Table 6.11 summarizes the empirically observed values of the three indices.

The value of
2.721 for χ2/df is clearly below the cutoff value (5) and the value of 0.952 for CFI is
clearly above the threshold (0.9). Only the value of 0.080 for RMSEA exceeds the less
strict threshold (0.10); but lies at, not below, the stricter threshold (0.08). Overall, a good
model fit can be concluded, confirming that the model is properly developed.

Table 6.11: Assessment of the model fit – RMSEA, χ2/df, and CFI
Criterion Category Value
RMSEA Inferential fit index 0.080
χ2/df Absolute descriptive fit index 2.7211
CFI Incremental fit index 0.952

Notes:
1) The χ2 value equals 217.70 with 80 df.

The RMSEA is calculated as follows: 𝐶𝐶𝐻𝐻𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 ; 0)

The CFI is calculated as follows: 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆

Variables definition:
𝜒𝜒2 = chi-squared of the formulated model
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = degrees of freedom
𝑁𝑁 = sample size
𝑔𝑔 = number of groups (normally, g=1)
𝐹𝐹 = minimum of the discrepancy function of the formulated model
𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏 = minimum of the discrepancy function of the independence model

Source: Own illustration based on survey results

In the following, the possible improvement of the model fit by adding paths is examined
by means of the Lagrange multipliers. The value 49.054, by far the highest modification
index value, would suggest adding a correlation between the error terms of the indicator
variables FC1 and FC3.1 However, the already well-fitting model is not modified because
there is no substantive, theoretically sound explanation for correlated error terms
(Hermida, 2015).

1 Adding the correlation of the error terms of FC 1 and FC3 to the model leads to a negative variance of
the error term of FC 2, i.e., an implausible result that is conceptually impossible. Thus, a phantom
variable can be included to impose a constraint that forces the variance of the error term of FC 2 to be
greater than or equal to zero. While the inclusion of the correlated error terms would be technically
possible, it would lead to conceptual issues.
6.7.4 Structural model
In a final evaluation step, the parameter estimates of the valid, reliable, and wellfitting
model can be compared with the hypotheses postulated in Sections 5.3.3.1 through
5.3.3.5, enabling an interpretation of the results. A multi-group analysis also serves to test
the hypotheses regarding interaction effects.

6.7.4.1 Parameter estimates

Before evaluating the structural relationships between the latent constructs of the UTAUT
model, the explanatory power of the model is considered. Following a classification set
forth by Chin (1998b),2 the explained portion of the endogenous constructs can be
evaluated as substantial for behavioral intention with an R 2 value of 0.77 and as moderate
for the actual use with an R 2 value of 0.40 (see Figure 6.25). However, a comparison to
R2 values from studies investigating a similar context is more meaningful than an
orientation towards these threshold values. It is evident that the declared proportion of
variance of the two endogenous latent variables is (almost) at the same level as in the
original UTAUT study by Venkatesh et al. (2003) (R 2 for behavioral intention: 0.77; R2
for actual use: 0.52), and thereby well above results from other technology adoption
theories “that routinely explain over 40 percent of the variance in individual intention to
use technology” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 426). Moreover, a considerably larger portion
of the variance of behavioral intention can be explained than in the 27 previous
quantitative studies, which also employ the UTAUT model, as investigated in the meta-
analysis by Dwivedi et al. (2011) (average R2 for behavioral intention: 0.39).

To validate the key hypotheses (H1 to H5), the sign, magnitude, and significance levels
of the structural path coefficients are examined. Since the unstandardized parameter
estimates must be considered in the context of the scale applied, the standardized
parameter estimates are used for interpretation (Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2014). The
standardized path coefficients have values between -1 and +1. A value near these poles
indicates a very strong relationship between the constructs, whereas values close to 0 do
not suggest a relationship (Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt, 2014). Standardized
coefficients greater than |0.2| are considered meaningful (Chin, 1998a).

2 When evaluating the proportion of the explained variance, many researchers follow Chin (1998b),
who regards the R2 values obtained in his own study of 0.19 as weak, 0.33 as moderate, and 0.67 as
substantial.
The model results illustrated in Figure 6.25 are briefly presented below. 3 A detailed
discussion and the derived implications are given in Chapter 7. The discussion includes
the comparison between findings from past research and the qualitative analysis within
this thesis.

In the present dissertation, the relationships postulated in H1, H3, H4, and H5 are
significant with positive standardized parameters above 0.2. H2, in contrast, cannot be
supported.

In line with H1, performance expectancy positively influences behavioral intention at the
1% significance level with a standardized path coefficient of 0.28. After eliminating PE 3
from the model, the construct was measured by improvements of both the efficiency
(PE1) and the effectiveness (PE2) of the respondents’ work. Consequently, the perception
of these benefits results in a higher willingness to use analytics software.

Contrary to theoretical considerations and findings from the expert interviews, the model
does not support the presumed effect of effort expectancy on behavioral intention (H2).
Put differently, the effort respondents must make to become proficient in using data
analytics tools does not discourage them from using such tools. Thus, this result
contradicts the expert evaluations in which this factor was emphasized as an essential
driver for the adoption of analytics. Interestingly, Dwivedi et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis
also finds that the impact of effort expectancy is lowest among the different constructs;
however, effort expectancy was still found to have a statistically significant influence.
The results of the meta-analysis by Williams et al. (2015) support this view and find that
the construct has a significantly positive influence in only 64 of the 110 studies (58%)
that quantitatively examine this factor.

As posited by H3, the social influence construct positively affects behavioral intention at
the 0.1% significance level with a very high path coefficient of 0.64. The highly
significant impact of the social influence construct can be traced back to the early stage
of the adoption process. It is during this phase that the factor primarily has its effect (see
Section 4.1.3.2). Compared to the other constructs, it has the highest influence on the
individuals’ intentions to use analytics tools. Interestingly, the relative importance of this
factor has not been highlighted in the expert discussions. By contrast, the interviewees
assign more weight to performance expectancy and effort expectancy (see Section 5.3.3).

3 A tabular overview of the standardized parameter estimates of the structural model can be found in
Table A.7 in the appendix.
In line with theoretical considerations, the actual usage is influenced by facilitating
conditions (H4) with a standardized path coefficient of 0.22 (1% significance level).
Consequently, the existence of appropriate organizational and technical infrastructure
directly affects the use of analytics.

Finally, behavioral intention (H5) has the expected positive effect on the actual usage
with a standardized path coefficient of 0.47 (0.1% significance level).

Figure 6.25: Structural model – Standardized parameter estimates

Performance 0.28***
expectancy (PE)

R 2=0.77 R 2=0.40

0.03 (n.s.) Behavioral 0.47**** Use behavior

Effort intention (BI) (USE )
expectancy (EE)

0.64****

Social
influence (SI) Significance level
Standardized parameter coefficients
(one-tailed z-test):
n.s. not significant
*
0.22*** **
10% significance level
5% significance level
Facilitating ***
1% significance level
conditions (FC) ****
0.1% significance level

Source: Own illustration

The results of the hypothesis tests of the main effects of the structural model are
summarized in Table 6.12.

Table 6.12: Validation of hypotheses on main effects

Hypotheses Validation
Effects on behavioral intention (BI)

H1: The influence of performance expectancy on behavioral intention is positive. Supported

H2: The influence of effort expectancy on behavioral intention is positive. Rejected
H3: The influence of social influence on behavioral intention is positive. Supported
Effects on actual use (USE)

H4: The influence of facilitating conditions on actual usage is positive. Supported

H5: The influence of behavioral intention on actual usage is positive. Supported
Source: Own illustration

Finally, after having observed multiple statistically significant differences between the
GSANL region and the U.S. in Section 6.6.1 et seqq., is appears appropriate to control
the above results for country-specific effects. Consequently, the SEM is tested only for
the GSANL in order to exclude possible distortions caused by the answers from the U.S.-
based employees with a greater affinity for technology. 4 The results are comparable in
terms of sign, magnitude, and significance levels (see Table A.8 in the appendix).
Consequently, the findings described above are valid not only for the entire survey
sample, but also for respondents from the GSANL region.5

6.7.4.2 Multi-group analysis of interaction effects

After testing the main effects of the UTAUT model, the expected moderation effects are
validated. Therefore, unlike most of the papers that use the UTAUT model that have
examined only the main effects (Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu, 2016), this study aims to
provide a comprehensive and accurate overview of individual adoption.

An interaction occurs when the effect of an explanatory variable on a dependent variable,

i.e., its strength and/or direction, is influenced by a third term, the moderator variable
(Hopwood, 2007; Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2014). The effects of moderators on
relationships between latent constructs can be analyzed with different approaches.
A multi-group analysis is conducted by taking into account the manifest, mostly
categorical variables, the focus on pure (and not quasi) interaction effects, and the given
sample size (Huber, Heitmann, and Herrmann, 2006; Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2014). For
this purpose, each moderator variable is divided into two groups, as the sample size of
270 observations prevents a larger differentiation. For the same reason, only two-way
interactions are examined. The interaction term GDR dummy is binary in nature. The
moderator variables AGEdummy, RANKdummy, VOLdummy, and EXPdummy have already been
dichotomized in earlier parts of this thesis (see Table 6.7 for the summary statistics). 6

4 The GSANL subsample includes 201 observations, i.e., 60 observations from U.S.-based respondents
and nine observations of respondents who did not report their country of employment are eliminated.
5 Note that the subsequent multi-group analysis to test potential interaction effects cannot be conducted
for the GSANL subsample because the group models with a released parallel slopes assumption (and
the minimization of their discrepancy functions, respectively) could not be calculated by Stata v15.1.
6 The transformation of a continuous variable when artificially constructing a categorical variable for
the purpose of defining a group inevitably leads to a loss of information (Schumacker and Lomax,
2010).
The following multi-group analysis consists of two steps. First, equivalence of the
measurement models of the two groups is examined by comparing an unconstrained
model for both groups with a model in which measurement constraints are imposed
(Schumacker and Lomax, 2010; Weiber and Mühlhaus, 2014). A nested model is
constructed if measurement equivalence is confirmed by a likelihood ratio test or if the
goodness of fit indices do not considerably improve through the relaxation of equality
constraints. Measurement equality constrains are imposed, i.e., the intercepts and
coefficients of the measurement models of both group are assumed to be equal. In the
second step, the construct equations are tested for potential factor mean differences and
differences in the regression coefficients of the potentially moderated main effect across
the two groups. For this purpose, two further models are compared. The first model
contains measurement equality constraints as well as equality constraints to the structural
coefficients (so-called parallel slopes assumption). For the second model, the parallel
slopes assumption is relaxed for the structural coefficient of the variable under
investigation. Schumacker and Lomax (2010) refer to these models as “intercept only and
intercept-slope models” (p. 318). Subsequently, a likelihood ratio test is used to examine
whether significant differences between the models exist.

Potential interaction effects are tested for each moderator (gender, age, hierarchy level,
voluntariness, and experience) on four main effects (PE, EE, SI on BI and FC on USE).
Thus, not only the hypothesized interaction effects (H1a-c, H2a-c), 7 but also theoretically
established moderations, which were not directly supported in the expert interviews,
illustrated with dotted lines in Figure 6.22 are validated.

However, only one hypothetical interaction effect (see Table 6.13) and one theoretically
plausible interaction effect (see Table 6.14) are statistically significant. 8

Table 6.13: Validation of hypotheses on interaction effects

Hypotheses Validation
Effects of performance expectancy (PE) on behavioral intention (BI)

H1a: The influence of performance expectancy on behavioral intention is moderated by hierarchy

Rejected1
level, such that the effect will be stronger for more junior employees (except partners).
H1b: The influence of performance expectancy on behavioral intention is moderated by age, such Rejected

7 Note that hypotheses H2a-c are examined even though the main effect of effort expectancy on
behavioral intention is not statistically significant. This investigation is necessary because, as in the
case of cross-over effects, significant interactions can occur while the main effect is not significant.
8 The detailed results of the multi-group analysis, which tests (i) hypothetical interaction effects, (ii)
theoretically established interaction effects, and (iii) potential further, though not empirically
established, interaction effects are shown in Table A.9, Table A.10, Table A.11, Table A.12, Table
A.13, Table A.14, and Table A.15 in the appendix.
that the effect will be stronger for younger employees.
H1c: The influence of performance expectancy on behavioral intention is moderated by experience,
Rejected
such that the effect will be stronger for employees with more analytics experience.
Effects of effort expectancy (EE) on behavioral intention (BI)

H2a: The influence of effort expectancy on behavioral intention is moderated by hierarchy level, such
Rejected
that the effect will be stronger for more senior employees.
H2b: The influence of effort expectancy on behavioral intention is moderated by age, such that the
Rejected
effect will be stronger for older employees.
H2c: The influence of effort expectancy on behavioral intention is moderated by experience, such that
Supported
the effect will be stronger for employees with less analytics experience.

Notes:
1) Since partners were excluded from the group of more senior employees based on findings from the qualitative analysis, the
hypothesis is tested with three different dummy variables. First, the established RANK dummy variable that distinguishes between
junior and senior employees, without specifically accounting for partners, is tested. Second, a new dummy variable is created,
which eliminates the observations of partners. Third, another new dummy variable is created, which assigns the value of 0 to
partners, and thereby assumes that their perceptions are similar to those of more junior employees.
For none of the variants is a significant moderating effect of the hierarchy level observed.

Source: Own illustration

Table 6.14: Validation of theoretical considerations on interaction effects
Theoretical considerations Validation
Effects of performance expectancy (PE) on behavioral intention (BI)

The influence of performance expectancy on behavioral intention is moderated by gender, such that the
Rejected
effect will be stronger for men.
Effects of effort expectancy (EE) on behavioral intention (BI)

The influence of effort expectancy on behavioral intention is moderated by gender, such that the effect
Rejected
will be stronger for women.
Effects of social influence (SI) on behavioral intention (BI)

The influence of social influence on behavioral intention is moderated by gender, such that the effect Rejected
will be stronger for women. (reverse effect)
The influence of social influence on behavioral intention is moderated by age, such that the effect will
Rejected
be stronger for older employees.
The influence of social influence on behavioral intention is moderated by experience, such that the
Rejected
effect will be stronger for employees with less analytics experience.
The influence of social influence on behavioral intention is moderated by voluntariness, such that the
Rejected
effect will be stronger under conditions of less voluntary use.
Effects of facilitating conditions (FC) on actual use (USE)

The influence of facilitating conditions on actual usage is moderated by age, such that the effect will be
Rejected
stronger for older employees.
The influence of facilitating conditions on actual usage is moderated by experience, such that the effect
Rejected
will be stronger for employees with more analytics experience.
Source: Own illustration

In the following, the two statistically significant interaction effects are presented. First,
the effect of effort expectancy on behavioral intention is positively increasing for FDD
consultants with a low level of experience and negatively increasing for those with a high
level of previous experience. However, employees with less previous experience have a
significantly lower level of effort expectancy. Figure 6.26 illustrates the cross-over
interaction, which is significant on a 5%-level (p=0.0443) (see Table A.15). The
interaction effect is in line with the expert assessments from the interviews, the
theoretical considerations made by Venkatesh et al. (2003), and the findings from past
finance and accounting research (Mahzah and Lymer, 2014). It can be interpreted as
follows: For consultants with a high level of experience, the impact of effort expectancy
on their behavioral intention is negative. These experienced consultants may find it more
galvanizing to participate in more in-depth learning and if operating the software was
more difficult (i.e., effort expectancy was lower). In brief, highly experienced consultants
may appreciate more difficult trainings and use cases. The opposite holds true for less
experienced consultants. They appreciate a high level of effort expectancy, which in turn
leads to a more positive increase in behavioral intention. Consequently, a high level of
comfort in the training and execution of analytics software use is necessary to foster the
behavioral intention to use analytics software for the group of less experienced
consultants. The different behavior indicates the need to specifically address both groups,
which is discussed in Section 7.3.

Figure 6.26: Interaction effect of experience on the EE-BI relationship

-1

-2
-2x std. dev. +2 x std. dev.
Effort expectancy (EE)
Low High

Source: Own illustration

Second, the effect of social influence on behavioral intention is more positively

increasing for men (see Figure 6.27). Interestingly, the interaction effect of gender, which
is significant on a 10%-level (p=0.0940) (see Table A.9), contradicts previous empirical
findings, which observe a more positive effect for women (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Of
note, the overall level of social influence is significantly higher for women even though
its impact on behavioral intention is lower (see Table A.9). Consequently, social
influence is a stronger driver of behavioral intention for men, but it is on average
significantly higher for women. It follows that addressing the relatively weaker social
perception of men provides a strong lever to increase adoption.
Figure 6.27: Interaction effect of gender on the SI-BI relationship

-1

-2
-2x std. dev. +2 x std. dev.
Social influence (SI)
Females Males

Source: Own illustration

6.7.5 Robustness testing via Satorra-Bentler correction

Satorra and Bentler’s (1994) scaled test statistics are applied in order to test the
robustness of results with respect to the moderate violation of the normal distribution
assumption (see Section 6.7.3.3). An estimated multiplicative correction factor is used to
modify the test statistics for misspecifications of the normality assumption in such a way
that their distribution approaches the χ2 distribution.

Since Stata (version 15.1) does not allow for combining the Satorra-Bentler correction
with the FIML estimation to handle missing data, only 201 (see Section 6.7.3.5) instead
of 270 observations are analyzed. 9 Therefore, the values without the Satorra-Bentler
correction (see Table 6.15) deviate slightly from the values obtain for the full sample
reported in Section 6.7.3.7 (see Table 6.11). The χ 2/df ratio of 2.225 is similar to the ratio
obtained without correction for nonnormality (2.467). The values of RMSEA (0.078 vs.
0.085) and CFI (0.948 vs. 0.945) are also similar for the sample of 201 observations.
Therefore, as outlined in Section 6.7.3.3, the ML estimator can be used although there is
a moderate violation of the normality assumption.

9 Curran, West, and Finch (1996) demonstrate that the Satorra-Bentler correction performs well across
all sample sizes tested (with a minimum sample size of 100). Consequently, the forced reduction of the
sample size, since missing data is excluded, does not cause any bias.
Table 6.15: Assessment of the model fit – RMSEA, χ2/df, and CFI after Satorra-Bentler correction
Criterion Category Value before correction Value after correction
RMSEA Inferential fit index 0.085 0.078
χ /df
2
Absolute descriptive fit index 2.467 1
2.2252
CFI Incremental fit index 0.945 0.948

Notes:
1) The χ2 value equals 197.36 with 80 df. 2) The χ2
value equals 178.03 with 80 df.

The RMSEA is calculated as follows: 𝐶𝐶𝐻𝐻𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃𝐴𝐴 ; 0)

The CFI is calculated as follows: 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑆𝑆

Variables definition:
𝜒𝜒2 = chi-squared of the formulated model
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = degrees of freedom
𝑁𝑁 = sample size
𝑔𝑔 = number of groups (normally, g=1)
𝐹𝐹 = minimum of the discrepancy function of the formulated model
𝐹𝐹𝑏𝑏 = minimum of the discrepancy function of the independence model

Source: Own illustration based on survey results

6.7.6 Summary
Section 6.7 deals with the adoption of data analytics technology by individual FDD
consultants from leading audit firms. A modified UTAUT model, which is based on
theoretical considerations as well as expert assessments, is tested through
covariancebased SEM.

Before evaluating the model results, the latent constructs are operationalized,
identification of the measurement model and the structural model is ensured (t-rule,
positive definite matrix, recursiveness, rank condition), the sample size is assessed, and
missing data is replaced (FIML). The normality assumption is also validated
(Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Shapiro-Wilk test, C.R., absolute skewness and kurtosis,
Satorra-Bentler correction). Additionally, reliability (corrected item-total correlation,
Cronbach’s alpha, AVE, CR), as well as content and construct validity, i.e., nomological,
convergent (AVE), and discriminant validity (HTMT), are tested for. Finally, the model
fit is evaluated (RMSEA, χ2/df, CFI). Overall, the high goodness of fit is the result of the
thorough development of the model, including the incorporation of findings from expert
interviews and the completion of a subsequent extensive review of the model.
Consequently, the model is well-suited to provide insights on (i) the level of adoption
(research question 3) and (ii) the factors that affect individual adoption (research question
4).
Overall, (i) the average level of adoption has reached 49.9% among the respondents, i.e.,
analytics is used in every second FDD project. For the GSANL region, the average usage
rate of 43.5% corresponds to the interval indicated in the expert interviews (30-50%).
Interestingly, the use of analytics varies considerably. Employees report high levels of
experience in data management and descriptive analytics, however, they are less
experienced in advanced analytics. This gap supports the view outlined by the experts
interviewed and underscores that the current focus of analytics usage lies on the basic
functions (see Section 5.3.1). Demographic differences (higher usage for women,
younger, and more junior consultants) and institutional disparities (higher usage for Big
Four firms, deals analytics departments, and in the U.S.) can also be observed. First,
these findings suggest that the use of analytics at the individual level is still lagging
behind among men, as well as older, more senior professionals. While the latter
development is in line with the observations from the expert interviews, the greater
reluctance to use analytics among men was not highlighted in the qualitative analysis.
Second, the results reveal that the use of analytics at the organizational level is
significantly lower in the Next Ten firms and in the GSANL region. This finding is in
line with the experts’ assessments of company size as a decisive factor. Consequently, the
Next Ten, which are smaller than the Big Four, and the GSANL-based organizations,
which are smaller than the U.S.-based organizations, suffer from the expected structural
disadvantages to adoption (e.g., in terms of personal and financial resources). Finally, the
lower degree of technology utilization by the transaction services department compared
to the deals analytics department arises because the latter is a specifically analytics-
oriented organization.

Besides identifying differences in usage rates across demographic and institutional

groups, (ii) the decisive factors affecting the use of analytics tools at the personal level
are also identified. For this purpose, the modified UTAUT model is applied. The model
exhibits a high explanatory power, as demonstrated by the R 2 values of 0.77 for
behavioral intention and 0.40 for actual use, thus outperforming earlier adoption theories.
The model is clearly well-suited to shedding light on the factors that (directly and
indirectly) influence the use of analytics. The structural coefficients and the multi-group
analysis of interaction effects reveal interesting findings of great value for both research
and managerial practice.
While the 20 experts interviewed assumed that performance expectancy and effort
expectancy are the key decision-making criteria for individuals, the quantitative analysis
of 270 survey responses paints a different picture. By far the most crucial factor is social
influence, i.e., the influence of important others. This is especially true for men, since the
effect is moderated by gender. Consequently, social aspects offer the greatest levers for
audit firms to increase behavioral intention, and thereby increase the use of analytics.
Respondents broadly agree that key colleagues serve as role models and that current users
have a strong profile. This appears plausible, especially since both perceptions are
strengthened by existing analytics champion programs (see Section 5.3.3.3). One aspect
of the social influence factor that lags behind the others points towards an avenue for
improvement: senior management support. For example, it has already been described in
the expert discussions that the partnership has a high level of awareness for the use of
analytics and promotes its use; however, the partnership also struggles with prioritizing
long-term profits (requiring prior investments into technology and education) over short-
term profits, which can thereby inhibit adoption due to conflicting financial incentives. In
addition, the role of directors and senior managers is often seen as critical (see Section
5.3.2.2). Leadership endorsement appears to be especially weak in Next Ten firms, the
transaction services department, and the GSANL region. In contrast, the assessment of
leadership endorsement does not significantly differ across demographic groups.
Potential measures to promote social influence in general, and executive support in
particular, are discussed in Section 7.3.

As anticipated, performance expectancy is a driver of behavioral intention. Professionals

who more positively perceive the improvements in time (efficiency) and quality
(effectiveness), possess a more assertive attitude towards using analytics. 10

Surprisingly, effort expectancy, which is emphasized by the experts interviewed as the

most important determinant of individual adoption (see Section 5.3.3.2), does not have a
significant influence at all. One reason is that the effect is cancelled out between different
groups. More concretely, a cross-over interaction effect can be observed for the
experience variable with a positive effect of effort expectancy for less experienced
consultants and a negative effect of effort expectancy for the more experienced
consultants. This finding indicates that more experienced employees could be further
stimulated to employ analytics tools through more difficult trainings and tasks, while the
opposite holds true for less experienced consultants. Overall, the strong discrepancy
10 The aspect of career benefits (e.g., promotion or salary increase) through the use of analytics tools
could not be considered in the structural equation analysis, because the corresponding item had to be
eliminated from the model due to its low corrected item-total correlation.
between the assessment of the more technology-oriented interview partners and the
sample representative of the overall population, i.e., also the less analytically inclined
employees, shows how perceptions are different in both groups. The implications are
discussed in Section 7.3.