Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 101 references

A Conceptual Framework for Successful E-commerce Smartphone Applications: The Context of GCC

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In GCC e-commerce apps, service quality—loyalty, chat, support, credibility—is the decisive success factor, with user satisfaction as the mediating hub.

desk verdict The GCC e-commerce adaptation of DeLone and McLean has a genuinely useful indicator inventory, but the abstract's central ranking claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 8. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06350 v1 pith:QQZWQ63X submitted 2019-08-17 cs.CY cs.ITmath.IT

Adel Bahaddad , Rayed AlGhamdi , Seyed M. Buhari , Madini O. Alassafi , Ahmad Alzahrani This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.ITmath.IT
keywords ISSuccessModelm-commercee-commercesmartphoneappsGCCServiceQualityUserSatisfactioncustomerloyaltyconfirmatoryfactoranalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks what makes an e-commerce smartphone application succeed for customers in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. It re-specifies the IS Success Model—a standard framework that links system, information, and service quality to satisfaction, use, and net benefits—to the smartphone shopping context, expanding the three quality dimensions into fifteen measurable sub-constructs. The model is then tested on 803 smartphone shoppers from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, with the data analyzed through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and path estimation. The paper's central claim is that Service Quality, defined through mobile-loyalty building, customer chat and feedback, help and technical support, and credibility and reliability building, is more consequential than Information Quality and System Quality, and that User Satisfaction is the construct that turns quality into intention to use and net benefits. If this is right, retailers entering the GCC market should treat in-app customer service and trust features as core investments, not peripheral additions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a modified IS Success Model, a standard framework for explaining information-system success through quality, satisfaction, use, and net benefits, here re-specified for GCC e-commerce smartphone applications. The model's detail is a set of fifteen sub-constructs under the three quality dimensions: System Quality (attractive appearance and balancing, color and text usage, planning and consistency, navigation links), Information Quality (updating content and relevant information, accurate and relevant data, content display, multimedia adoption, adaptability, customer advisor, assurance), and Service Quality (mobile-loyalty building, customer chat and feedback, help and technical support, credibility and reliability build). The mechanism that carries the conclusion is a 97-item survey instrument assessed with exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, composite reliability, average variance extracted, and discriminant-validity checks, followed by a path model running from the three quality constructs to User Satisfaction and then to Intention to Use and Net Benefits.

What would settle it

Re-estimate the structural model after freeing or dropping the Information Quality items that produced the weak fit in Table 7; if the Information Quality → User Satisfaction coefficient (0.472) falls below the Service Quality coefficient (0.428), or the relative ranking reverses, the paper's headline ranking collapses. Independently, track actual repeat purchases and support-ticket behavior in a GCC e-commerce app and test whether service-quality perceptions predict retention better than information or system quality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is an empirical ranking inside the IS Success Model for GCC e-commerce smartphone apps: the three quality dimensions do not weigh equally, and Service Quality is the dimension the authors conclude is most significant. The paper builds Service Quality from four customer-focus sub-constructs—mobile-loyalty building, customer chat and feedback, help and technical support, and credibility and reliability building—and reports these service features feeding User Satisfaction, which then drives Intention to Use and Net Benefits. Help and Technical Support and Credibility and Reliability Build are singled out as the strongest measured indicators in the study. The authors present User Satisfaction as the pivotal mediating construct, and they support all twenty-four hypotheses in the modified model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the questionnaire items grouped under 'Information Quality' really form one coherent quality concept, even though Table 7 reports fit statistics for that construct below the paper's own thresholds (X²/df = 4.112, GFI = 0.873, TLI = 0.833, NFI = 0.816, CFI = 0.853) — if that measurement is misspecified, the path coefficients in Table 8 and the paper's ranking of Service Quality over Information Quality cannot be trusted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Developers of GCC e-commerce apps should put service features first: loyalty programmes, in-app chat and feedback, help and technical support, and visible credibility signals.
  • User Satisfaction should be tracked as the key intermediate outcome, because the model routes the quality dimensions through it before intention to use and net benefits.
  • The fifteen-sub-construct instrument gives retailers and researchers a ready-made questionnaire for evaluating an e-commerce app in this region.
  • Net Benefits are predicted by both User Satisfaction and Intention to Use, so success measures should include repeat-purchase intent and perceived value, not just download or visit counts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The sample covers three of the six GCC states and skews toward university-educated, monthly online shoppers, so the framework is most directly supported for Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar; testing in the remaining GCC states and in less-educated or less-frequent shopper segments would show how far the ranking generalizes.
  • A natural causal extension is an A/B experiment inside a live GCC shopping app: switching on live chat, help-desk access, and loyalty rewards while holding information and system features constant should raise satisfaction and repeat-purchase intent if the model is right.
  • The paper's evidence is self-reported satisfaction and intention; linking the same constructs to behavioural data such as retention, purchase frequency, and support-ticket resolution would turn the ranking into a predictive tool.
  • Re-specifying the Information Quality measurement model to meet the paper's own fit thresholds could change its path coefficients, so the practical message is most secure for service features while the exact coefficient ordering should be treated as provisional.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript adapts the DeLone and McLean IS Success Model to e-commerce smartphone applications in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region. It decomposes System Quality, Information Quality, and Service Quality into sub-constructs derived from prior literature, and links these to User Satisfaction, Intention to Use, and Net Benefits. The model is tested with survey responses from 803 participants from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, using exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural path estimation. The abstract and conclusion claim that Service Quality is the most significant quality dimension and that User Satisfaction is the central mediating construct. All fifteen hypotheses are reported as accepted on the basis of Table 8.

Significance. If the empirical claims were reliable, the paper would offer a region-specific, theory-grounded instrument for designers and researchers concerned with e-commerce smartphone applications in the GCC. The study has genuine strengths: a comparatively large sample, explicit questionnaire arbitration, and a measurement model that is reported in sufficient detail for the reader to check the claimed fit indices. However, the headline finding is contradicted by the paper's own path coefficients, and the construct with the largest estimated effects (Information Quality) fails the paper's stated measurement model fit criteria. These problems are load-bearing: they concern the central claim rather than presentation. The paper also has no reproducibility artifacts, so the evidence base is limited to what is reported in the tables.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.4 (Table 8)] The abstract states that Service Quality is significant 'over Information Quality and System Quality,' but Table 8 reports standardized path coefficients IQ→US = 0.472 versus SQU→US = 0.428, and IQ→IU = 0.383 versus SQU→IU = 0.339; System Quality is lower still. Even after adding the indirect path through US→IU (0.313), the total effect of IQ on IU is 0.383 + 0.472×0.313 = 0.531, while the total effect of SQU on IU is 0.339 + 0.428×0.313 = 0.473. The paper's own results therefore rank Information Quality above Service Quality, contradicting the abstract, the discussion, and the conclusion. This is not a minor wording issue; it reverses the stated headline finding.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 7] The Information Quality measurement model fails most of the fit criteria that the paper itself adopts in Table 5: X²/df = 4.112 exceeds the 3.0 threshold, and GFI (0.873), TLI (0.833), NFI (0.816), CFI (0.853), and IFI (0.854) are all below 0.90. The text nevertheless states that 'the results show proportional model at recommended values.' Because Information Quality is the construct with the largest structural path coefficients, its measurement model misspecification directly undermines the reliability of the path estimates used in the paper's ranking of factors. The authors need to re-specify or justify this measurement model before any claims about relative importance can be accepted.
  3. [Sections 4.2 and 4.3] The same dataset is used first to refine the measurement model through EFA (including the elimination of 17 items and the formation of sub-constructs) and then to evaluate that refined model through CFA and hypothesis testing. This procedure capitalizes on sample-specific chance variation, and the reported fit indices are therefore not an independent confirmation of the model. A split-sample analysis, cross-validation, or an explicit acknowledgment of the exploratory nature of the results is needed before the measurement model can be treated as validated.
  4. [Section 3 and Table 3] The paper claims to study GCC consumers, but the reported sample consists only of respondents from Saudi Arabia (48%), the UAE (31%), and Qatar (21%). Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman are absent. As a result, the findings at best describe three GCC countries, and the generalization to 'the GCC' in the title, abstract, and conclusion is not supported by the presented sampling information.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3, survey instrument] The Likert scale is described as ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), yet all reported means are above 4 for most constructs. If the scale direction is as stated, the means imply that respondents disagreed with positive statements, which is inconsistent with the positive factor loadings and the interpretation of high satisfaction. The authors should correct the scale anchor or clarify that items were reverse-scored.
  2. [Section 2, hypotheses] The hypotheses H6a through H6d are introduced as 'the following information quality hypotheses,' but they concern Service Quality sub-constructs, not Information Quality. This labeling error should be fixed.
  3. [Table 7] The header row reads 'RMR ≤ 0.8' and 'RMSEA ≤ 0.8'; the standard criteria are RMR/RMSEA below 0.08, as also implied by Table 5. The typo should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  4. [Table 4 and Section 4.2] The table headers 'Indicators Removed' and 'Factors Extracted' are unclear, and the surrounding text says that item loadings of 0.5 or more were retained while also stating that seventeen items were eliminated. A clearer reconciliation of the number of indicators before and after EFA is needed.
  5. [Section 5, Discussion] The discussion refers to 'twenty functions' belonging to the six main groups, while Section 2 describes fifteen sub-constructs and Table 4 lists different counts. The relationship between indicators, sub-constructs, and functions is not explained and should be clarified.
  6. [General] The manuscript would benefit from a Limitations section, particularly regarding the non-representative sample coverage within the GCC, the absence of split-sample validation, and the borderline measurement model fit for Information Quality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper is an empirical SEM study whose conclusions, while internally questionable, do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical survey-based SEM study rather than a derivation, so the enumerated circularity patterns largely do not apply. The theoretical framework is taken from DeLone and McLean's external IS Success Model, and the structural hypotheses are specified before data collection. Exploratory factor analysis is used only to prune measurement items, while the later CFA and path analysis are in-sample model fits, not out-of-sample predictions; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no equation reduces to another by construction. The authors cite their own earlier work among many other sources, but no central premise depends on an author-imported uniqueness theorem or an ansatz smuggled in by self-citation. Two genuine problems exist, but they are correctness problems rather than circularity: the abstract's claim that Service Quality dominates Information Quality and System Quality is contradicted by the paper's own standardized path coefficients in Table 8 (e.g., IQ→US=0.472 vs SQU→US=0.428, and IQ→IU=0.383 vs SQU→IU=0.339), and the Information Quality measurement model in Table 7 fails several of the paper's own fit thresholds (X²/df=4.112, GFI=0.873, TLI=0.833, NFI=0.816, CFI=0.853). These issues undermine the reported conclusions but do not amount to circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

This is an empirical application of an established model. The paper's central claim rests on fitted path coefficients, hand-chosen factor-loading and fit thresholds, and domain assumptions about the transferability of the IS Success Model, the validity of self-report items, and the representativeness of a convenience sample from three of six GCC states. No new physical entities are proposed; the new conceptual constructs are operational groupings of quality indicators with no independent external evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • Standardized path coefficients in the structural model = 24 coefficients, e.g., IQ to US = 0.472, SQU to US = 0.428, SQ to US = 0.328, US to IU = 0.313, IU to NB = 0.324
    The central claim about which quality factor matters most is read directly from these fitted coefficients, which are estimated from the 803 responses rather than predicted out of sample.
  • EFA item retention threshold = Factor loading greater than or equal to 0.5
    Seventeen indicators were removed at this hand-chosen cutoff in Section 4.2, which reshapes the constructs before confirmatory factor analysis.
  • CFA fit criteria thresholds = X²/df < 3; GFI/TLI/NFI/CFI/IFI > 0.90; AGFI > 0.80; RMR/RMSEA < 0.08
    Adopted from the literature in Table 5, but the paper misstates RMR/RMSEA as 0.8 and then reports information-quality values that fail the stated criteria in Table 7.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The DeLone and McLean IS Success Model constructs and causal ordering are applicable to e-commerce smartphone applications.
    The entire framework in Sections 2 and 3 imports the model, including its constructs and one-way paths such as user satisfaction to intention to use.
  • domain assumption The 97 Likert items, after arbitration, validly measure the latent quality and behavior constructs.
    Section 3 describes arbitration by five academics but provides no item-level validation outside the study sample.
  • domain assumption Self-reported satisfaction and intention to use are reliable proxies for actual system success.
    The analysis uses survey responses only; no objective usage, purchase, or retention data is collected.
  • domain assumption The online convenience sample from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar represents the GCC smartphone-buying population.
    Table 3 in Section 4.1 shows only three of six GCC states, 92% with a bachelor's degree or higher, and recruitment through social media and mailing lists.
  • standard math Statistical assumptions of EFA and CFA, such as multivariate normality and independence of responses, hold for the 803 records.
    The paper does not report normality checks, common-method-bias tests, or alternative model specifications before applying factor analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The model fit thresholds in Table 5 are the appropriate criteria for accepting the measurement model.
    The paper sets these cutoffs and then judges its own model against them, yet information-quality indices in Table 7 fail the stated criteria.
invented entities (3)
  • Service Quality as Customer Focus sub-constructs (CF_MB, CF_CC, CF_HT, CF_CB)
    purpose: Operationalize service quality for e-commerce smartphone apps as loyalty building, customer chat, help and technical support, and credibility building.
    These constructs are assembled from cited literature and measured only through the same survey that is used to fit the model; no external behavioral benchmark is provided.
  • System Quality as Appearance and Organization sub-constructs (AP_AB, AP_CT, OR_PC, OR_NL)
    purpose: Reshape system quality into visual appeal, color and text usage, planning consistency, and navigation links for mobile apps.
    The grouping is derived from the literature and the sample; there is no out-of-sample validation or behavioral outcome connected to these constructs.
  • Information Quality as Content, Interaction and Assurance sub-constructs (CO_*, IN_*, AS_ALL)
    purpose: Reshape information quality around content updates, accurate data, display, multimedia adoption, adaptability, customer advisor, and assurance.
    These seven sub-constructs are defined for this study and validated only within the same dataset, with information-quality fit indices failing the paper's own thresholds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Conceptual Framework for Successful E-commerce Smartphone Applications: The Context of GCC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QQZWQ63X

@misc{pith2026190806350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Conceptual Framework for Successful E-commerce Smartphone Applications: The Context of GCC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QQZWQ63X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06350}
}
read the original abstract

Rapid expansion of online business has engulfed the GCC region. Such expansion causes competition among business entities, causing the need to identify the factors that the customers use to choose a suitable mobile business application. Instead of just focusing on the visitors/users of the application, a shift in focus towards transforming casual customers to loyal customers is needed. The IS Success Model, whose main constructs are Information Quality, Quality Systems, Service Quality, User Satisfaction, Intention to Use and Net Benefits, includes diversified indicators along with their measures. This research considers User Satisfaction, Intention to Use and Net Benefits constructs as it is, but modified System Quality, Information Quality and Service Quality constructs based on previous state-of-the-art literature. The developed theoretical model was further tested surveying 803 GCC participants. Responses were analyzed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Study reveals the significance of Service Quality (consisting of M-loyalty Building, Customer Chat and feedback, Help and technical support, and Credibility and Reliability Build) over Information Quality and System Quality, impacting the importance of User Satisfaction over the other constructs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Traver, C

    Laudon, K. & Traver, C. (2015). E-commerce: business, technology, society. Pearson Prentice Hall: New Jersey

    2015

  2. [2]

    B2C e -commerce sales worldwide from 2012 to 2018 (in billion U.S

    Statista (2018). B2C e -commerce sales worldwide from 2012 to 2018 (in billion U.S. dollars) Retrieved February 22, 2019, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/261245/b2c-e-commerce-sales- worldwide/

    2018

  3. [3]

    e-Marketer. (2018). Smartphones, Mobile Commerce Roundup, Retrieved February 21, 2019, from https://www.emarketer.com/public_media/docs/eMarketer_Mobil e_Commerce_Roundup.pdf

    2018

  4. [4]

    AlGhamdi, R. (2014). Diffusion of the Adoption of Online Retailing in Saudi Arabia. (PhD), Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    2014

  5. [5]

    Aladwani, A. M. (2003). Key Internet characteristics and e - commerce issues in Arab countries. Information Technology & People, 16(1), 9-20

    2003

  6. [6]

    Al-Solbi, A., & Mayhew, P. J. (2005). Measuring e -readiness assessment in Saudi organisations preliminary results from a survey study. From e-government to m-government, 467-475

    2005

  7. [7]

    W., & Sabry, K

    Alrawi, K. W., & Sabry, K. A. (2009). E -commerce evolution: A Gulf region review. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 4(5), 509-526

    2009

  8. [8]

    Alshehri, M., Drew, S., Alhussain, T., & Alghamdi, R. (2012). The Effects of Website Quality on Adoption of E-Government Service: An Empirical Study Applying UTAUT Model Using SEM. in J Lamp (ed.), 23rd Australasian Conference On Information Systems (ACIS 2012), Melbourne, Australia

    2012

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    AlGhamdi, R., Nguyen, J., Nguyen, A., & Drew, S. (2012). Factors influencing e-commerce adoption by retailers in Saudi Arabia: A quantitative analysis. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 3(1), 83-100

    2012

  2. [10]

    A., AlGhamdi, R., & Houghton, L

    Bahaddad, A. A., AlGhamdi, R., & Houghton, L. (2012). To What Extent Would E -mall Enable SMEs to Adopt E -Commerce? International Journal of Business and Management, 7 (22), 123- 132

    2012

  3. [11]

    & Jones, V

    AlGhamdi, R., Nguyen, A. & Jones, V. (2013), A Study of Influential Factors in the Adoption and Diffusion of B2C E- Commerce, In: International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA) 4(1). 89-94

    2013

  4. [12]

    A., Drew, S., Houghtoni, L., & Alfarraj, O

    Bahaddad, A. A., Drew, S., Houghtoni, L., & Alfarraj, O. A. (2015). Factors attracting online consumers to choose e -Malls for e-procurement in Saudi Arabia. Enterprise Information Systems, 12(7), 856-887

    2015

  5. [13]

    Le-Nguyen, K., & Guo, Y. (2016). Choosing e -commerce strategies: a case study of eBay. vn partnership. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 6(1), 1-14

    2016

  6. [14]

    A., & Bahaddad, A

    AlGhamdi, R., Alfarraj, O. A., & Bahaddad, A. A. (2015). How Retailers at different Stages of E -Commerce Maturity Evaluate Their Entry to E -Commerce A ctivities? arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.05172

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Chen, C. W. D., & Cheng, C. Y. J. (2009). Understanding consumer intention in online shopping: a respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(4), 335-345

    2009

  8. [16]

    Niranjanamurthy, M., & Kavyashree, N. (2013). Analysis of E - Commerce and M -Commerce: Advantages, Limitations and Security issues. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, 2(6). 2360-2370

    2013

  9. [17]

    H., & McLean, E

    Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten -year update. Journal of management information systems, 19(4), 9-30

    2003

  10. [18]

    Petter, S., DeLone , W., & McLean, E. (2008). Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 236-263

    2008

  11. [19]

    G., Sedera, D., & Chan, T

    Gable, G. G., Sedera, D., & Chan, T. (2008). Re -conceptualizing information sy stem success: The IS -impact measurement model. Journal of the association for information systems , 9(7), 377-408

    2008

  12. [20]

    McGill, T., Hobbs, V., & Klobas , J. (2003). User developed applications and information systems success: A test of DeLone and McLean's model. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), 16(1), 24-45

    2003

  13. [21]

    J., & Lim, B

    Mahatanankoon, P., Wen, H. J., & Lim, B. (2005). Consumer - based M -Commerce: explo ring consumer perception of mobile applications. Computer standards & interfaces, 27(4), 347-357

    2005

  14. [22]

    Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. R. (2013). Information Systems Success: the quest for the independent variables. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 7-62

    2013

  15. [23]

    Ho, R., Huang, L., Huang, S., Lee, T., Rosten, A., & Tang, C. S. (2009). An approach to develop effective customer loyalty programs: The VIP program at T&T Supermarkets Inc. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 19(6), 702-720

    2009

  16. [24]

    Varnali, K., & Toker, A. (2010). Mobile marketing research: The- state-of-the-art. International Journal of Information Management, 30(2), 144-151

    2010

  17. [25]

    Y., & Hossain, M

    Hossain, M. Y., & Hossain, M. (2011). E -Service Quality and Consumer Loyalty: A study on Consumer Electronic Retail Industry, Master thesis , Umeå University. Avialable from http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/get/diva2:524922/FULLTEXT02.pdf

    2011

  18. [26]

    & Abuelrub, E

    Hasan, L. & Abuelrub, E. (2011). Assessing the quality of web sites. Applied Computing and Informatics. 9(1), 11-29

    2011

  19. [27]

    Zahra, S., Khalid, A., & Javed, A. (2013). An Efficient and Effective New Generation Objective Quality Model for Mobile Applications. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 5(4), 36-44

    2013

  20. [28]

    Assessing the Effect of Service Quality and Information Quality on Customers’ Overall Perceived Service Quality in M - Commerce

    Salameh, A., Hassan, S., Alekam, J., & Alkafagi, A., (2015) . Assessing the Effect of Service Quality and Information Quality on Customers’ Overall Perceived Service Quality in M - Commerce. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 9(13), 146-153

    2015

  21. [29]

    Sohaib, O., & Kang, K. (2013). The Importance of Web Accessibility in Business to -Consumer (B2C) Websites. In: 22nd Australasian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC 2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    AlGhamdi, R., Nguyen, A., Nguyen, J., & Drew, S. (2011). Factors Influencing Saudi Customers’ Decisions to Purchase from Online Retailers in Saudi Arabia: A Quantitative Analysis . In: IADIS International Conference e-Commerce, Rome, Italy

    2011

  23. [31]

    Mansour, Y. (2014). Regulating payments for M -Content: The positive impact of the deregulation. International Review of Law , 9-20

    2014

  24. [32]

    , Drew, S

    AlGhamdi, R. , Drew, S. & Al -Ghaith, W. (2011). Factors Influencing E-Commerce Adoption by Retailers in Saudi Arabia: A Qualitative Analysis, The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 47(7), 1-23

    2011

  25. [33]

    J., & Lee, K

    Noh, M. J., & Lee, K. T. (2016). An analysis of the relationship between quality and u ser acceptance in smartphone apps. Information Systems and E -Business Management , 14(2), 273-291

    2016

  26. [34]

    Page, T. (2013). Usability of text input interfaces in smartphones. Journal of Design Research, 11(1), 39-56

    2013

  27. [35]

    & Suomi, R

    Li, H. & Suomi, R. (2009). A proposed scale for measuring e - service quality. International Journal of u -and e-Service, Science and Technology,2(1), 1-10

    2009

  28. [36]

    Pousttchi, K., Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Hufenbach, Y. (2015). Introduction to the Special Issue on Mobile Commerce: Mobile Commerce Research Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow —What Remains to Be Done? International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 19(4), 1-20

    2015

  29. [37]

    & Alkhalaf, S

    Bahadad, A., AlGhamdi, R. & Alkhalaf, S. (2014), Adoption Factors for e -Malls in the SME Sector in Saudi Arabia, In: International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies (IJCSIT), 5(4), 5835-5856

    2014

  30. [38]

    M., & Suki, N

    Suki, N. M., & Suki, N. M. (2014). Mobile social networking service users’ trust and loyalty. Mobile Electronic Commerce: Foundations, Development, and Applications, 89-106

    2014

  31. [39]

    T., Hu, S

    Lu, M. T., Hu, S. K., Huang, L. H., & Tzeng, G. H. (2015). Evaluating the implementation of business -to-business m - commerce by SMEs based on a new hybrid MADM model. Management Decision, 53(2), 290-317

    2015

  32. [40]

    Wahab, S., Zahari, A. S. M., Al Momani, K., & Nor, N. A. M. (2011). The influence of perceived privacy on customer loyalty in mobile phone services: An Empirical Research in Jordan. International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI), 8(2), 45-52

    2011

  33. [41]

    Nelson, P. (2014). How to turn on Android encryption today (no waiting necessary Retrieved December 17, 2015 from http://www.greenbot.com/article/2145380/why-and-how-to- encrypt-your-android-device. html

    2014

  34. [42]

    (2015, April)

    Mohamed, I., & Patel, D. (2015, April). Android vs iOS Security: A Comparative Study. In: Information Technology -New Generations (ITNG), 2015 12th International Conference on, 725-

    2015

  35. [43]

    Zheng, M., Xue, H., Zhang, Y., Wei, T., & Lui, J. C. (2015). Enpublic Apps: Security Threats Using iOS Enterprise and Developer Certificates. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, 463-474. ACM

    2015

  36. [44]

    H., Bock, G

    Kuan, H. H., Bock, G. W., & Vathanophas, V. (2008). Comparing the effects of website quality on customer initial purchase and continued purchase at e -commerce websites. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(1), 3-16

    2008

  37. [45]

    H., & Mclean, E

    Delone, W. H., & Mclean, E. R. (2004). Measuring e -commerce success: applying the DeLone & McLean information systems success model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(1), 31-47

    2004

  38. [46]

    Zhang, P., & Von Dran, G. M. (2000). Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: A two‐factor model for website design and evaluation. Journal of the American society for information science, 51(14), 1253-1268

    2000

  39. [47]

    Kim, S., & Stoel, L. (2004). Apparel retailers: website quality dimensions and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 11(2), 109-117

    2004

  40. [48]

    Alotaibi, M. (2013). E -Commerce Adoption in Saudi Arabia: An Assessment of International, Regional and Domestic Web Presence. I.J. Information Technology and Computer Science, 5(2), 42-56

    2013

  41. [49]

    Barnes, S. J. & Vidgen , R. T., (2002). An integrative approach to the assessment of e -commerce quality. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3(3), 114-127

    2002

  42. [50]

    Basu, A. (2003). Context -driven assessment of commercial web sites. In: the 36 th Annual Hawaii International Conferen ce on System Sciences Hawaii, USA: IEEE

    2003

  43. [51]

    Tan, F. B. & Tung, L. L. (2003). Exploring website evaluation criteria using the repertory grid technique: A web designers’ perspective. In: the second annual workshop on HCI research in MIS. Seattle, WA, Australia: AIS; AUT University

    2003

  44. [52]

    & Zaphiris, P

    Wenham, D. & Zaphiris, P. (2003). User interface evaluation methods for internet banking web sites: a review, evaluation and case study. Human-Computer Interaction, Theory and Practice, 721-725

    2003

  45. [53]

    Mich, L., Franch M., & Gaio, L. (2003). Evaluating and designing Web site quality. Multimedia, IEEE, 10(1), 34-43

    2003

  46. [54]

    & Bensedrine, N

    Achour, H. & Bensedrine, N. (2005). An evaluation of internet banking and online brokerage in Tunisia. In: 1st International Conference on E-Business and E-learning. Amman, Jordan

    2005

  47. [55]

    Signore O., A. (2005). Comprehensive model for web sites quality. Paper presented at the 7th IEEE International Symposium on Web Site Evolution, Pisa, Italy: IEEE

    2005

  48. [56]

    & Fernandes, C., (2005)

    Awamleh, R. & Fernandes, C., (2005). Internet Banking: An empirical investigation into the extent of adoption by banks and the determinants of customer satisfaction in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 10(1), 1-12

    2005

  49. [57]

    Chen, S. Y. & Macredie, R. D. (2005). The assessment of usability of electronic shopping: a heuristic evaluation. International Journal of Information Management, 25(6), 516-532

    2005

  50. [58]

    Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 151: Guidance on World Wide Web user in terfaces, ISO 9241 - 151:2008

    ISO, (2008). Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 151: Guidance on World Wide Web user in terfaces, ISO 9241 - 151:2008. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/ catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail. htm?csnumber=37031

    2008

  51. [59]

    H., & Wang, Y

    Wu, J. H., & Wang, Y. M. (2006). Measuring KMS success: A respecification of the DeLone and McLean's model. Information & Management, 43(6), 728-739

    2006

  52. [60]

    Cao, M., Zhang, Q., & Seydel, J. (2005). B2C e -commerce web site quality: an empirical examination. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(5), 645-661

    2005

  53. [61]

    C., Yoon, D., & Han, E

    Kim, S. C., Yoon, D., & Han, E. K. (2016). Antecedents of mobile app usage among smartphone users. Journal of marketing communications, 22(6), 653-670

    2016

  54. [62]

    Rigas, D. I. & Memery, D. (2002). Utilising audio-visual stimuli in interactive information systems: a two-domain investigation on auditory metaphors. In: International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing, Bradford, UK

    2002

  55. [63]

    & Alty, J

    Rigas, D. & Alty, J. (2005). The rising pitch metaphor : an empirical study. International Journal of Human -Computer Studies, 62(1), 1-20

    2005

  56. [64]

    & Stergiou, A

    Rigas D. & Stergiou, A. (2007). An Empirical Approach to Audio- Visual Guided Electronic Commerce. WSEAS Transactions on Computer Research, 2(2), 177-182

    2007

  57. [65]

    Lin, F., Huarng, K., Chen, Y., & Lin, S. (2004). Quality evaluation of web services. In: IEEE International Conference on E - Commerce Technology for Dynamic E-Business. Beijing, China

    2004

  58. [66]

    Martins, J., Costa, C., Oliveira, T., Gonçalves, R., & Branco, F. (2019). How smartphone advertising influences consumers' purchase intention. Journal of Business Research, 94, 378-387

    2019

  59. [67]

    S., Park, S

    Ahn, Y. S., Park, S. Y., Yoo, S. B., & Bae, H. Y. (2004). Extension of Geography Markup Language (GML) for mobile and location - based applications. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, 1079-1088. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    2004

  60. [68]

    Palmer, J. W. (2002). Web site usability, design, and performance metrics. Information systems research, 13(2), 151-167

    2002

  61. [69]

    Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New york: Simon and Schuster

    2003

  62. [70]

    Fitzpatrick, S. (2000). Everyday Stalinism: ordinary life in extraordinary times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s. Oxford University Press, USA

    2000

  63. [71]

    & Paynter, J

    Chung, W. & Paynter, J. (2002). An evaluation of Internet banking in New Zealand. In: the 35 th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) Hawaii, USA: IEEE

    2002

  64. [72]

    H., & Richard, M

    Hajli, N., Sims, J., Zadeh, A. H., & Richard, M. O. (2017). A social commerce investigation of the role of trust in a social networking site on purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research , 71(1), 133-141

    2017

  65. [73]

    S., & Welker, R

    Rai, A., Lang, S. S., & Welker, R. B. (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models: An empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information systems research, 13(1), 50-69

    2002

  66. [74]

    Zviran, M., Glezer, C., & Avni, I. (2006). User satisfaction from commercial web sites: The effect of design and use. Information & management, 43(2), 157-178

    2006

  67. [75]

    E., & Srinivasan, S

    Anderson, R. E., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2003). E-satisfaction and e- loyalty: a contingency framework. Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), 123-138

    2003

  68. [76]

    Lee, I., Choi, B., Kim, J., & Hong, S. J. (2007). Culture-technology fit: Effects of cultural characteristics on the post -adoption beliefs of mobile Internet u sers. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 11-51

    2007

  69. [77]

    Wang, Y. S. (2008). Assessing e‐commerce systems success: a re- specification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Journal, 18(5), 529-557

    2008

  70. [78]

    Talib, F., & Faisal, M. (2015). An analysis of the barriers to the proliferation of M -commerce in Qatar. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 17(1), 54-81

    2015

  71. [79]

    & Donthu, N

    Yoo, B. & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an Int ernet shopping site (SITEQUAL). Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2(1), 31-46

    2001

  72. [80]

    AlMamari, M. O. H. A. M. M. E. D. (2007). Mobile commerce development in Oman. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Sheffield. Available from http://dagda. shef. ac. uk/dissertations/2006-07/External/Al-MamariMohammed MScI S. pdf

    2007

  73. [81]

    Joubert, J., & Belle, J. P. V. (2009). The importance of trust and risk in M -Commerce: A South African perspective. PACIS 2009 Proceedings, 96-110

    2009

  74. [82]

    Khan, H., Talib, F., & Faisal, M. N. (2015). An analysis of the barriers to the proliferation of M -commerce in Qatar: A relationship modeling approach. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 17(1), 54-81

    2015

  75. [83]

    Seddon, P. B. (1997). A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success. Information systems research, 8(3), 240-253

    1997

  76. [84]

    M., & Yang, S

    Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L. M., & Yang, S. (2002). Intangible assets: Computers and organizational capita l. Brookings papers on economic activity, 2002(1), 137-198

    2002

  77. [85]

    & Jones, V

    AlGhamdi, R., Nguyen, A. & Jones, V. (2013), Wheel of B2C E - commerce Development in Saudi Arabia, in: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Edited by: J. -H. Kim, E. T. Matson, H. Myung and P. Xu, pp. 1047 -1055, Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2013

  78. [86]

    Walliman, N. (2017). Research methods: The basics. 2nd Ed, Routledge, London

    2017

  79. [87]

    Raosoft. (2004). Sample size calculator. Retrieved from http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

    2004

  80. [88]

    QSAa (2015), Ministry of Development Planning and statistics – Statistics Sector, Retrieved September 6, 2015 from http://www.qsa.gov.qa/Eng/index.htm

    2015

  81. [89]

    CDSI (2017), Statistical Summary of Teaching Adm. & Tec. Staff By Agency -2010, Retrieved March 11, 2017 from ttps://www.stats.gov.sa/sites/all/modules/pubdlcnt/pubdlcnt.php?f ile=https://www.stats.gov.sa/ sites/default/files/estm_pop_ar2017.xlsx&nid=12211

    2017

  82. [90]

    UAE STATISTICS (2016). Population Estimates 2006 – 2010, Retrieved November 6, 2015 from http://www.uaestatistics.gov.ae/EnglishHome/ReportDetailsEngli sh/tabid/121/Default.aspx?ItemId=1914&PTID=104&MenuId=1

    2016

  83. [91]

    Norris, M., & Lecavalier, L. (2010). Evaluating t he use of exploratory factor analysis in developmental disability psychological research. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 40(1), 8-20

    2010

  84. [92]

    F., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R

    Hair, J. F., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson

    2010

  85. [93]

    Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis using SPSS for Windows (Version 12) . Berkshire: Open University Press

    2005

  86. [94]

    Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press

    2005

  87. [95]

    Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation -confirmation model. MIS quarterly , 351-370

    2001

  88. [96]

    W., & Todd, P

    Chin, W. W., & Todd, P. A. (199 5). On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: a note of caution. MIS quarterly, 237-246

  89. [97]

    G., & Fidell, L

    Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc

    2007

  90. [98]

    Koufteros, X. A. (1999). Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manufacturing research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), 467-488

    1999

  91. [99]

    Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social psychology quarterly, 55(2),178-204

    1992

  92. [100]

    Fornell C, & Larcker DF. (1981). Evaluating structural model with unobserved variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50

    1981

  93. [101]

    Huang, Z., & Benyoucef, M. (2013). From e-commerce to social commerce: A close look at design features. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4), 246-259. AUTHOR PROFILES Adel Bahaddad received his B.S. degree in Computer Science from King Abdulaziz University, Sau...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.