Cronbach Alpha Reliability Analysis Paper
Consistency of the data has to be verified before proceeding to more in depth analysis because all the variables have been calculated on a scale and reliability studies the value of measurement. It provides information about the internal regularity of the variables. The Cronbach Alpha Reliability analysis has been used and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient generated by SPSS gives an evaluation of the consistency. Generally, if a Cronbach Alpha coefficient of fewer than 0.60 is obtained, the internal consistency is assumed to be poor; a value in the range of 0.60 to 0.80 is suitable consistency and values above 0.80 are fine internal consistencies.
The composite reliability was estimated to evaluate the internal consistency of the measurement …show more content…
Performance risk had Cronbach’s alpha of 50 and security/privacy risk had Cronbach’s alpha of 54 whereas time risk showed the lowest value of Cronbach’s alpha with 0.18. The effect of the three facets (performance risk, security/privacy risk and time risk) individually had a minimal effect on the overall reliability of the perceived risk construct, hence the three facets were not removed. As outlined in Table 4.3, all facets of the trust construct have Cronbach’s alpha above 60 which is acceptable.Descriptive statistics analysis, that is mean and frequencies were performed on the demographic data. The data was sorted to group questions according to applicable constructs under test. Data analysis was conducted through Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and Statistical Package for Social Science. Editing was undertaken before data …show more content…
The last group of respondents were between 45 to 54 years with a percentage of 5%. There were no respondents from the age group of 55 to 64, 65 to 74 and 75 or older, reflecting perhaps the disadvantages of using mail survey/snowball sampling method. The average age was 33 years, while the standard deviation of the age distribution was 9.5. The respondents were asked to indicate whether they currently use or intend to use mobile banking so as to determine whether the respondents were currently using a mobile banking service. Three options were provided for the respondents to choose, namely ‘Yes’, No, but interested in using, if useful, affordable and secure,’ and ‘No, not interested’.
The respondents who answered ‘Yes’ were categorised as Adopters (Group A); those who answered ‘No, but interested in using it in the future’, were categorised as Potential Adopters (Group B); and those responded ‘No, not interested’ were categorised as Non-Adopters (Group
The composite reliability was estimated to evaluate the internal consistency of the measurement …show more content…
Performance risk had Cronbach’s alpha of 50 and security/privacy risk had Cronbach’s alpha of 54 whereas time risk showed the lowest value of Cronbach’s alpha with 0.18. The effect of the three facets (performance risk, security/privacy risk and time risk) individually had a minimal effect on the overall reliability of the perceived risk construct, hence the three facets were not removed. As outlined in Table 4.3, all facets of the trust construct have Cronbach’s alpha above 60 which is acceptable.Descriptive statistics analysis, that is mean and frequencies were performed on the demographic data. The data was sorted to group questions according to applicable constructs under test. Data analysis was conducted through Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and Statistical Package for Social Science. Editing was undertaken before data …show more content…
The last group of respondents were between 45 to 54 years with a percentage of 5%. There were no respondents from the age group of 55 to 64, 65 to 74 and 75 or older, reflecting perhaps the disadvantages of using mail survey/snowball sampling method. The average age was 33 years, while the standard deviation of the age distribution was 9.5. The respondents were asked to indicate whether they currently use or intend to use mobile banking so as to determine whether the respondents were currently using a mobile banking service. Three options were provided for the respondents to choose, namely ‘Yes’, No, but interested in using, if useful, affordable and secure,’ and ‘No, not interested’.
The respondents who answered ‘Yes’ were categorised as Adopters (Group A); those who answered ‘No, but interested in using it in the future’, were categorised as Potential Adopters (Group B); and those responded ‘No, not interested’ were categorised as Non-Adopters (Group