for me to learn how to use eWallet. 1 2 3 4 5
16. It is easy to perform the steps required to use eWallet. 1 2 3 4 5
17. Most eWallets provide adequate payment security. 1 2 3 4 5
18. I prefer to use eWallet that provides security insurance. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I believe my personal information is secure when using eWallet. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I believe eWallet is secure. 1 2 3 4 5
21. Security features do not affect my decision to use eWallet. 1 2 3 4 5
22. I find eWallet secure for conducting my payment transactions. 1 2 3 4 5
23. I am afraid for unreasonable charges when using eWallet. 1 2 3 4 5
24. I am comfortable with having my credit card integrated into my 1 2 3 4 5
eWallet.
25. I am likely to use eWallet in the future. 1 2 3 4 5
26. I am willing to use eWallet in near future rather than not using it. 1 2 3 4 5
27. I intend to use eWallet when it is one of the payment methods. 1 2 3 4 5
28. I intend to increase my use of eWallet if possible. 1 2 3 4 5

Page 37 of 47
Trust
Benefit
Privacy
Attitude
Intention
Convenience
Confidentiality
Social Influence
8.0 Appendix B
Subjective Norm
Perceived Security (PS)
Perceived Usefulness (PU)
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)
√
√
√
√
Yap & Ng (2019): Interdisciplinary Business &
Economics Research
√
√
√
√
√
Karim, Haque, Ulfy, Hossain & Anis (2020): Journal
of International Business and Management
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Goh (2017): Institute of Postgraduate Studies &
Research
√
√
√
Chern, Kong, Lee, Lim & Ong (2018): UTAR

Institutional Repository
√
√
√
√
Chua, Lim & Aye (2020): Journal of Southwest

Jiaotong University
√
√
Aji, Berakon & Husin (2020): Cogent Business &

Management
√
√
√
√
Razif, Misiran, Sapiri & Yusof (2020): Management

Research Journal
√
√
√
Yeow, Khalid & Nadarajah (2017): Procedia

Computer Science
√
Abdullah, Redzuan & Daud (2020): Indonesian

Literature Matrix
√
√
√
Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer

1
Science
√
√
√
√
Kadir, Ismail & Wok (2019): International Conference

on Media and Communication
√
√
Syawani, Fauzi, Azhar & Mohamad (2019): DSpace

Repository
√
√
√
Widayat, Masudin & Satiti (2020): Journal of Open

Innovation: Technology, Market and Complexity
√
Lilliecrona & Sundelin (2017): Examensarbete –

Kandidat Ekonomi
√
√
√
√
Ibrahim, Hussin & Hussin (2019): Jurnal Pengurusan

√
√
√
Lai & Ahmad (2015a): Journal of Internet Banking

and Commerce
√
√
√
√
√
Azman, Tan & Bakri (2020): Journal of Technology

Management and Technopreneurship
√
√
√
Lai (2018): Journal of Information Technology

Management
√
√
Lai & Ahmad (2015b): International Conference on

Liberal Arts & Social Sciences
√
Teoh, Hoo & Lee (2020): International Journal of

Research in Commerce and Management Studies
Page 38 of 47
1
Self-efficacy √ √
Speed √
Gender √
Perceived Risk √ √ √ √ √
Government Support √
Perceived Cost √ √ √
Perceived Credibility √
Design √ √ √
Performance Expectancy √ √
Effort Expectancy √ √ √
Facilitating Conditions √ √
Media Influence √
Consumer Technology Anxiety √
Enjoyment √ √ √
Technicality √
Personal Innovativeness √
Covid-19 √

Page 39 of 47
Rewards (REW)
Perceived Risk (PR)

Social Influence (SOC)
Perceived Security (PS)
Perceived Usefulness (PU)
Personal Innovativeness (INO)
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)
Perceived Compatibility (CMP)
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Aydin & Bumaz (2016): Journal of Business,
Economics and Finance
Osakwe & Okeke (2016): Interdisciplinary
√
√
√
Journal of Information, Knowledge and
Management
Punwatkar & Verghese (2018): International
√
√
Journal of Advanced in Management, Technology
and Engineering Sciences
Rosnidah, Muna, Musyaffi & Siregar (2018):
√
Advances in Social Science, Education and
1
Humanities Research
√
√
√
Alaeddin, Altounjy, Zainudin & Kamarudin

(2018): Polish Journal of Management Studies
Seetharaman, Kumar, Palaniappan & Weber
√
√
√
(2017): Journal of Applied Economics and

Business Research
√
√
√
√
Koenig-Lewis, Morgan, Palmer & Zhao (2015):

The Service Industries Journal
√
√
√
√
Busu, Karim & Haron (2018): Indonesian Journal

of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
√
√
√
Humbani & Wiese (2017): Journal of African

Business
√
√
√
√
Pal, Vanijja & Papasratorn (2015): Procedia

Computer Science
Page 40 of 47
1
Perceived Trust (PT) √ √

Perceived Cost Effectiveness (PCE) √ √ √
Convenience (CVC) √ √ √
Perceived Regulator Assurance (PRA) √
Phone Network Failure (PNF) √
Bank Branch Distance (BBD) √
Perceived Value √ √
Privacy √
Attractiveness √
Intention to Use √ √ √ √
Performance Expectancy √
Effort Expectancy √
Facilitating Conditions √
Attitude √
Knowledge of the Technology √ √ √
Perceived Enjoyment √
Theft / Fraud / Loss (CF) √
Optimism √
Insecurity √
Discomfort √
User Mobility √

Page 41 of 47
1
Reachability √

Page 42 of 47
1

Page 43 of 47
1

Page 44 of 47
1

Page 45 of 47
1

Page 46 of 47
1

Page 47 of 47

SPSS Tutorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPSS Tutorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Assignment No.: _____

Assignment Cover Sheet

Signature: Date: 15/4/2021

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Suggestions for improvement

Student acknowledge feedback/comments

Grader’s signature Student’s signature:

*Use additional sheets if required.

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Factors affecting Generation Z in using eWallet in Klang Valley

3.2 Research Data

3.2.2 Primary Data

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

3.3 Research Method

3.4.2 Sample Frame

3.4.3 Sample Technique

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Figure 3.1: Sample size calculator

3.5 Questionnaire Design

3.5.1 Questionnaire Matrix

Variable Question Author

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

4.0 Results and Discussion

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Table 4.1: Age of Respondents

Figure 4.1: Age of respondents

4.2 Data Analysis

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Figure 4.2: Partial Least Squares (PLS) model

4.2.1 Preliminary Analysis

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

4.2.1.2 Normality Test

Table 4.2: Normality Test Results

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Table 4.3: Harman’s Single Factor Results

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

4.2.2 Measurement Analysis

Table 4.4: Factor Analysis Results

4.2.2.2 Common Method Bias (CMB)

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

4.2.2.3 Convergent Validity

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

4.2.2.4 Discriminant Validity (HTMT)

Table 4.7: Discriminant Validity Results

4.2.3 Structural Analysis

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

4.2.3.2 Model Fit / Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)

Table 4.9: Model Fit Results

4.3 Hypothesis Testing

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Table 4.10: Hypothesis Testing Results

Updated 22 February 2016-sue

Updated 22 February 2016-sue