Continued Intention to Use of M-Banking in Jordan by Integrating UTAUT, TPB, TAM and Service Quality with ML
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. M-Banking Literature Review
3. Theoretical Framework: Model and Hypothesis Development
3.1. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
3.2. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
3.3. Moderating Factors Hypotheses
3.3.1. Hypothesis Related to Age
3.3.2. Hypothesis Related to Gender
3.3.3. Hypothesis Related to Internet Experience
3.3.4. Hypothesis Related to Educational Level
4. Survey Design/Methods
4.1. Research Context
4.2. Measurement Items
4.3. Participants and Procedure
5. Data Analysis and Results
5.1. Descriptive Analysis
5.2. SEM Analysis
5.2.1. Measurement Model
5.2.2. Structural Model
5.3. Moderation Effects
5.4. Artificial Intelligence Validation and Prediction
6. Discussion and Conclusions
6.1. Theoretical Implications
6.2. Managerial Implications
6.3. Limitations and Future Research
6.4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Constructs | ID: Items/Measure | Adopted from |
---|---|---|
Demographic information | Gender 1. Male 2. Female | [15] |
Age (years) 1: 18 to less than 34 years old. 2: 34 to less than 44 years old. 3: 44 to less than 54 years old. 4: 54 to less than 64 years old. 5: 64 and over. | [7] | |
Educational level 1: High school and less. 2: Diploma. 3: Bachelor. 4: Postgraduate | [84] | |
Internet experience 1: Low. 2: Good. 3: Excellent. | [44] | |
Perceived trust (PT) |
| [40] |
Behavioral intention (BI) |
| [40] |
Perceived risk (PR) |
| [40] |
Service quality (SRQ) |
| [6] |
Effort expectancy (EE) |
| [6] |
Performance expectancy (PE) |
| [6] |
Social influence (SI) |
| [6] |
Facilitating conditions (FC) |
| [6] |
Word of mouth |
| [80] |
Continued intention to use (CIU) |
| [111] |
References
- Anderson, J. M-banking in Developing Markets: Competitive and Regulatory Implications. Info 2010, 12, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Lu, C.; Kizildag, M. Banking “on-the-Go”: Examining Consumers’ Adoption of Mobile Banking Services. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2018, 10, 279–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albort-Morant, G.; Sanchís-Pedregosa, C.; Paredes Paredes, J.R. Online Banking Adoption in Spanish Cities and Towns. Finding Differences through TAM Application. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraž. 2021, 35, 854–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdus Salam, M.; Saha, T.; Habibur Rahman, M.; Mutsuddi, P. Challenges to Mobile Banking Adaptation in COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Bus. Manag. Sci. 2021, 9, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.-T.; Ou, W.-M.; Chen, W.-Y. The Impact of Inertia and User Satisfaction on the Continuance Intentions to Use Mobile Communication Applications: A Mobile Service Quality Perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 44, 178–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baabdullah, A.M.; Alalwan, A.A.; Rana, N.P.; Kizgin, H.; Patil, P. Consumer Use of Mobile Banking (M-Banking) in Saudi Arabia: Towards an Integrated Model. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 44, 38–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Talukder, M.S.; Laato, S.; Islam, A.K.M.N.; Bao, Y. Continued Use Intention of Wearable Health Technologies among the Elderly: An Enablers and Inhibitors Perspective. Internet Res. 2021, 31, 1611–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huarng, K.-H.; Yu, T.H.-K.; Lee, C.F. Adoption Model of Healthcare Wearable Devices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 174, 121286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan Strategy Forum. Jordanian Expatriates in the Gulf. 2018. Available online: http://jsf.org/sites/default/files/EN%20Jordanian%20Expatriates%20in%20the%20Gulf.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2022).
- OECD. Measurements of Jordanian Abroad and non Jordanians in Jordan. 2018. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/migration/forum-migration-statistics/2.B-3-Ahmed-A-Momani.pdf. (accessed on 1 January 2022).
- World Data. Tourism in Jordan. 2019. Available online: https://www.worlddata.info/asia/jordan/tourism.php (accessed on 22 January 2022).
- Degenhard, J. Statista Smart Phone Jordan Projection. 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1146839/smartphone-users-in-jordan (accessed on 22 January 2022).
- Yun, J.J.; Won, D.; Park, K. Dynamics from open innovation to evolutionary change. J. Open Innov. 2016, 2, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X.; Jung, K.; Yigitcanlar, T. The Culture for Open Innovation Dynamics. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sankaran, R.; Chakraborty, S. Factors Impacting Mobile Banking in India: Empirical Approach Extending UTAUT2 with Perceived Value and Trust. IIM Kozhikode Soc. Manag. Rev. 2021, 11, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.; Srivastava, R.K. Predicting the Intention to Use Mobile Banking in India. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2018, 36, 357–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alalwan, A.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P. Factors Influencing Adoption of Mobile Banking by Jordanian Bank Customers: Extending UTAUT2 with Trust. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alalwan, A.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.P.; Williams, M.D. Consumer Adoption of Mobile Banking in Jordan. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2016, 29, 118–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaseen, S.G.; El Qirem, I.A. Intention to Use E-Banking Services in the Jordanian Commercial Banks. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2018, 36, 557–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anouze, A.L.M.; Alamro, A.S. Factors Affecting Intention to Use E-Banking in Jordan. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019, 38, 86–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tarhini, A.; Alalwan, A.A.; Shammout, A.B.; Al-Badi, A. An Analysis of the Factors Affecting Mobile Commerce Adoption in Developing Countries. Rev. Int. Bus. Strategy 2019, 29, 157–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koksal, M.H. The Intentions of Lebanese Consumers to Adopt Mobile Banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2016, 34, 327–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merhi, M.; Hone, K.; Tarhini, A.; Ameen, N. An Empirical Examination of the Moderating Role of Age and Gender in Consumer Mobile Banking Use: A Cross-National, Quantitative Study. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 34, 1144–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makanyeza, C. Determinants of Consumers’ Intention to Adopt Mobile Banking Services in Zimbabwe. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017, 35, 997–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Ajam, A.S.; Md Nor, K. Challenges of Adoption of Internet Banking Service in Yemen. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2015, 33, 178–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mujahed, H.M.H.; Musa Ahmed, E.; Samikon, S.A. Factors Influencing Palestinian Small and Medium Enterprises Intention to Adopt Mobile Banking. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baabdullah, A.M.; Alalwan, A.A.; Rana, N.P.; Patil, P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. An Integrated Model for M-Banking Adoption in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019, 37, 452–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yusfiarto, R. The Relationship between M-Banking Service Quality and Loyalty: Evidence in Indonesian Islamic Banking. Asian J. Islamic Manag. (AJIM) 2021, 3, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rod, M.; Ashill, N.J.; Shao, J.; Carruthers, J. An Examination of the Relationship between Service Quality Dimensions, Overall Internet Banking Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2009, 27, 103–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.C.; Chung, N. Understanding Factors Affecting Trust in and Satisfaction with Mobile Banking in Korea: A Modified DeLone and McLean’s Model Perspective. Interact. Comput. 2009, 21, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glavee-Geo, R.; Shaikh, A.A.; Karjaluoto, H. Mobile Banking Services Adoption in Pakistan: Are There Gender Differences? Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017, 35, 1090–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alalwan, A.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.; Simintiras, A.C. Jordanian Consumers’ Adoption of Telebanking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2016, 34, 690–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inan, D.I.; Hidayanto, A.N.; Juita, R.; Soemawilaga, F.F.; Melinda, F.; Puspacinantya, P.; Amalia, Y. Service Quality and Self-Determination Theory towards Continuance Usage Intention of Mobile Banking. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giovanis, A.; Assimakopoulos, C.; Sarmaniotis, C. Adoption of Mobile Self-Service Retail Banking Technologies. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2019, 47, 894–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arcand, M.; PromTep, S.; Brun, I.; Rajaobelina, L. Mobile Banking Service Quality and Customer Relationships. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017, 35, 1068–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purohit, S.; Arora, R. Adoption of Mobile Banking at the Bottom of the Pyramid: An Emerging Market Perspective. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salimon, M.G.; Yusoff, R.Z.B.; Mohd Mokhtar, S.S. The Mediating Role of Hedonic Motivation on the Relationship between Adoption of E-Banking and Its Determinants. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017, 35, 558–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahi, S.; Othman Mansour, M.M.; Alghizzawi, M.; Alnaser, F.M. Integration of UTAUT Model in Internet Banking Adoption Context. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2019, 13, 411–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahi, S.; Abd Ghani, M. Examining Internet Banking User’s Continuance Intention through the Lens of Technology Continuance Theory and Task Technology Fit Model. Digit. Policy Regul. Gov. 2021, 23, 456–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiwari, P.; Tiwari, S.K.; Gupta, A. Examining the Impact of Customers’ Awareness, Risk and Trust in M-Banking Adoption. FIIB Bus. Rev. 2021, 10, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lai, P. The Literature Review of Technology Adoption Models and Theories for The Novelty Technology. J. Inf. Syst. Technol. Manag. 2017, 14, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farzin, M.; Sadeghi, M.; Yahyayi Kharkeshi, F.; Ruholahpur, H.; Fattahi, M. Extending UTAUT2 in M-Banking Adoption and Actual Use Behavior: Does WOM Communication Matter? Asian J. Econ. Bank. 2021, 5, 136–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samsudeen, S.N.; Selvaratnam, G.; Hayathu Mohamed, A.H. Intention to Use Mobile Banking Services: An Islamic Banking Customers’ Perspective from Sri Lanka. J. Islamic Mark. 2020, 13, 410–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahi, S.; Abd Ghani, M. The Role of UTAUT, DOI, Perceived Technology Security and Game Elements in Internet Banking Adoption. World J. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 15, 338–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez Caro, L.; Martínez García, J.A. Measuring Perceived Service Quality in Urgent Transport Service. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2007, 14, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baptista, G.; Oliveira, T. Why so Serious? Gamification Impact in the Acceptance of Mobile Banking Services. Internet Res. 2017, 27, 118–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohd Thas Thaker, H.; Mohd Thas Thaker, M.A.; Khaliq, A.; Allah Pitchay, A.; Iqbal Hussain, H. Behavioural Intention and Adoption of Internet Banking among Clients’ of Islamic Banks in Malaysia: An Analysis Using UTAUT2. J. Islamic Mark. 2021, 13, 1171–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahi, S.; Abd Ghani, M. Does Gamified Elements Influence on User’s Intention to Adopt and Intention to Recommend Internet Banking? Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2019, 36, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çera, G.; Pagria, I.; Khan, K.A.; Muaremi, L. Mobile Banking Usage and Gamification: The Moderating Effect of Generational Cohorts. J. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2020, 22, 243–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AlHadid, I.; Abu-Taieh, E.; Alkhawaldeh, R.S.; Khwaldeh, S.; Masa’deh, R.; Kaabneh, K.; Alrowwad, A. Predictors for E-Government Adoption of SANAD App Services Integrating UTAUT, TPB, TAM, Trust, and Perceived Risk. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S. Enhancing Customers’ Continued Mobile App Use in the Service Industry. J. Serv. Mark. 2018, 32, 680–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Yu, H.Y.; Lee, H.-W. Motivational Determinants of Digital Ticketing: The Mediating Effect of Service Satisfaction and the Moderating Effect of Psychological Discomfort. Int. J. Sports Mark. Spons. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.-C. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Internet Banking: An Integration of TAM and TPB with Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2009, 8, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Featherman, M.S.; Pavlou, P.A. Predicting E-Services Adoption: A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2003, 59, 451–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morgan, R.M.; Hunt, S.D. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Wulf, K.; Odekerken-Schröder, G.; Iacobucci, D. Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross-Industry Exploration. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Palazzo, M.; Foroudi, P.; Ferri, M.A. Examining Antecedents and Consequences of Perceived Service Quality in the Hotel Industry: A Comparison between London and New York. TQM J. 2021, 33, 193–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Li, B.; Tang, K.; Sun, M. Can Customer Perceived Service Quality Fluctuations Predict the Performance of Retail Service Supply Chain? Kybernetes 2021, 51, 602–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunningham, L.F.; Gerlach, J.; Harper, M.D. Perceived Risk and E-Banking Services: An Analysis from the Perspective of the Consumer. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 2005, 10, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lapointe, L.; Rivard, S. A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Raza, S.A.; Hanif, N. Factors Affecting Internet Banking Adoption among Internal and External Customers: A Case of Pakistan. Int. J. Electron. Financ. 2013, 7, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farzin, M.; Fattahi, M. EWOM through Social Networking Sites and Impact on Purchase Intention and Brand Image in Iran. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2018, 15, 161–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lien, C.H.; Wu, J.J.; Hsu, M.K.; Wang, S.W. Positive moods and word-of-mouth in the banking industry: A moderated mediation model of perceived value and relational benefits. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2018, 36, 764–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Tonder, E.; Petzer, D.J.; van Vuuren, N.; De Beer, L.T. Perceived Value, Relationship Quality and Positive WOM Intention in Banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2018, 36, 1347–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittal, B.; Lassar, W.M. Why Do Customers Switch? The Dynamics of Satisfaction versus Loyalty. J. Serv. Mark. 1998, 12, 177–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellier, P.K.; Geursen, G.M.; Carr, R.A.; Rickard, J.A. Customer Repurchase Intention. Eur. J. Mark. 2003, 37, 1762–1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kasperovica, L.; Lace, N. Factors influencing companies’ positive financial performance in digital age: A meta-analysis. Entrep. Sustain. 2021, 8, 291–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. An Empirical Analysis of the Antecedents of Electronic Commerce Service Continuance. Decis. Support Syst. 2001, 32, 201–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1111–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camilleri, M.A. The Online Users’ Perceptions toward Electronic Government Services. J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc. 2019, 18, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Xu, X. Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xie, Q.; Song, W.; Peng, X.; Shabbir, M. Predictors for E-Government Adoption: Integrating TAM, TPB, Trust and Perceived Risk. Electron. Libr. 2017, 35, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polyakova, O.; Mirza, M. Perceived Service Quality Models: Are They Still Relevant? Mark. Rev. 2015, 15, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karjaluoto, H.; Glavee-Geo, R.; Ramdhony, D.; Shaikh, A.A.; Hurpaul, A. Consumption Values and Mobile Banking Services: Understanding the Urban–Rural Dichotomy in a Developing Economy. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2021, 39, 272–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammad, S.A.A.; Ahmad, H.; Zulhumadi, F.; Abubakar, F.M. Relationships between System Quality, Service Quality, and Customer Satisfaction. J. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2018, 20, 73–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Changchit, C.; Lonkani, R.; Sampet, J. Mobile Banking: Exploring Determinants of Its Adoption. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 2017, 27, 239–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oertzen, A.-S.; Odekerken-Schröder, G. Achieving Continued Usage in Online Banking: A Post-Adoption Study. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019, 37, 1394–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, M.; Hu, M.; Guo, L.; Liu, W. Understanding Relationships among Customer Experience, Engagement, and Word-of-Mouth Intention on Online Brand Communities. Internet Res. 2017, 27, 839–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abu-Taieh, E.; AlHadid, I.; Masa’deh, R.; Alkhawaldeh, R.S.; Khwaldeh, S.; Alrowwad, A. Factors Influencing YouTube as a Learning Tool and Its Influence on Academic Achievement in a Bilingual Environment Using Extended Information Adoption Model (IAM) with ML Prediction—Jordan Case Study. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urumsah, D. Factors Influencing Consumers to Use E-Services in Indonesian Airline Companies. In E-services Adoption: Processes by Firms in Developing Nations; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2015; pp. 5–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, M.; Cox, K.C.; Musgrove, C.F.; Ernstberger, K.W. Consumer Preferences for Banking Technologies by Age Groups. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2016, 34, 587–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owusu Kwateng, K.; Osei Atiemo, K.A.; Appiah, C. Acceptance and Use of Mobile Banking: An Application of UTAUT2. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2019, 32, 118–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miskan, N.H.; Hussin, N.L.; Muhamad, N.; Mohd Esa, M.; Mohd Aziz, N.E. The Financial Technology (M-Banking) Adoption Among Baby-Boomers in Twenty-First Century. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2021, 11, 118–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkraiji, A.; Ameen, N. The Impact of Service Quality, Trust and Satisfaction on Young Citizen Loyalty towards Government e-Services. Inf. Technol. People 2021, 35, 1239–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Windasari, N.A.; Albashrawi, M. Behavioral Routes to Loyalty across Gender on M-Banking Usage. Rev. Int. Bus. Strategy 2020, 31, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pokhrel, S.; Chhetri, R. A Literature Review on Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and Learning. High. Educ. Future 2021, 8, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Zobair, K.M.; Sanzogni, L.; Houghton, L.; Islam, M.Z. Forecasting care seekers satisfaction with telemedicine using machine learning and structural equation modeling. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wong, W.E.J.; Chan, S.P.; Yong, J.K.; Tham, Y.Y.S.; Lim, J.R.G.; Sim, M.A.; Chew, T.H.S. Assessment of acute kidney injury risk using a machine-learning guided generalized structural equation model: A cohort study. BMC Nephrol. 2021, 22, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Sawaragi, T.; Horiguchi, Y. Introduce structural equation modelling to machine learning problems for building an explainable and persuasive model. SICE J. Control Meas. Syst. Integr. 2021, 14, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basha, A.M.; Rajaiah, M.; Penchalaiah, P.; Kamal, C.R.; Rao, B.N. Machine Learning-Structural Equation Modeling Algorithm: The Moderating role of Loyalty on Customer Retention towards Online Shopping. Int. J. 2020, 8, 1578–1585. [Google Scholar]
- Elnagar, A.; Alnazzawi, N.; Afyouni, I.; Shahin, I.; Nassif, A.B.; Salloum, S.A. Prediction of the intention to use a smartwatch: A comparative approach using machine learning and partial least squares structural equation modeling. Inform. Med. Unlocked 2022, 29, 100913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sujith, A.V.L.N.; Qureshi, N.I.; Dornadula, V.H.R.; Rath, A.; Prakash, K.B.; Singh, S.K. A Comparative Analysis of Business Machine Learning in Making Effective Financial Decisions Using Structural Equation Model (SEM). J. Food Qual. 2022, 2022, 6382839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Horiguchi, Y.; Sawaragi, T. Data dimensionality reduction by introducing structural equation modeling to machine learning problems. In Proceedings of the 2020 59th Annual Conference of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers of Japan (SICE), Chiang Mai, Thailand, 23–26 September 2020; pp. 826–831. [Google Scholar]
- Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, 6th ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Pallant, J. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows Version 12; Open University Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Newkirk, H.; Lederer, A. The Effectiveness of Strategic Information Systems Planning under Environmental Uncertainty. Inf. Manag. 2006, 43, 481–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witten, I.H.; Frank, E.; Hall, M.A.; Pal, C.J. Data Mining, Fourth Edition: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, 4th ed.; Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Da Silva, I.N.; Spatti, D.H.; Flauzino, R.A.; Liboni, L.H.B.; dos Reis Alves, S.F. Artificial neural network architectures and training processes. In Artificial Neural Networks; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 21–28. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, W.; Li, L. A new regression model: Modal linear regression. Scand. J. Stat. 2014, 41, 656–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Platt, J. Sequential Minimal Optimization: A Fast Algorithm for Training Support Vector Machines. 1998. Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/sequential-minimal-optimization-a-fast-algorithm-for-training-support-vector-machines/ (accessed on 22 January 2022).
- Breiman, L. Bagging predictors. Mach. Learn. 1996, 24, 123–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tasin, T.; Habib, M.A. Computer-Aided Cataract Detection Using Random Forest Classifier. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Big Data, IoT, and Machine Learning, Sydney, Australia, 22–23 October 2022; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 27–38. [Google Scholar]
- Al-maghrabi, T.; Dennis, C.; Vaux Halliday, S. Antecedents of Continuance Intentions towards E-shopping: The Case of Saudi Arabia. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2011, 24, 85–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Country | Model | Target | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
India | UTAUT2 | m-banking | [15] |
Different constructs | [16] | ||
Jordan | UTAUT2 | m-banking | [17] |
TAM | [18] | ||
UTAUT | e-banking | [19] | |
Different constructs | [20] | ||
Different constructs | telebanking | [32] | |
Oman | UTAUT2 | m-commerce | [21] |
Lebanon | Different constructs | m-banking | [22] |
Gender | [23] | ||
Zimbabwe | Different constructs | m-banking | [24] |
Yemen | TRA | internet banking | [25] |
Palestine | TOE | m-banking | [26] |
Saudi | TAM, TTF. | m-banking | [27] |
UTAUT2, (D& M) IS Success Model. | [6] | ||
Indonesia | SRQ and Loyalty | m-banking | [28] |
New Zealand | SRQ | m-banking | [29] |
Korea | SRQ | m-banking | [30] |
Pakistan | Gender | m-banking | [31]. |
No country | SRQ | m-banking | [33] |
SRQ | [5] | ||
UTAUT2 | [39] | ||
Different constructs | [34] | ||
Different constructs | [35] | ||
No country | Different constructs | e-banking | [36] |
UTAUT | [37] | ||
TTF and TCT | [38] |
Category | Category | Frequency | Percentage% |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 187 | 46.4 |
Female | 216 | 53.6 | |
Total | 403 | 100 | |
Age (year) | 18 to less than 34 | 257 | 63.8 |
34 to less than 44 | 61 | 15.1 | |
44 to less than 54 | 42 | 10.4 | |
54 to less than 64 | 37 | 9.2 | |
64 and over | 6 | 1.5 | |
Total | 403 | 100 | |
Education level | High school and less | 21 | 5.2 |
Diploma | 59 | 14.6 | |
Bachelor | 290 | 72.0 | |
Postgraduate | 33 | 8.2 | |
Total | 403 | 100 | |
Internet experience | Low | 19 | 4.7 |
Good | 174 | 43.2 | |
Excellent | 210 | 52.1 | |
Total | 403 | 100 |
Type of Variable | Variables | Mean | Standard Deviation | Level | Order |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | Performance expectancy (PE) | 4.1309 | 0.78073 | High | 1 |
Effort expectancy (EE) | 4.0955 | 0.75734 | High | 3 | |
Social influence (SI) | 3.8222 | 0.88572 | High | 6 | |
Facilitating conditions (FC) | 4.0918 | 0.77082 | High | 4 | |
Perceived risk (PR) | 3.1340 | 1.09869 | Moderate | 7 | |
Perceived trust (PT) | 4.1098 | 0.80781 | High | 2 | |
Service quality (SRQ) | 3.8768 | 0.85614 | High | 5 | |
Mediating variable | Behavioral intention (BI) | 4.1489 | 0.83946 | High | 2 |
Word of mouth (WoM) | 3.9479 | 0.84167 | High | 1 | |
Dependent variable | Continued intention to use (CU) | 3.9715 | 0.81866 | High | - |
Performance Expectancy (PE) | Mean | SD | Level | Order |
PE1 | 4.16 | 0.833 | High | 2 |
PE2 | 4.15 | 0.831 | High | 3 |
PE3 | 4.20 | 0.819 | High | 1 |
PE4 | 4.02 | 0.872 | High | 4 |
Effort expectancy (EE) | Mean | SD | Level | Order |
EE1 | 4.10 | 0.843 | High | 2 |
EE2 | 4.08 | 0.822 | High | 3 |
EE3 | 4.08 | 0.834 | High | 3 |
EE4 | 4.12 | 0.780 | High | 1 |
Social influence (SI) | Mean | SD | Level | Order |
SI1 | 3.84 | 0.923 | High | 1 |
SI2 | 3.79 | 0.936 | High | 3 |
SI3 | 3.83 | 0.933 | High | 2 |
Facilitating conditions (FC) | Mean | SD | Level | Order |
FC1 | 4.15 | 0.840 | High | 1 |
FC2 | 4.12 | 0.858 | High | 2 |
FC3 | 4.11 | 0.836 | High | 3 |
FC4 | 3.98 | 0.904 | High | 4 |
Perceived risk (PR) | Mean | SD | Level | Order |
PR1 | 3.14 | 1.150 | Moderate | 2 |
PR2 | 3.10 | 1.167 | Moderate | 4 |
PR3 | 3.12 | 1.158 | Moderate | 3 |
PR4 | 3.17 | 1.189 | Moderate | 1 |
Perceived trust (PT) | Mean | SD | Level | Order |
PT1 | 3.98 | 0.958 | High | 4 |
PT2 | 4.02 | 0.914 | High | 3 |
PT3 | 4.37 | 0.846 | Very high | 1 |
PT4 | 4.07 | 0.906 | High | 2 |
Service quality (SRQ) | Mean | SD | Level | Order |
SRQ1 | 3.90 | 0.898 | High | 1 |
SRQ2 | 3.88 | 0.894 | High | 2 |
SRQ3 | 3.85 | 0.909 | High | 3 |
Behavioral intention (BI) | Mean | SD | Level | Order |
BI1 | 4.21 | 0.863 | Very high | 1 |
BI2 | 4.19 | 0.856 | High | 2 |
BI3 | 4.04 | 0.969 | High | 3 |
Word of mouth (WoM) | Mean | SD | Level | Order |
WoM1 | 3.89 | 0.926 | High | 4 |
WoM2 | 3.93 | 0.901 | High | 3 |
WoM3 | 3.97 | 0.868 | High | 2 |
WoM4 | 4.00 | 0.875 | High | 1 |
Continued intention to use (CIU) | Mean | SD | Level | Order |
CIU1 | 4.04 | 0.838 | High | 2 |
CIU2 | 3.97 | 0.880 | High | 4 |
CIU3 | 3.97 | 0.904 | High | 4 |
CIU4 | 3.78 | 0.989 | High | 5 |
CIU5 | 4.05 | 0.899 | High | 1 |
CIU6 | 4.01 | 0.881 | High | 3 |
Constructs and Indicators | Factor Loadings | Std. Error | Square Multiple Correlation | Error Variance | Cronbach Alpha | Composite Reliability * | AVE ** |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Performance expectancy (PE) | 0.948 | 0.96 | 0.97 | ||||
PE1 | 0.920 | *** | 0.846 | 0.107 | |||
PE2 | 0.943 | 0.043 | 0.889 | 0.076 | |||
PE3 | 0.943 | 0.042 | 0.890 | 0.074 | |||
PE4 | 0.830 | 0.041 | 0.689 | 0.236 | |||
Effort expectancy (EE) | 0.943 | 0.96 | 0.96 | ||||
EE1 | 0.877 | *** | 0.770 | 0.163 | |||
EE2 | 0.907 | 0.037 | 0.823 | 0.120 | |||
EE3 | 0.934 | 0.037 | 0.873 | 0.088 | |||
EE4 | 0.875 | 0.037 | 0.766 | 0.142 | |||
Social influence (SI) | 0.948 | 0.95 | 0.87 | ||||
SI1 | 0.938 | *** | 0.881 | 0.101 | |||
SI2 | 0.931 | 0.029 | 0.867 | 0.116 | |||
SI3 | 0.912 | 0.030 | 0.832 | 0.146 | |||
Facilitating conditions (FC) | 0.918 | 0.94 | 0.95 | ||||
FC1 | 0.911 | *** | 0.829 | 0.120 | |||
FC2 | 0.915 | 0.034 | 0.837 | 0.120 | |||
FC3 | 0.914 | 0.033 | 0.835 | 0.115 | |||
FC4 | 0.720 | 0.047 | 0.519 | 0.393 | |||
Perceived risk (PR) | 0.958 | 0.94 | 0.95 | ||||
PR1 | 0.931 | *** | 0.867 | 0.175 | |||
PR2 | 0.953 | 0.035 | 0.909 | 0.124 | |||
PR3 | 0.926 | 0.035 | 0.857 | 0.191 | |||
PR4 | 0.879 | 0.036 | 0.772 | 0.321 | |||
Perceived trust (PT) | 0.913 | 0.95 | 0.96 | ||||
PT1 | 0.881 | *** | 0.776 | 0.107 | |||
PT2 | 0.907 | 0.037 | 0.822 | 0.076 | |||
PT3 | 0.711 | 0.041 | 0.505 | 0.074 | |||
PT4 | 0.925 | 0.035 | 0.855 | 0.236 | |||
Service quality (SRQ) | 0.947 | 0.95 | 0.88 | ||||
SRQ1 | 0.875 | *** | 0.766 | 0.188 | |||
SRQ2 | 0.958 | 0.036 | 0.918 | 0.066 | |||
SRQ3 | 0.945 | 0.037 | 0.893 | 0.088 | |||
Behavioral intention (BI) | 0.928 | 0.94 | 0.84 | ||||
BI1 | 0.911 | *** | 0.829 | 0.127 | |||
BI2 | 0.934 | 0.032 | 0.872 | 0.094 | |||
BI3 | 0.873 | 0.040 | 0.762 | 0.223 | |||
Word of mouth (WoM) | 0.958 | 0.96 | 0.97 | ||||
WoM1 | 0.892 | *** | 0.796 | 0.174 | |||
WoM2 | 0.932 | 0.033 | 0.869 | 0.106 | |||
WoM3 | 0.944 | 0.031 | 0.892 | 0.081 | |||
WoM4 | 0.925 | 0.033 | 0.855 | 0.111 | |||
Continued intention to use (CU) | 0.958 | 0.96 | 0.97 | ||||
CIU1 | 0.918 | *** | 0.843 | 0.110 | |||
CIU2 | 0.932 | 0.033 | 0.869 | 0.101 | |||
CIU3 | 0.938 | 0.034 | 0.879 | 0.098 | |||
CIU4 | 0.802 | 0.034 | 0.644 | 0.348 | |||
CIU5 | 0.877 | 0.046 | 0.769 | 0.187 | |||
CIU6 | 0.894 | 0.038 | 0.800 | 0.155 |
Constructs | PE | EE | SI | FC | PR | PT | SRQ | BI | WoM | CIU |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PE | 0.98 | |||||||||
EE | 0.799 | 0.97 | ||||||||
SI | 0.702 | 0.615 | 0.93 | |||||||
FC | 0.833 | 0.842 | 0.651 | 0.97 | ||||||
PR | 0.096 | 0.035 | 0.070 | 0.070 | 0.97 | |||||
PT | 0.708 | 0.711 | 0.547 | 0.713 | 0.115 | 0.97 | ||||
SRQ | 0.695 | 0.681 | 0.596 | 0.656 | 0.047 | 0.658 | 0.93 | |||
BI | 0.775 | 0.734 | 0.597 | 0.741 | 0.131 | 0.850 | 0.690 | 0.91 | ||
WoM | 0.758 | 0.740 | 0.686 | 0.759 | 0.067 | 0.675 | 0.657 | 0.727 | 0.98 | |
CIU | 0.763 | 0.747 | 0.654 | 0.782 | 0.094 | 0.696 | 0.648 | 0.757 | 0.925 | 0.98 |
Research Proposed Paths | Coefficient Value | t-Value | p-Value | Empirical Evidence |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1: PE → BI | 0.209 | 7.381 | 0.000 | Supported |
H2: EE → BI | 0.095 | 3.264 | 0.001 | Supported |
H3: SI → BI | 0.066 | 2.634 | 0.008 | Supported |
H4: FC → BI | 0.038 | 1.318 | 0.188 | Not supported |
H5: PR → BI | −0.045 | −2.237 | 0.025 | Supported |
H6: PT → BI | 0.482 | 17.592 | 0.000 | Supported |
H7: SRQ → BI | 0.114 | 4.422 | 0.000 | Supported |
H8: BI → WoM | 0.696 | 14.491 | 0.000 | Supported |
H9: WoM → CIU | 0.861 | 33.941 | 0.000 | Supported |
Variable | Male | Female | t | df | Sig. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Std. Dev. | Mean | N | Std. Dev. | Mean | N | ||||
Behavioral intention | 0.79041 | 4.2727 | 187 | 0.8673 | 4.0417 | 216 | 2.797 | 399.932 | 0.005 |
Variable | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BI attributed to age. | Between groups | 12.123 | 4 | 3.031 | 4.448 | 0.002 |
Within groups | 271.166 | 398 | 0.681 | |||
Total | 283.289 | 402 | ||||
BI attributed to educational level. | Between groups | 10.249 | 3 | 3.416 | 4.992 | 0.002 |
Within groups | 273.04 | 399 | 0.684 | |||
Total | 283.289 | 402 | ||||
BI attributed to Internet experience. | Between groups | 8.798 | 2 | 4.399 | 6.411 | 0.002 |
Within groups | 274.491 | 400 | 0.686 | |||
Total | 283.289 | 402 |
(I) Age | (J) Age | Mean Difference (I–J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
18 to less than 34 | 34 to less than 44 | −0.25422 | 0.11756 | 0.196 | −0.5764 | 0.0679 |
44 to less than 54 | −0.18279 | 0.13738 | 0.672 | −0.5592 | 0.1937 | |
54 to less than 64 | −0.29025 | 0.14514 | 0.268 | −0.688 | 0.1075 | |
64 and over | 0.96801 * | 0.34089 | 0.038 | 0.0339 | 1.9022 | |
34 to less than 44 | 18 to less than 34 | 0.25422 | 0.11756 | 0.196 | −0.0679 | 0.5764 |
44 to less than 54 | 0.07143 | 0.1655 | 0.993 | −0.3821 | 0.525 | |
54 to less than 64 | −0.03604 | 0.172 | 1 | −0.5074 | 0.4353 | |
64 and over | 1.22222 * | 0.35316 | 0.005 | 0.2544 | 2.19 | |
44 to less than 54 | 18 to less than 34 | 0.18279 | 0.13738 | 0.672 | −0.1937 | 0.5592 |
34 to less than 44 | −0.07143 | 0.1655 | 0.993 | −0.525 | 0.3821 | |
54 to less than 64 | −0.10746 | 0.18611 | 0.978 | −0.6175 | 0.4025 | |
64 and over | 1.15079 * | 0.36024 | 0.013 | 0.1636 | 2.138 | |
54 to less than 64 | 18 to less than 34 | 0.29025 | 0.14514 | 0.268 | −0.1075 | 0.688 |
34 to less than 44 | 0.03604 | 0.172 | 1 | −0.4353 | 0.5074 | |
44 to less than 54 | 0.10746 | 0.18611 | 0.978 | −0.4025 | 0.6175 | |
64 and over | 1.25826 * | 0.36327 | 0.005 | 0.2628 | 2.2537 | |
64 and over | 18 to less than 34 | −0.96801 * | 0.34089 | 0.038 | −1.9022 | −0.0339 |
34 to less than 44 | −1.22222 * | 0.35316 | 0.005 | −2.19 | −0.2544 | |
44 to less than 54 | −1.15079 * | 0.36024 | 0.013 | −2.138 | −0.1636 | |
54 to less than 64 | −1.25826 * | 0.36327 | 0.005 | −2.2537 | −0.2628 |
(I) Educational Level | (J) Educational Level | Mean Difference (I–J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
High school and less | Diploma | −0.81060 * | 0.21020 | 0.001 | −1.3529 | −0.2683 |
Bachelor | −0.60744 * | 0.18694 | 0.007 | −1.0897 | −0.1252 | |
Postgraduate | −0.65224 * | 0.23092 | 0.026 | −1.2480 | −0.0565 | |
Diploma | High school and less | 0.81060 * | 0.21020 | 0.001 | 0.2683 | 1.3529 |
Bachelor | 0.20316 | 0.11814 | 0.315 | −0.1016 | 0.5080 | |
Postgraduate | 0.15836 | 0.17982 | 0.815 | −0.3056 | 0.6223 | |
Bachelor | High school and less | 0.60744 * | 0.18694 | 0.007 | 0.1252 | 1.0897 |
Diploma | −0.20316 | 0.11814 | 0.315 | −0.5080 | 0.1016 | |
Postgraduate | −0.04479 | 0.15198 | 0.991 | 0-.4369 | 0.3473 | |
Postgraduate | High school and less | 0.65224 * | 0.23092 | 0.026 | 0.0565 | 1.2480 |
Diploma | −0.15836 | 0.17982 | 0.815 | −0.6223 | 0.3056 | |
Bachelor | 0.04479 | 0.15198 | 0.991 | −0.3473 | 0.4369 |
(I) Internet Experience | (J) Internet Experience | Mean Difference (I–J) | Std. Error | Sig. | 95% Confidence Interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
Low | Good | −0.23735 | 0.20015 | 0.462 | −0.7082 | 0.2335 |
Excellent | −0.49307 * | 0.19846 | 0.036 | −0.9599 | −0.0262 | |
Good | Low | 0.23735 | 0.20015 | 0.462 | −0.2335 | 0.7082 |
Excellent | −0.25572 * | 0.08492 | 0.008 | −0.4555 | −0.0559 | |
Excellent | Low | 0.49307 * | 0.19846 | 0.036 | 0.0262 | 0.9599 |
Good | 0.25572 * | 0.08492 | 0.008 | 0.0559 | 0.4555 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Abu-Taieh, E.M.; AlHadid, I.; Abu-Tayeh, S.; Masa’deh, R.; Alkhawaldeh, R.S.; Khwaldeh, S.; Alrowwad, A. 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, 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030120
Abu-Taieh EM, AlHadid I, Abu-Tayeh S, Masa’deh R, Alkhawaldeh RS, Khwaldeh S, Alrowwad A. Continued Intention to Use of M-Banking in Jordan by Integrating UTAUT, TPB, TAM and Service Quality with ML. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2022; 8(3):120. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030120
Chicago/Turabian StyleAbu-Taieh, Evon M., Issam AlHadid, Sabah Abu-Tayeh, Ra’ed Masa’deh, Rami S. Alkhawaldeh, Sufian Khwaldeh, and Ala’aldin Alrowwad. 2022. "Continued Intention to Use of M-Banking in Jordan by Integrating UTAUT, TPB, TAM and Service Quality with ML" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 8, no. 3: 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8030120