Global Journal of Management and Business Research, E: Marketing, Volume 23 Issue 2

Consumers’ Food Delivery Apps (FDAs) Continuance Intention: An Empirical Investigation using the Extended UTAUT2 Model 11 Global Journal of Management and Business Research Volume XXIII Issue II Version I Year 2023 ( )E © 2023 Global Journals HB 4 0.574 0.191 0.212 0.316 0.239 0.329 0.123 0.823 0.443 0.255 0.304 IQ 1 0.573 0.264 0.284 0.463 0.188 0.342 0.434 0.339 0.852 0.39 0.358 IQ 2 0.499 0.214 0.26 0.448 0.213 0.287 0.505 0.325 0.828 0.352 0.336 IQ 3 0.29 0.151 0.179 0.286 0.089 0.189 0.359 0.179 0.859 0.226 0.2 IQ 4 0.312 0.117 0.19 0.286 0.07 0.194 0.34 0.189 0.876 0.246 0.182 TS 1 0.323 0.199 0.2 0.284 0.076 0.172 0.364 0.234 0.266 0.829 0.162 TS 2 0.275 0.161 0.194 0.314 0.056 0.203 0.335 0.222 0.24 0.856 0.202 TS 3 0.535 0.243 0.312 0.497 0.221 0.303 0.505 0.231 0.371 0.887 0.365 TS 4 0.504 0.239 0.315 0.472 0.237 0.289 0.506 0.246 0.377 0.89 0.354 CO 1 0.527 0.222 0.33 0.481 0.264 0.314 0.486 0.205 0.338 0.382 0.879 CO 2 0.402 0.174 0.22 0.408 0.092 0.121 0.352 0.257 0.348 0.195 0.819 CO 3 0.37 0.154 0.186 0.373 0.018 0.129 0.331 0.218 0.333 0.231 0.808 Note: CUI= Continuance Usage Intention; PE = Performance Expectancy; EE = Effort Expectancy; SI= Social Influence; FC = Facilitating Conditions; HM = Hedonic Motivation; PV = Price Value; HB = Habit; IQ = Information Quality; TS = Time Savings; CO = Convenience ” b) The Structural Model After assessing the measurement model, the investigators evaluated the structure model. The structural model was verified by the coefficient of determinations (squared multiple correlations, R 2 ), the strength of the effect (f 2 ), and the significance level of the path coefficient, as suggested by Hair et al. (2017). A total of 5,000 bootstrap samples were used to construct t-statistics and confidence ranges. Table 6 demonstrates that all variables' variance inflation factor (VIF) evaluations were less than 5 (Hair et al., 2019). R 2 must be greater than the value of 0.20 to be considered the model sufficient. In this study, the model explained (58.3%) the variation in continuance intention (R 2 = 58.3%). Since the R 2 is higher than 0.45, the model used in this study has moderate explanatory power (Hair et al., 2019). Except for effort expectancy, habit, and time-saving, none of the variables exceeded the lower and upper confidence levels. In addition, it is essential to determine whether the exogenous constructs of performance expectancy, social influence, facilitating condition, hedonic motivation, price value, information quality, and convenience significantly influence the endogenous constructs. Following Chin (1998) and Henseler et al. (2015), we examined the effect sizes (Cohen's f 2 value) to determine the significance of the effect size strength for the independent variables. This was measured using Cohen's (1988) criteria for effect sizes (f 2 ), with 0.02 representing a small impact, 0.15 representing an average effect, and 0.35 representing a significant effect. All f 2 values in this study were well above the minimum threshold of 0.02. The Q2 value for continuance usage intention (0.222) was greater than zero, indicating the model has adequate predictive validity. Table 6 shows that the results of the path coefficient showed that performance expectancy (H1: β = 0.234, p < 0.001); Social influence (H3: β = 0.196, p < 0.001); facilitating conditions (H4: β = 0.221, p < 0.001); hedonic motivation (H5: β = 0.260, p < 0.001); price value (H6: β = 0.297, p < 0.001); information quality (H8: β = 0.342, p < 0.001); and convenience (H10: β = 0.320, p < 0.001) are the factors that are significant and have a positive influence on users’ continuance intention towards food delivery apps (FDAs) except for effort expectancy (H2: β = 0.234, p < 0.093); habit (H7: β = 0.064, p < 0.083); time savings (H9: β = 0.053, p <0.073). The structural model of the study is depicted in Figure 2.