Theoretical background

This study aims to examine the essential factors perceived by consumers as influential in their decision to persist in using OFDS following the COVID-19 outbreak. Previous studies have frequently combined the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to explain why people engage in a specific behaviour. For example, a study conducted in China used TPB, TAM and three patient-centered factors to examine the elements affecting patients’ acceptance of mobile medical platforms, ²³ while another study conducted in Italy combined TPB and TAM to analyse the main drivers of users’ intention to use foods delivery apps. ¹⁸ Other examples include the examination of continuance intention to utilise mobile banking in Jordan, achieved through the integration of UTAUT, TPB, TAM and service quality with machine learning methods, ²⁴ and understanding library user behavioural utilisation intention of physical book as compared to e-book format in Malaysia by combining TAM, TPB and Theory of Self-Regulation (TSR). ²⁵

This study proposes a similar approach to form an integrative theoretical research model adapted from TAM and TPB, expanding it to include three additional constructs: convenience motivation (CM), time-saving orientation (TSO), and price-saving orientation (PSO). TAM, conceptualised by Davis in 1989, put forward that users’ attitudes toward a technology are shaped by their perception of its ease of use and usefulness. These attitudes subsequently influence users’ behavioural intentions to adopt and continue using the technology. ²⁶ In the context of OFDS, perceived ease of use relates to how easy consumers believe ordering food online is. A user-friendly interface, straightforward navigation, and intuitive app design all contribute to a high level of perceived ease of use. Consumers who find the service easy to use are more likely to form positive attitudes and intentions toward its use.

TPB, developed by Ajzen in 1991 extends the understanding of user behaviour by incorporating attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control as determinants of behavioural intentions, which in turn impact actual behaviour. ²⁷ In the context of OFDS, consumers’ attitudes are primarily shaped by two key factors: their perceptions of the benefits, which encompass aspects such as convenience, cost-effectiveness, and time efficiency; and their perceptions of the ease of using the service. ²⁸ When consumers hold favourable beliefs regarding these factors, it leads to the development of positive attitudes, which in turn, significantly enhances the likelihood of consumers forming a positive intention to engage in OFDS. In essence, attitude acts as a critical determinant in the decision-making process regarding the adoption and utilisation of OFDS among consumers.

This study examines the continued use of OFDS among experienced users, a context where the typical drivers of the TPB may differ from those relevant during initial adoption. At this post-adoption stage, Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC) is less critical because users already have the skills, resources, and access needed to use the platform. Likewise, Subjective Norms (SN) play a limited role, as food ordering is usually a private, routine activity. Prior research suggests that once a behaviour becomes habitual and voluntary, consumers’ attitudes and practical evaluations tend to outweigh external pressures or perceived control.^29–32 Accordingly, the model retains the attitudinal and behavioural intention components of TPB while extending it to include factors that capture the real, practical value users derive from OFDS in their daily lives.

To reflect post-pandemic priorities, the model incorporates three additional constructs: convenience motivation, time-saving orientation, and price-saving orientation. These variables capture users’ desire to simplify daily routines, save time, and gain economic benefits. Including them allows the framework to account for the “post-pandemic shift,” showing how OFDS use has evolved from a temporary, pandemic-driven behaviour into a habitual, integrated part of everyday life.

Overall, the framework integrates TAM and TPB with these three additional variables, offering a comprehensive lens on consumer behaviour. This combination considers both the technological adoption aspects and the socio-psychological factors that influence attitudes and intentions, providing insight into how usability, convenience, efficiency, and economic considerations interact to shape continued engagement with OFDS.

Convenience motivation

Convenience is defined as the perceived time, value and effort required to facilitate the use of OFDS. Consumers now have the freedom to choose from a wide range of food providers listed on the internet at any time and from anywhere. As a result of its convenience, consumers will be motivated to use OFDS on a regular basis. ^{33 , 34}

A total of 47% of e-commerce users in Southeast Asia shopped online to save time and energy, and 87% agreed on the usefulness of internet services during the COVID-19 outbreak. ³⁵ Malaysians also prefer online shopping when they have a hectic schedule. ³⁶ The ease of comparing prices across different online platforms and a wide variety of items are all motivating factors that drive consumers to shop online. Convenience was also cited as the top reason for shopping online in Q4 2020, and remained the top three reasons in Q1 2021. ³⁷

Perceived ease of use

Perceived ease of use (PEOU) refers to a person’s perception of how hassle-free it is to use a system. The quality of a system is defined as the ease with which pages can be navigated, the presence of a clear and uncomplicated layout, and the system’s dependability. ³⁸ It is critical for businesses to ensure that their online platform is simple to use because bad designs or a complicated process will deter consumers from continuing with the online purchase.

The amount of effort required to use a system will serve as a critical predictor of its adoption and subsequent usefulness. ^{17 , 26} It was discovered that if it is relatively effortless to use a system, consumers are more likely to order food online. ¹³

Time-saving orientation

In today’s fast-paced world, where consumers’ busy schedules mean time is in short supply, time-saving orientation (TSO) has become a critical factor in easing daily tasks while fully utilising time. Many office workers could not afford the time and trouble of going out to eat, including driving and queuing up to place order. Thus, using OFDS is the quickest way to get food and the time saved can be used to complete other tasks.

Higher-income consumers value time because of the opportunity costs. As such, they find online shopping appealing because it allows them to make better use of their time. ¹⁹ A study discovered that timesaving is the key determinant of consumers’ motivation to use technology-based self-service. ³⁹ When consumers are able to save time, their perception turns positive and as a result, their attitude towards OFDS also becomes favourable. ^{10 , 20 , 33}

Price-saving orientation

Price can be defined as the value (monetary or non-monetary) an individual must put forth in an exchange for a product or service. ^{40 , 41} One of the key factors influencing customer satisfaction is price-saving orientation (PSO), which includes offers and discounts provided by sellers. ¹¹ 82.9% of Malaysians purchased a product online in the past month.⁵ The internet makes it easier to compare prices among different online sellers, which has proven to be advantageous for consumers to purchase at a lower price, which in turn has a significant effect on their behavioural intention to shop online. ^{17 , 42}

OFDS provide additional perks such as not having to pay for service charge imposed by the restaurants, as well as getting free delivery and discount coupons. Additionally, consumers do not need to expend energy or effort to visit a physical store or restaurant. Thus, consumers will be more satisfied with their online food ordering experience and will be more likely to use these services in the future. ^{12 , 20}

Attitude, behavioural intention and continuance intention

Attitude (ATT) can be defined as a consumer’s overall reaction when using a specific device or technology. ²⁷ It refers to a person’s reaction, whether positive or negative, to a given object. ⁴³ When consumers believe that online food ordering is useful and capable of easing their daily lives, they are more likely to develop a positive attitude which will lead to continuance intention (CI) of using it. Thus, attitude is positively related to behavioural intention. ^{10 , 18 , 44}

Behavioural intention (BI) is defined as a person’s proclivity to act in a certain way. ⁴⁵ The intent to use OFDS denotes a consumer’s desire to purchase food and beverages through online delivery platforms. ¹⁰ Many studies have established that the factors used to measure BI include positive word-of-mouth, willingness to recommend a product or service to others and also repurchase intention. ⁴⁶ Consumers who are pleased and content with their online purchase experience are expected to continue doing so. ¹²

The main objective of this study is to identify the factors that may influence consumers’ attitude and behaviour towards continuance intention in using OFDS post pandemic, as illustrated in the proposed research model in Figure 1. The hypotheses are proposed as follows:

Ethics

Research ethics approval was obtained from Multimedia University, Malaysia (EA1422021) and the respondents gave their written informed consent when filling out the Google Form.

Questionnaire development

An online survey with close-ended questions was designed using Google Form to examine the research hypotheses. It consisted of two parts: demographic information of respondents and 25 measurement items which indicated seven variables, namely, CM, PEOU, TSO, PSO, ATT, BI and CI towards OFDS, which were adopted from previous studies ^{10 , 12 , 14 , 18 , 22 , 47 – 49} and recorded in Table 1. All items were measured based on a five-point Likert-type ^{50 , 51} ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”).

Data collection

In this study, purposive sampling method was applied ^{52 – 54} because the selected samples are more representative of the population. It is commonly used by researchers for similar studies, such as a recent study on the intention to use OFDS among consumers in Malaysia, which gathered 224 samples for data analysis. ¹⁰ Questionnaire was sent to potential respondents who were close contacts (relatives, friends and students) of the authors of this study, and they were invited through email, Facebook and WhatsApp, between 22 March 2021 and 18 April 2021. A screening question was included to ensure that only participants with experience using OFDS were able to complete the survey.

A primary dataset of 256 respondents was gathered, in order to examine consumers’ perception and attitude towards OFDS during the pandemic, which is critical to the future growth of the OFDS industry. The minimum sample size of 191 is determined according to the guideline of Hair et al., ⁵⁵ with a maximum of 4 arrows pointing at a latent variable and minimum R² of 0.10.

Hypotheses approach

Demographic background of respondents is presented descriptively and graphically. Consistent Partial Least Square (PLSc) approach ^{55 – 57} was applied to study the reflective and formative factors in this study and SmartPLS.v3 software was the main tool used (a free version is available for 30 days). Reliability and validity were tested in factor analysis and bootstrapping of 5,000 subsamples was used to estimate PLSc path model. ⁵⁸

Profile of survey respondents

Table 2 shows the demographic profile of 256 respondents. ⁵⁹ All of them has experienced using OFDS and mostly are young adults between the age of 18 to 25 years old (40.63%). 68.75% preferred to eat at home, compared to at a restaurant. Figure 2 depicts the distribution of respondents who ordered food via third-party mobile apps, social media, or the company’s own website or mobile apps. Foodpanda (76.56%) and GrabFood (70.70%) are the most popular in Malaysia because consumers deemed that the platforms are user-friendly. ¹⁵ However, social media platforms such as Instagram are more suitable for promoting food rather than ordering. ⁶⁰

Table 3 recorded the feedback of the respondents whereby the mode for all measurement items is “Agree”, which contributes to the left-skewed distribution except PSO4. The average and standard deviation of variables are recorded in Table 4 and each average is close to “4” (Agree) except PSO.

Table 5 shows the ratio comparison of the dining preference among the OFDS users based on age, gender, marital status and personal income level. Personal income levels were classified as B40 (less than RM4,850), M40 (RM4,851–RM10,970), and T20 (above RM10,971). As expected, the majority of OFDS users preferred to enjoy their food at home during pandemic especially the elderly or married adults prefer to enjoy their food at home (>80% for age group above 41 years old; married 73%). Although 71.88% of the users were earning a low income, they still preferred to use OFDS and dine at home (71%) compared to higher income respondents. This indicates COVID-19 pandemic has significantly changed people’s lifestyles and has became a new norm.

Reliability and validity

Table 6 shows Cronbach’s alpha ^{61 , 62} and composite reliability (CR) ^{55 , 63 , 64} for each variable as above 0.8, which indicates good internal consistency of the questionnaire’s questions scale in measuring a similar variable. * indicates CR > 0.95 but there are no significant changes after its removal. ⁵⁵ The average variance extracted (AVE) indices ⁶⁵ are greater than 0.5 for each variable, indicating no convergent validity problems.

In Table 7 Fornell-Larcker criterion, ^{65 , 66} the diagonals represent the square root of AVE and off diagonals represent the coefficient of correlation. One tail t-test is conducted on the coefficient of correlation at 5% level of significance. The results revealed that there is a positive correlation between the variables with p-value of 0. There are no discriminant validity issues with the support of HTMT values, recorded in Table 8 based on HTMT_0.90 criterions. ⁶⁷

Consistent partial least square (PLSc) path modelling approach

Six hypotheses were tested using PLSc, ⁵⁷ a variance-based structural equation modelling technique, with no concerns about distribution or multicollinearity. In the past decade, the use of PLS modelling has gradually increased in order to handle more complex models.

Table 9 summarises the result of the hypotheses presented in Figure 3, which indicates the path coefficient and outer loading of the variable. PEOU is found to be insignificant in influencing consumers’ attitude towards OFDS (p-value > 0.05). Consumers’ attitude towards using OFDS during and post the COVID-19 pandemic is, however, positively influenced by CM (p-value < 0.05), TSO (p-value < 0.05) and PSO (p-value < 0.05). Furthermore, hypotheses of ATT positively influencing consumers’ BI (p-value < 0.05) and also BI positively influencing consumers’ CI (p-value < 0.05) towards OFDS are supported in this study. Thus, H1, H3, H4, H5 and H6 are validated while H2 is rejected.

To test the model quality, effect size, f² and predictive relevance, Q² is measured. All the f² values are greater than 0.02 except the path of PEOU→ATT, which indicates no effect toward ATT. ^{68 , 69} The predictive relevance, Q² is used to determine the predictive power of dependent variables. All the Q² values are greater than 0.35. ⁷⁰ This means there is substantial predictive relevance in this model.

Limitations

This study did not take into account all of the possible factors that might influence the continuance intention of using OFDS after the pandemic. The model could be improved in the future by including more variables, such as, customer satisfaction and social influences. Furthermore, the findings cannot be generalised as a whole due to convenience sampling biasness. In the future, the study could be narrowed down to a specific group; perhaps looking at some larger cities with higher demand and supply for OFDS.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the participants in this research for their voluntary participation.

References

• 1.  World Health Organization (WHO): Impact of COVID-19 on people’s livelihoods, their health and our food systems. 2020. Reference Source
• 2.  Department of Statistics Malaysia: Labour force survey report, Malaysia, 2020. [Press Release], 2021. Reference Source
• 3.  United Nations: Goal 1: end poverty in all its forms everywhere. n.d., Retrieved June 26, 2022. Reference Source
• 4.  Kwak DH, Jain H: The role of web and E-commerce in poverty reduction: a framework based on ecological systems theory. Workshop on E-Business. 2015:143–154. Publisher Full Text
• 5.  We Are Social & Hootsuite: Digital 2021 : Malaysia; 2021. Reference Source
• 6.  Kamel H: Food delivery services: from odd job to the most in demand. The Malaysian Reserve. January 1, 2021. Reference Source
• 7.  Kamaruddin NJ: Positivity in negativity: COVID-19 sees 30 pct jump in delivery orders. BERNAMA. March 18, 2020. Reference Source.
• 8.  Money Compass: Online Food Delivery market to see robust growth over next 4 years. August 7, 2020.
• 9.  Shankar A, Jebarajakirthy C, Nayal P, et al.: Online Food Delivery: a systematic synthesis of literature and a framework development. Int J Hosp Manag. 2022; 104:103240. Publisher Full Text
• 10.  Yeo VCS, Goh SK, Rezaei S: Consumer experiences, attitude and behavioral intention toward Online Food Delivery (OFD) Services. J Retail Consum Serv. 2017; 35:150–162. Publisher Full Text
• 11.  Vinish P, Pinto P, Hawaldar IT, et al.: Antecedents of behavioral intention to use Online Food Delivery services: an empirical investigation. Innov Mark. 2021; 17(1):1–15. Publisher Full Text
• 12.  Alalwan AA: Mobile Food Ordering Apps: an empirical study of the factors affecting customer E-satisfaction and continued intention to reuse. Int J Inf Manag. 2020; 50:28–44. Publisher Full Text
• 13.  Ray A, Dhir A, Bala PK, et al.: Why do people use Food Delivery Apps (FDA)? A uses and gratification theory perspective. J Retail Consum Serv. 2019; 51:221–230. Publisher Full Text
• 14.  Zhao Y, Bacao F: What factors determining customer continuingly using Food Delivery Apps during 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic period? Int J Hosp Manag. 2020; 91:102683. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
• 15.  Nayan NM, Hassan MKA: Customer satisfaction evaluation for online food service delivery system in Malaysia. J Inf Syst Technol Manag. 2020; 5(9):123–136. Publisher Full Text
• 16.  Al Amin M, Arefin MS, Sultana N, et al.: Evaluating the customers’ dining attitudes, e-satisfaction and continuance intention toward Mobile Food Ordering Apps (MFOAs): evidence from Bangladesh. Eur J Manag Bus Econ. 2020; 30(2):211–229. Publisher Full Text
• 17.  Cho YC, Sagynov E: Exploring factors that affect usefulness, ease of use, trust, and purchase intention in the online environment. Int J Manag Inf Syst. 2015; 19(1):21–36. Publisher Full Text
• 18.  Troise C, O’Driscoll A, Tani M, et al.: Online Food Delivery services and behavioural intention - a test of an integrated TAM and TPB framework. Br Food J. 2021; 123(2):664–683. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
• 19.  Punj G: Income effects on relative importance of two online purchase goals: saving time versus saving money? J Bus Res. 2012; 65(5):634–640. Publisher Full Text
• 20.  Hooi R, Tang KL, Lai HY: Intention to use Online Food Delivery service in Malaysia among university students. CoMBInES - Conf Manag Bus Innov Edu Soc Sci .2021;1(1):60–73. Reference Source
• 21.  Chen YM, Hsu TH, Lu YJ: Impact of flow on mobile shopping intention. J Retail Consum Serv. 2018; 41:281–287. Publisher Full Text
• 22.  Brewer P, Sebby AG: The effect of online restaurant menus on consumers’ purchase intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Hosp Manag. 2021; 94:102777. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
• 23.  Wang H, Zhang J, Luximon Y, et al.: The determinants of user acceptance of Mobile Medical Platforms: an investigation integrating the TPB, TAM, and patient-centered factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(17):10758. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
• 24.  Abu-Taieh EM, AlHadid I, Abu-Tayeh S, et al.: Continued intention to use of m-banking in Jordan by integrating UTAUT, TPB, TAM and Service Quality with ML. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex. 2022; 8(3):120. Publisher Full Text
• 25.  Mustafa MH, Ahmad MB, Shaari ZH, et al.: Integration of TAM, TPB, and TSR in understanding library user behavioral utilization intention of physical vs. E-book format. J Acad Libr. 2021; 47(5):102399. Publisher Full Text
• 26.  Davis FD: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989; 13(3):319–340. Publisher Full Text
• 27.  Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991; 50(2):179–211. Publisher Full Text
• 28.  Ajzen L, Fishbein M: Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall; 1980. Reference Source
• 29.  Farhans A, Ridanasti E: The effect of online food delivery services on consumer behavioral intentions. COSTING: Journal of Economic, Business and Accounting. 2024; 7(6):1942–1955.
• 30.  Giningroem DSWP, Farida N, Soesanto H: Behavioural intention using online food delivery service: Information technology continuance approach. Int J Bus Soc. 2023; 24(3):1186–1196. Publisher Full Text
• 31.  Shankar A, Jebarajakirthy C, Maseeh HI, et al.: Why do consumers choose online food delivery services? A meta-analytic review. Int J Hosp Manag. 2024; 123(103291):103921. Publisher Full Text
• 32.  Teo SC, Liew TW, Lim HY: Factors influencing consumers’ continuance purchase intention of local food via online food delivery services: The moderating role of gender. Cogent Bus Manag. 2024; 11(1):2316919. Publisher Full Text
• 33.  Lau TC, Ng DCY: Online Food Delivery services: making food delivery the new normal. J Mark Adv Pract. 2019; 1(1):62–77. Reference Source
• 34.  Jayadevan GR, Thamaraiselvan N, Chandrasekar KS: Digital Food Delivery Apps revolutionizing food products marketing in India. Int J Rec Tech Eng. 2019; 8(2S6):662–665. Publisher Full Text
• 35.  Google, Temasek and Bain: e-Conomy SEA 2020. 2020. Reference Source
• 36.  Balmaceda K, Leong B: Who are Malaysia’s online shoppers? Janio Asia; 2021. Reference Source
• 37.  Boice M: The 13 top reasons consumers shop online. Jungle Scout; 2021. Reference Source
• 38.  Preetha S, Iswarya S: An analysis of user convenience towards food online order and delivery application (Food app via platforms). Inter J Manag Techn Eng 2019; IX(I):429–433. Reference Source.
• 39.  Meuter ML, Ostrom AL, Bitner MJ, et al.: The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. J Bus Res. 2003; 56(11):899–906. Publisher Full Text
• 40.  Nagle TT, Hogan J, Zale J: The strategy and tactics to pricing: a guide to growing more profitably. 5th ed. Routledge; 2016. Publisher Full Text
• 41.  Sabilillah JU, Usman O: The effect of service quality, price and facilities on visitor satisfaction in Ragunan. 2021. Publisher Full Text
• 42.  Chiu CM, Wang ETG, Fang YH, et al.: Understanding customers’ repeat purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: the roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived risk. Inf Syst J. 2014; 24(1):85–114. Publisher Full Text
• 43.  Fishbein M, Ajzen I: Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Philos Rhetor. 1977; 10(2):130–132. Reference Source.
• 44.  Ramadani V, Demiri A, Saiti-Demiri S: Social media channels: the factors that influence the behavioural intention of customers. Int J Bus Global. 2014; 12(3):297–314. Publisher Full Text
• 45.  Brown SA, Venkatesh V: Model of adoption of technology in households: a baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Q. 2005; 29(3):399–426. Publisher Full Text
• 46.  Othman B: The influence of technology acceptance model on behavioral intention to use internet banking system. [Master’s thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] (January 2013). 2013. Reference Source
• 47.  Cho M, Bonn MA, Li JJ: Differences in perceptions about food delivery apps between single-person and multi-person households. Int J Hosp Manag. 2019; 77:108–116. Publisher Full Text
• 48.  Ganesh J, Reynolds KE, Luckett M, et al.: Online shopper motivations, and e-store attributes: an examination of online patronage behavior and shopper typologies. J Retail. 2010; 86(1):106–115. Publisher Full Text
• 49.  Liébana-Cabanillas F, Marinković V, Kalinić Z: A SEM-neural network approach for predicting antecedents of m-commerce acceptance. Int J Inf Manag. 2017; 37(2):14–24. Publisher Full Text
• 50.  Gliem JA, Gliem RR: Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. [Paper Presentation]. 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 2003, October8-10. Reference Source
• 51.  Subedi BP: Using Likert type data in social science research: confusion, issues and challenges. Int J Contemporary App Sci 2016; 3(2):36–49. Reference Source
• 52.  Etikan I, Musa SA, Alkassim RS: Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theor Appl Stat. 2016; 5(1):1–4. Publisher Full Text
• 53.  Tongco MDC: Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. 2007;5:147–158. Reference Source
• 54.  Barratt MJ, Ferris JA, Lenton S: Hidden populations, online purposive sampling, and external validity: taking off the blindfold. Field Methods. 2015; 27(1):3–21. Publisher Full Text
• 55.  Hair JF Jr, Hult GTM, Ringle C, et al.: A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd ed.SAGE Publications; 2016. Reference Source
• 56.  Wong KKK: Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Mark Bull. 2013; 24(1):1–32. Reference Source
• 57.  Dijkstra TK, Henseler J: Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q. 2015;39(2):297–316. Reference Source
• 58.  Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract. 2011; 19(2):139–152. Publisher Full Text
• 59.  Tan SY, Lim SY: Online food delivery services: consumers’ attitude towards continuance intention post COVID-19 pandemic_OFDS307.csv. figshare . Dataset. 2021. Publisher Full Text
• 60.  Othman I, Bidin A, Hussain H: Facebook marketing strategy for small business in Malaysia. International Conference on Informatics and Creative Multimedia. 2013:236–341. Publisher Full Text
• 61.  Cortina JM: What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993; 78(1):98–104. Publisher Full Text
• 62.  Taber KS: The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018; 48:1273–1296. Publisher Full Text
• 63.  Fornell C, Larcker DF: Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J Market Res. 1981; 18(3):382–388. Publisher Full Text
• 64.  Aguirre-Urreta MI, Marakas GM, Ellis ME: Measurement of composite reliability in research using partial least squares: some issues and an alternative approach. DATABASE for Adv Inf Sys. 2013; 44(4):11–43. Publisher Full Text
• 65.  Alarcón D, Sánchez JA, De Olavide U: Assessing convergent and discriminant validity in the ADHD-R IV rating scale: user-written commands for Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Composite Reliability (CR), and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). [Paper Presentation]. Spanish STATA Meeting, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, October 22, 2015; 39. Reference Source
• 66.  Ab Hamid MR, Sami W, Sidek MM: Discriminant validity assessment: use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. J Phys Conf Ser. 2017; 890(1):012163. Publisher Full Text
• 67.  Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M: A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Market Sci. 2015; 43(1):115–135. Publisher Full Text
• 68.  Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ; 1988. Reference Source
• 69.  Hair JF Jr, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, et al.: Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in Business Research. Eur Bus Rev. 2014; 26(2):106–121. Publisher Full Text
• 70.  Chin WW: The Partial Least Squares approach for structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research. 1998; 295(2):295–336. Reference Source.
• 71.  Lee SW, Sung HJ, Jeon HM: Determinants of continuous intention on food delivery apps: extending UTAUT2 with information quality. Sustainability. 2019; 11(11):3141. Publisher Full Text
• 72.  Korzaan ML: Going with the flow: predicting online purchase intentions. J Comput Inf Syst. 2003; 43(4):25–31. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
• 73.  Yang K: Determinants of US consumer mobile shopping services adoption: implications for designing mobile shopping services. J Consum Mark. 2010; 27(3):262–270. Publisher Full Text
• 74.  Aldammagh Z, Abdeljawad R, Obaid T: Predicting mobile banking adoption: an integration of TAM and TPB with trust and perceived risk. Financ Internet Quart. 2021; 17(3):35–46. Publisher Full Text
• 75.  Buabeng-Andoh C: Exploring university students’ intention to use mobile learning: a research model approach. Educ Inf Technol. 2021; 26(1):241–256. Publisher Full Text
• 76.  Gómez-Ramirez I, Valencia-Arias A, Duque L: Approach to M-learning acceptance among university students: an integrated model of TPB and TAM. Int Rev Res Open Dist Learn. 2019; 20(3):141–164. Publisher Full Text
• 77.  Haldar P, Goel PT: Willingness to use carsharing apps: an integrated TPB and TAM. Int J Indian Cult Bus Manag. 2019; 19(2):129–146. Publisher Full Text
• 78.  Irawan MZ, Bastarianto FF, Priyanto S: Using an integrated model of TPB and TAM to analyze the pandemic impacts on the intention to use bicycles in the post-COVID-19 period. IATSS Res. 2022; 46(3):380–387. Publisher Full Text
• 79.  Astari A, Yasa N, Sukaatmadja I, et al.: Integration of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB): an e-wallet behavior with fear of COVID-19 as a moderator variable. International Journal of Data and Network Science. 2022; 6(4):1427–1436. Publisher Full Text
• 80.  Ha N, Nguyen T: The effect of trust on consumers’ online purchase intention: an integration of TAM and TPB. Manag Sci Lett. 2019; 9(9):1451–1460. Publisher Full Text
• 81.  Tan SY, Lim SY: Online Food Delivery Services questionnaire 2021.csv. figshare . Dataset. 2021. Publisher Full Text

Published: 03 Mar 2026, 10:972

Published: 08 May 2024, 10:972

Published: 27 Sep 2021, 10:972

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

VERSION 3

PUBLISHED 03 Mar 2026

Revised

Reviewer Report 16 Jun 2026

Flavio Santino Bizarrias, Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing (ESPM), Sao Paulo, Brazil 

Approved with Reservations

VIEWS 0

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 08 May 2024

Revised

Reviewer Report 11 Jul 2024

Lau Teck Chai, Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Hub, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China 

Approved with Reservations

VIEWS 0

Reviewer Report 08 Jun 2024

Hyun-Woo Joung, The University of Mississippi, Lubbock, USA 

Approved

VIEWS 0

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 27 Sep 2021

Reviewer Report 06 May 2024

Hyun-Woo Joung, The University of Mississippi, Lubbock, USA 

Approved with Reservations

VIEWS 0

Reviewer Report 21 Dec 2021

Bui Thanh Khoa, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 

Not Approved

VIEWS 0