. 2021 Aug 12;27(4):1311–1333. doi: 10.1007/s10758-021-09561-y

Table 3.

An assessment of the descriptive statistics, composite reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity

Construct		Items	Outer Loadings	Mean	SD	CR	AVE	1	2	3	4	5
1	Attitude	ATT1	0.925	4.176	0.495	0.935	0.878	0.937	0.588	0.548	0.482	0.614
1	Attitude	ATT2	0.949	4.138	0.468	0.935	0.878	0.937	0.588	0.548	0.482	0.614
2	Behavioral Intentions	BI1	0.649	4.246	0.430	0.720	0.578	0.318	0.760	0.486	0.614	0.593
2	Behavioral Intentions	BI2	0.924	4.377	0.485	0.720	0.578	0.318	0.760	0.486	0.614	0.593
3	Facilitating Conditions	FC1	0.917	4.717	0.451	0.847	0.736	0.422	0.214	0.858	0.849	0.811
3	Facilitating Conditions	FC2	0.795	4.579	0.558	0.847	0.736	0.422	0.214	0.858	0.849	0.811
4	Perceived Interactivity	PI1	0.778	4.301	0.535	0.825	0.614	0.390	0.227	0.613	0.784	0.776
		PI2	0.671	4.453	0.498
		PI3	0.887	3.896	0.411
5	Perceived Usefulness	PU1	0.857	4.577	0.568	0.898	0.687	0.523	0.292	0.641	0.671	0.829
		PU2	0.826	3.886	0.318
		PU3	0.866	4.745	0.436
		PU4	0.763	4.168	0.540

The square root of each AVE (i.e. marked in bold in the diagonal) was greater than the correlation coefficients (off-diagonal) for each construct in the relevant rows and columns (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The italicized areas feature the results from the Heterotrait Monotrait Ratio (HTMT). The correlations re-confirmed the presence of discriminant validity, where the values were lower than the recommended threshold of 0.9 (Henseler et al., 2015)