华阴天气预报,聚派人才网,合肥28中黄群
used to collect comments and suggestions on the contents of the questionnaire. Any missing items identified by the EFTPoS users tend to be younger and better educated CUSTOMERS’ RISK PERCEPTIONS OF ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEMS 31 respondents were then incorporated into the second pretest. The second pre-test was used to test the respondents’ understanding of the questions. Any misleading and unclear questions were revised and re-tested on the next respondent. The coefficient alpha of all risk dimensions in the pre-tested questionnaire were better than 0.6, which indicates that they all met reasonable standards of internal consistency and reliability (Nunnally, 1970). Two preliminary questions were asked verbally in order to qualify the respondents. The two questions were “Do you carry any ATM card or credit card?” and “Are you under the age of 30?” If the answers to the two questions were “yes” then the respondents would be asked to fill in the self-administered questionnaire. Before the respondents started to fill in the pre-tested questionnaire, the definitions of EPS and ATM given at the front page of the questionnaire were repeated to make sure the respondents understood the meanings. Response Rate and Respondents’ Profile A total of 200 questionnaires were distributed and 184 of them were returned showing a response rate of 92 per cent. Such a high response rate was mainly due to the fact that the questionnaires were collected right after the respondents completed the forms. From the returned questionnaires, seven of them were incomplete and were discarded, producing a total of 177 usable questionnaires (89 per cent of the total questionnaires distributed). The demographic profile of the respondents, such as sex, personal income, marital status, education level and position held are shown in Table I. Research Findings Relative Importance Ranking of Five Risk Dimensions Since the relative ranking of the five risk dimensions of small purchases is similar to large purchases, the average score of large and small purchase was used to compare the relative importance of risk dimensions among the three payment methods. The average scores for small and large purchase for the five dimensions of perceived risk for the three alternative payment methods are shown in Figure 1. To confirm that consumers have significant differences in perceived risk among the five risk dimensions for each payment method, matched-pairs t-tests were conducted among each pair of risk perception dimensions (alpha = 0.05). The results can be summarized as follows (= indicates no significant difference, and > stands for significantly higher): |
