Examining User Perception of Third-Party Organization Credibility and Trust in an E-Retailer - End User Computing Challenges and Technologies: Emerging Tools and Applications - page 216

Likert scale. The reliability coefficient of the scale
was .90. Purchase intentions are measured with
a five-item scale using semantic differentials to
assess the likelihood of purchasing from the site.
The reliability coefficient of the scale is .93.

online shoppers do not review TPO disclosures
(Odom et al., 2002) and suggests that the sample
is representative of online consumers.

evaluation of the model

Structural equations modeling (SEM) was used
to evaluate the hypotheses and to estimate the
relationships among the variables in the pro-
posed model. Sample size plays an important
role in the estimation and interpretation of SEM
results. There is no single factor that determines
adequate sample size, as it is impacted by model
misspecification, model size, departures from
normality, and estimation procedures. However,
prior research supports the proposed model, and
the number of variables incorporated does not
imply an overly large or complex model. Based on
these factors, Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black
(1998) recommend a sample size of 100 to 200
in order to ensure valid results using maximum
likelihood estimations.
A structural equations application (AMOS 4.0)
was used to test the model. A two-step process

results and disCussion

descriptive statistics

Of the 121 subjects, 46% were female, and 54%
were male. A majority (75%) was between 20 and
25 years of age, with 19% below 20 years and 6%
over 25 years. Among the respondents who had
made prior Internet purchases, 27% indicated that
they buy things on the Internet all the time, and
35% revealed that they were very likely to buy
something online in the current month. About half
of the subjects (49%) felt secure sending personal
information over the Internet. Only 20% of the
subjects indicated that they clicked the Web seal
to view the assurances. This result is consistent
with prior findings, indicating the majority of

Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Credibility1 .884

Credibility2 .936

Credibility3 .785

Credibility4 .823

Seal Value1 .887

Seal Value2 .918

Seal Value3 .953

Seal Value4 .880

Trust1 .772

Trust2 .814

Trust3 .854

Trust4 .895

Risk1 .843

Risk2 .836

Risk3 .923

Risk4 .721

Intent1 .912

Intent2 .953

Intent3 .767

Intent4 .910

Intent5 .914

X 2 = 132.16, p = .012
GFI = .863