Developing a Model and Questionnaire for Predicting Intention to Use Job Boards: A Jobseeker-Oriented Research on the E-Recruitment Adoption in Iran
, oraz | 07 wrz 2022
O artykule
Data publikacji: 07 wrz 2022
Zakres stron: 67 - 88
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fman-2022-0005
Słowa kluczowe
© 2022 Seyedeh Samaneh Seyedi et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Selected research observable variables (Source: As stated in reference column)
| Variable | The operational definition | Reference model/theory |
|---|---|---|
| Job board esthetics | Pleasant mental experience of the website without the logical interventions ( |
Signaling theory ( |
| Job board content | The concern that the content provided is accurate, diverse, and up-to-date ( |
Signaling theory ( |
| Jobseeker self-efficacy | A person's belief in their ability to organize and perform a series of actions on the Internet to perform a particular task ( |
A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use ( |
| Attitude toward job board's functionality | Jobseekers’ perceptions of how the job board's web functionalities and technical features can assist them in purchasing or accessing the product or services they want | Authors’ own elaboration |
| Perceived usefulness | Jobseekers’ belief in the ability to obtain job information, improve job effectiveness, and increase the chances of finding a suitable job on the job board ( |
TAM ( |
| Perceived ease of use | User perception of the amount of effort (time and resources) required to use the job board (Fabriana, 2015) | TAM ( |
| Reputation | The perceptual representation of a company's past and possible future actions describes the attractiveness of the company to all its key customers ( |
TPB (Ajzen, 1988, |
| Attitude toward job board | Respondent's overall assessments regarding the use of the job board ( |
TAM ( |
| Intention to use job board | Assessing jobseekers’ possibility of using job board (including job search, website membership, and resume posting) in the present and future ( |
TAM ( |
Factors, variance percentage, and eigenvalues (before rotation) (Source: Authors’ own research)
| Factors | Eigenvalues | Variance percentage | Cumulative variance percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.23 | 33.10 | 33.10 |
| 2 | 3.20 | 9.71 | 42.81 |
| 3 | 2.93 | 6.32 | 49.13 |
| 4 | 2.92 | 5.30 | 54.43 |
| 5 | 2.80 | 5.12 | 59.56 |
Variables influencing intention to use e-recruitment and job boards in previous research (Source: As stated in the author column)
| Author(s) | Variables |
|---|---|
| Word-of-Mouth (e-WOM), PU, POU, attitude | |
| PU, POU, job pursuit attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control | |
| Discrepant information, persuasion knowledge activation, company response, trustworthiness | |
| Data quality, reliability, recognition, networking spectrum, result demonstrability, simplicity of navigation | |
| Esthetic forms, recruitment information, interactive functions, information fitness interface attributes | |
| Khalid, et al. (2021) | Technology, attitude toward use, POU, PU |
| Nguyen (2021) | Computer self-efficacy, perceived privacy risk, POU, PU |
| Perceived enjoyment, POU, PU, perceived trust, attitude toward use | |
| Usability, user experience, performance expectancy, subjective norms, trustworthiness | |
| POU, critical mass, capability, perceived playfulness, PU, trustworthiness | |
| PU, POU, attitude | |
| PU, perceived information content quality, perceived search engine optimization | |
| POU, PU, perceived credibility | |
| Perceived quality, perceived credibility, organizational attractiveness, age, gender, work experience, preview mode, employee testimonial, source of advertisement | |
| Information characteristics (relevancy, accuracy, timeliness), organizational attractiveness, attitude toward website | |
| Effectiveness, past behavior, perceived behavioral control, actual behavioral control, attitudes, subjective norms | |
| Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, habit, trust, age, gender, experience, context (jobseeker) | |
| Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, subjective norms, objective norms, facilitating conditions | |
| Accuracy, security, self-efficacy, individual innovation, user satisfaction, POU, PU | |
| Perceived compatibility, PU, POU, attitude toward use | |
| Outcome expectation, PU, Internet self-efficacy, POU | |
| Innovativeness, PU, POU, attitude | |
| PU, POU, trust | |
| Task characteristics, technology characteristics, task–technology fit, performance expectancy, efforts expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, habit | |
| POU, PU, perceived enjoyment, attitude toward use | |
| POU, PU, attitude toward use | |
| PU, POU | |
| Impressions of website, impressions of hiring organization, PU, POU | |
| Website design (website usability, website esthetics), website content (job information, organizational information), P–E fit (P–J fit, P–O fit), attitudes toward organization, attitudes toward website | |
| Perceived efficiency, user-friendliness, information provision, fairness perception, Internet selection image | |
| Perceived stress, POU, PU, perceived enjoyment | |
| P–I fit, P–O fit, assessment of website design, OI similarity | |
| PU, POU, attitude, peer influence, external influence, subjective norm, self-efficacy, perceived behavioral control | |
| Website vividness, amount of company and job attribute information on website, firm employer reputation | |
| P–O fit/P–J fit, website content (job information-organization information), website design (website usability-website esthetics), attitudes toward website, attitudes toward organization | |
| Individual attributes (age, gender, minority status, prior experience, Internet familiarity, applicant source, country), efficiency, Internet selection image, user-friendliness, process fairness, information provision, overall process satisfaction | |
| Parasocial interaction, ease of use, usefulness, diversity statements, engagement, attitude toward the organization | |
| Organization familiarity, organization image, job information, organization information, attitude toward organization, attitude toward website | |
| Website façade, jobseeker's prior attitude toward the organization, initial affective reactions, website system features, perception of website usability, search behavior, familiarity, organizational image, website attitude, jobseeker individual differences |
j.fman-2022-0005.apptab.001
| Variables | Questions |
|---|---|
| Job board esthetics | 1. All pages of this job board possess a kind of unique beauty. |
| Job board content | 5. This job board publishes diverse job opportunities. |
| Jobseekers’ self-efficacy in job board | 9. The homepage of this job board immediately guides me to my desired destination. |
| Attitude toward job board functionalities | 13. This job board can be adapted to all browsers and devices. |
| Perceived usefulness of job board | 17. This job board provides me with updated job opportunities. |
| Perceived ease of use of job board | 21. Creating a user account on this job board is simple. |
| Job board reputation | 25. In my opinion, this job board is a reliable recruitment portal both for jobseekers and employers. |
| Attitude toward job board | 29. I consider this job board user-friendly. |
| Intention to use job board | 33. I intend to register on this job board to get informed about the most current job opportunities in my field of expertise. |
Cronbach's α for latent factors (Source: Authors’ work)
| Factor | Cronbach's α coefficient |
|---|---|
| Reputation-seeking intention to use | 0.82 |
| Practical utility | 0.79 |
| Technological innovation | 0.78 |
| Functional adequacy | 0.79 |
| Content accessibility | 0.77 |
Durbin–Watson (DW) test results (Source: Authors’ own study)
| DW statistic value | |
|---|---|
| Practical utility on reputation-seeking intention to use | 2.17 |
| Technological innovation on reputation-seeking intention to use | 2.02 |
| Functional adequacy on reputation-seeking intention to use | 2.02 |
| Content accessibility on reputation-seeking intention to use | 2.02 |
Fit indices of the measurement model (Source: Authors’ study)
| Model-fit index | NNFI | NFI | CFI | RMR | GFI | RMSEA | χ2/df |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measurement model | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.14 | 0.91 | 2.13 | 0.03 |
| Recommended value | > 0.90 | > 0.90 | > 0.90 | < 0.5 | > 0.90 | > 0.1 | < 5 |
| Result | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable |
Correlation matrix of latent variables (Source: Authors’ own work)
| Latent variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reputation-seeking intention to use | |||||
| 2. Practical utility | |||||
| 3. Technological innovation | |||||
| 4. Functional adequacy | |||||
| 5. Content accessibility |
The results of path analysis for the hypothesized paths (Source: Authors’ own research)
| Hypothesis | Hypothesized paths | Standardized estimate coefficient | Significance level | t-value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H’1 | Technology innovation to reputation-seeking intention to use | 0.40 | P < 0.01 | 11.57 | Accepted |
| H’2 | Content accessibility to reputation-seeking intention to use | 0.01 | P < 0.05 | 0.30 | Rejected |
| H’3 | Practical utility to reputation-seeking intention to use | 0.52 | P < 0.01 | 8.40 | Accepted |
| H’4 | Functional adequacy to reputation-seeking intention to use | 0.04 | P < 0.05 | 0.84 | Rejected |
| H’5 | Technology innovation to practical utility | 0.12 | P < 0.01 | 4.41 | Accepted |
| H’6 | Content accessibility to practical utility | 0.50 | P < 0.01 | 18.84 | Accepted |
| H’7 | Functional adequacy to practical utility | 0.39 | P < 0.01 | 13.93 | Accepted |
Goodness-of-fit statistics of the research model (Source: Authors’ study)
| Index | Value | Recommended value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 | 1.76 | ≤ 2 | Fitness of model |
| P-value | 0.19 | ≥ 0.05 | Fitness of model |
| RMSEA | 0.0001 | ≤ 0.05 | Fitness of model |
| NFI | 0.96 | ≥ 0.95 | Fitness of model |
| CFI | 0.96 | ≥ 0.9 | Fitness of model |
| GFI | 0.97 | ≥ 0.9 | Fitness of model |
Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) test results (Source: Authors’ study)
| Reputation-seeking intention to use | Technological innovation | Functional adequacy | Practical utility | Content accessibility | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K–S Z value | 1.60 | 1.24 | 1.68 | 2.28 | 1.77 |
| Significance level | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.007 | 0.0001 | 0.004 |