Skip to main content

Table 2 Reliability assessment of the measurement model

From: Quality of health websites and their influence on perceived usefulness, trust and intention to use: an analysis from Thailand

Item Standardized factor loading t value Composite reliability (CR) and AVE
Content of site (CO)
(Mun et al. 2013; Provost et al. 2006)
CR = 0.881 AVE = 0.515
 CO1: Is the clinical content reviewed by medically trained experts pertinent to the content? 0.76 14.98**
 CO2: Is the content comprehensive (right amount, right scope) within the given area and for the intended audience? 0.74 11.91**
 CO3: Does the site state its purpose or mission? 0.72 9.81**
 CO4: Is the home page free of spelling errors? 0.72 8.51**
 CO5: Is the information presented in a balanced and neutral format? 0.77 12.50**
Authority of source (AU)
(Mun et al. 2013; Provost et al. 2006)
CR = 0.864 AVE = 0.615
 AU1: Did medically trained and qualified professionals develop the health information provided by the site? 0.83 15.82**
 AU2: Is the author identified? 0.85 17.10**
 AU3: Are the credentials of those responsible for preparing and/or reviewing the site’s content mentioned? 0.78 8.55**
 AU4: Is the occupation, experience, training and/or education of the author(s) clearly stated? 0.72 9.13**
Design (DE)
(Mun et al. 2013; Provost et al. 2006)
CR = 0.922 AVE = 0.570
 DE1: Is the site easy to navigate? 0.75 9.98**
 DE2: Do the images/graphics facilitate the use of the site? 0.79 14.01**
 DE3: Is the page layout organized and logical? 0.82 16.74**
 DE4: Is the text (font and layout) easy to read? 0.76 9.98**
Accessibility and availability of information (AC)
(Mun et al. 2013; Provost et al. 2006)
CR = 0.792 AVE = 0.562
 AC1: Does the site provide a choice of more than one language? 0.64 7.34**
 AC2: Is the site free? 0.84 12.32**
 AC3: Does the site provide accommodations to users with disabilities? 0.77 11.58**
Quality of links to other sources (QS)
(Mun et al. 2013; Provost et al. 2006)
CR = 0.856 AVE = 0.666
 QS1: Does the site clearly indicate the date the content was posted? 0.76 10.96**
 QS2: Does the site clearly state that links have been reviewed? 0.85 22.61**
 QS3: Does the site present a policy statement or criteria for selecting links? 0.83 14.64**
User support (US)
(Mun et al. 2013; Provost et al. 2006)
CR = 0.852 AVE = 0.657
 US1: Can site users contact the webmaster or technical support specialist via e-mail? 0.80 11.16**
 US2: Is there a statement inviting comments, corrections of inaccurate information or suggestions for improvement? 0.84 19.94**
 US3: Does the site state expected response times for feedback? 0.80 12.43**
Perceived information quality (PQ) CR = 0.891 AVE = 0.577
 PQ1: 3. The information content maintained by the website is pretty much what I need. 0.75 11.05**
 PQ2: The information exchange maintains data at an appropriate level. 0.77 12.91**
 PQ3: The information content is up to date enough. 0.74 11.51**
 PQ4: The information content provided by this exchange is completely error-free. 0.82 16.74**
 PQ5: The information content has no missing data items. 0.75 9.42**
Trust (TR)
(Mohseni et al. 2018)
CR =0.800 AVE = 0.572
 TR1: I feel my privacy is protected on this website. 0.72 6.74**
 TR2: I find this online website trustworthy. 0.82 16.85**
 TR3: I trust this online website. 0.74 9.79**
Perceived usefulness (PU)
(Mohseni et al. 2018)
CR = 0.791 AVE = 0.559
 PER1: I find the instructions are easy to follow. 0.76 13.24**
 PER2: I find this website is easy to navigate. 0.79 14.88**
 PER3: I find this website is easy to learn how to use. 0.68 7.45**
Intention to use (IT)
(Mohseni et al. 2018)
CR = 0.802 AVE = 0.575
 IT1: I plan to use this website again in the future. 0.75 9.94**
 IT2: I will recommend that other people use this website. 0.72 7.25**
 IT3: My intentions are to continue using this website more than any alternative ones. 0.80 15.65**
  1. **t value > 2.58 (p < 0.01)