Submitted:
31 January 2024
Posted:
01 February 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
3. Hypothesis Development
3.1. User Information Satisfaction Factors
4. Methods
4.1. Measures
4.2. Sampling Technique and Data Collection Procedures
4.3. Data Analysis Technique
5. Discussion
5.1. Common Method Variance
5.2. Validity and Reliability Assessment
5.3. Hypothesis Testing
6. Discussion and Implication
6.1. Main Findings
6.2. Implication for Theory
6.3. Implication for Practice
7. Conclusions and Limitation
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Akiba, D.; Fraboni, M.C. AI-supported academic advising: Exploring ChatGPT’s current state and future potential toward student empowerment. Education Sciences 2023, 13, 885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ameen, N.; Tarhini, A.; Reppel, A.; Anand, A. Customer experiences in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior 2021, 114, 106548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.; Rainie, L.; Luchsinger, A. Artificial intelligence and the future of humans. Pew Research Center 2018, 10. [Google Scholar]
- Ansari, A.N.; Ahmad, S.; Bhutta, S.M. Mapping the global evidence around the use of ChatGPT in higher education: A systematic scoping review. Education and Information Technologies 2023, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baek, T.H.; Kim, M. Is ChatGPT scary good? How user motivations affect creepiness and trust in generative artificial intelligence. Telematics and Informatics 2023, 83, 102030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, B.; Law, R.; Wen, I. The impact of website quality on customer satisfaction and purchase intentions: Evidence from Chinese online visitors. International journal of hospitality management 2008, 27, 391–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumgartner, H.; Weijters, B.; Pieters, R. The biasing effect of common method variance: Some clarifications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2021, 49, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS quarterly 2001, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bin-Nashwan, S.A.; Sadallah, M.; Bouteraa, M. Use of ChatGPT in academia: Academic integrity hangs in the balance. Technology in Society 2023, 75, 102370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brill, T.M.; Munoz, L.; Miller, R.J. 2022. Siri, Alexa, and other digital assistants: a study of customer satisfaction with artificial intelligence applications. In The Role of Smart Technologies in Decision Making (pp. 35-70). Routledge.
- Bringula, R. What do academics have to say about ChatGPT? A text mining analytics on the discussions regarding ChatGPT on research writing. AI and Ethics 2023, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bubaš, G.; Čižmešija, A.; Kovačić, A. Development of an Assessment Scale for Measurement of Usability and User Experience Characteristics of Bing Chat Conversational AI. Future Internet 2023, 16, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Zahedi, F.M.; Abbasi, A.; Dobolyi, D. Trust calibration of automated security IT artifacts: A multi-domain study of phishing-website detection tools. Information & Management 2021, 58, 103394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, C.M.; Lee, M.K. User satisfaction with an internet-based portal: An asymmetric and nonlinear approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2009, 60, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cotton, D.R.; Cotton, P.A.; Shipway, J.R. Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 2023, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, R.C. Internet connection: AI and libraries: Supporting machine learning work. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 2017, 36, 109–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Angelis, L.; Baglivo, F.; Arzilli, G.; Privitera, G.P.; Ferragina, P.; Tozzi, A.E.; Rizzo, C. ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health. Frontiers in Public Health, 2023, 11, 1166120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deiana, G.; Dettori, M.; Arghittu, A.; Azara, A.; Gabutti, G.; Castiglia, P. Artificial intelligence and public health: evaluating ChatGPT responses to vaccination myths and misconceptions. Vaccines 2023, 11, 1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dwivedi, Y.K.; Kshetri, N.; Hughes, L.; Slade, E.L.; Jeyaraj, A.; Kar, A.K.; Wright, R. “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 2023, 71, 102642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Essel, H.B.; Vlachopoulos, D.; Tachie-Menson, A.; Johnson, E.E.; Baah, P.K. The impact of a virtual teaching assistant (chatbot) on students’ learning in Ghanaian higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2022, 19, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falk, R. F.; Miller, N. B. 1992. A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foroughi, B.; Senali, M.G.; Iranmanesh, M.; Khanfar, A.; Ghobakhloo, M.; Annamalai, N.; Naghmeh-Abbaspour, B. Determinants of intention to use ChatGPT for educational purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 2023, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraisse, H.; Laporte, M. Return on investment on artificial intelligence: The case of bank capital requirement. Journal of Banking & Finance 2022, 138, 106401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fui-Hoon Nah, F.; Zheng, R.; Cai, J.; Siau, K.; Chen, L. Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI-human collaboration. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 2023, 25, 277–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galletta, D.F.; Lederer, A.L. Some cautions on the measurement of user information satisfaction. Decision Sciences 1989, 20, 419–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, S.; Motlagh, M.; Rhyner, J. The digitalization sustainability matrix: A participatory research tool for investigating digitainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.; Hollingsworth, C.L.; Randolph, A.B.; Chong, A.Y.L. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial management & data systems, 2017, 117, 442–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ives, B.; Olson, M.H.; Baroudi, J.J. The measurement of user information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM 1983, 26, 785–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, J.; Kim, M. GPT-Empowered Personalized eLearning System for Programming Languages. Applied Sciences 2023, 13, 12773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, C.; Park, J. Decisions with ChatGPT: Reexamining choice overload in ChatGPT recommendations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2023, 75, 103494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kocoń, J.; Cichecki, I.; Kaszyca, O.; Kochanek, M.; Szydło, D.; Baran, J.; Kazienko, P. ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none. Information Fusion 2023, 101861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laumer, S.; Maier, C.; Weitzel, T. Information quality, user satisfaction, and the manifestation of workarounds: a qualitative and quantitative study of enterprise content management system users. European Journal of Information Systems 2017, 26, 333–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.; Ren, Y.; Nyagoga, L.M.; Stonier, F.; Wu, Z.; Yu, L. Future of education in the era of generative artificial intelligence: Consensus among Chinese scholars on applications of ChatGPT in schools. Future in Educational Research 2023, 1, 72–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, C.K. What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences, 2023, 13, 410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y. Artificial intelligence: a survey on evolution, models, applications and future trends. Journal of Management Analytics 2019, 6, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lund, B.D.; Wang, T.; Mannuru, N.R.; Nie, B.; Shimray, S.; Wang, Z. ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2023, 74, 570–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Huo, Y. Are users willing to embrace ChatGPT? Exploring the factors on the acceptance of chatbots from the perspective of AIDUA framework. Technology in Society 2023, 75, 102362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, F.; Ertzberger, J. Effects of reflection type in the here and now mobile learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology 2016, 47, 932–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menon, D.; Shilpa, K. “Chatting with ChatGPT”: Analyzing the factors influencing users’ intention to Use the Open AI’s ChatGPT using the UTAUT model. Heliyon 2023, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meron, Y.; Araci, Y.T. Artificial intelligence in design education: evaluating ChatGPT as a virtual colleague for post-graduate course development. Design Science 2023, 9, e30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, B.; Mvondo, G.F.N. I Am ChatGPT, the ultimate AI Chatbot! Investigating the determinants of users’ loyalty and ethical usage concerns of ChatGPT. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2024, 76, 103562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, S.; Cui, J.; Mou, Y. Desirable or Distasteful? Exploring Uncertainty in Human-Chatbot Relationships. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 2023, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.; Zo, H.; Ciganek, A.P.; Lim, G.G. Examining success factors in the adoption of digital object identifier systems. Electronic commerce research and applications 2011, 10, 626–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petter, S.; Fruhling, A. Evaluating the success of an emergency response medical information system. International journal of medical informatics 2011, 80, 480–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raj, R.; Singh, A.; Kumar, V.; Verma, P. Analyzing the potential benefits and use cases of ChatGPT as a tool for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of business operations. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations 2023, 3, 100140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reinecke, K.; Bernstein, A. Knowing what a user likes: A design science approach to interfaces that automatically adapt to culture. Mis Quarterly 2013, 427–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivas, P.; Zhao, L. Marketing with chatgpt: Navigating the ethical terrain of gpt-based chatbot technology. AI 2023, 4, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roumeliotis, K.I.; Tselikas, N.D.; Nasiopoulos, D.K. LLMs in e-commerce: A comparative analysis of GPT and LLaMA models in product review evaluation. Natural Language Processing Journal 2024, 100056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roose. 2023. Don’t Ban ChatGPT in Schools. Teach With It. Retreived from: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/technology/chatgpt-schools-teachers.html.
- Saif, N.; Khan, S.U.; Shaheen, I.; ALotaibi, A.; Alnfiai, M.M.; Arif, M. Chat-GPT; validating Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in education sector via ubiquitous learning mechanism. Computers in Human Behavior 2024, 154, 108097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saka, A.; Taiwo, R.; Saka, N.; Salami, B.A.; Ajayi, S.; Akande, K.; Kazemi, H. GPT models in construction industry: Opportunities, limitations, and a use case validation. Developments in the Built Environment 2023, 100300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strzelecki, A. To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments 2023, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.M.; Lauro, C. PLS path modeling. Computational statistics & data analysis 2005, 48, 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wetzels, M.; Odekerken-Schröder, G.; Van Oppen, C. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS quarterly 2009, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, K.; Berman, G.; Michalska, S. Investigating hybridity in artificial intelligence research. Big Data & Society 2023, 10, 20539517231180577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, I.A.; Lian, Q.L.; Sun, D. Autonomous travel decision-making: An early glimpse into ChatGPT and generative AI. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 2023, 56, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Constructs | Items | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction | How do you feel about your overall experience of retrieving information from ChatGPT: very dissatisfied – very satisfied very displeased – very pleased very frustrated – very contended Absolutely terrible – absolutely delighted |
Bhattacherjee (2001) |
| Completeness | ChatGPT provides me complete information ChatGPT produces comprehensive information |
Laumer et al. (2017) |
| Accuracy | Information from ChatGPT is correct Information from ChatGPT is reliable Information from ChatGPT is accurate |
Foroughi et al. (2023) |
| Precision | The responses from ChatGPT are generally specific and directly address my questions I rarely receive vague or ambiguous information from ChatGPT I find ChatGPT’s responses to be consistently to the point |
Ives et al. (1983) |
| Reliability | ChatGPT rarely fails to deliver information I can rely on I trust ChatGPT as a dependable source of information |
Ives et al. (1983) |
| Timeliness | The information provided by ChatGPT is up-to-date The information provided by ChatGPT is received in a timely manner |
Laumer et al. (2017) |
| Convenience | Accessing ChatGPT is convenient and user-friendly I find it easy to access ChatGPT on my preferred devices. I experience no significant challenges in accessing ChatGPT |
Ives et al. (1983) |
| Format | The format in which ChatGPT presents information is clear and easy to understand I find ChatGPT’s information presentation format user-friendly |
Laumer et al. (2017) |
| Constructs | OL | CA | CR | VIF | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 0.736 - 0.858 | 0.713 | 0.724 | 1.288 - 1.597 | 0.636 |
| Completeness | 0.735 - 0.964 | 0.790 | 0.936 | 1.385 - 1.385 | 0.734 |
| Convenience | 0.820 - 0.841 | 0.771 | 0.781 | 1.444 - 1.770 | 0.684 |
| Format | 0.870 - 0.871 | 0.781 | 0.681 | 1.314 - 1.363 | 0.758 |
| Precision | 0.792 - 0.850 | 0.736 | 0.655 | 1.044 - 1.317 | 0.526 |
| Reliability | 0.869 - 0.908 | 0.735 | 0.749 | 1.510 - 1.510 | 0.790 |
| Satisfaction | 0.797 - 0.832 | 0.822 | 0.822 | 1.678 - 1.913 | 0.652 |
| Timeliness | 0.860 - 0.889 | 0.709 | 0.699 | 1.392 - 1.392 | 0.765 |
| Constructs | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (1) | 0.798 | 0.352 | 0.876 | 0.808 | 0.873 | 0.776 | 0.718 | 0.858 |
| Completeness (2) | 0.251 | 0.857 | 0.277 | 0.449 | 0.655 | 0.374 | 0.176 | 0.282 |
| Convenience (3) | 0.652 | 0.210 | 0.827 | 0.714 | 0.644 | 0.623 | 0.683 | 0.788 |
| Format (4) | 0.564 | 0.299 | 0.521 | 0.871 | 0.875 | 0.598 | 0.784 | 0.691 |
| Precision (5) | 0.685 | 0.315 | 0.664 | 0.525 | 0.725 | 0.858 | 0.827 | 0.895 |
| Reliability (6) | 0.557 | 0.284 | 0.476 | 0.423 | 0.558 | 0.889 | 0.537 | 0.249 |
| Satisfaction (7) | 0.551 | 0.146 | 0.555 | 0.586 | 0.586 | 0.420 | 0.808 | 0.682 |
| Timeliness (8) | 0.601 | 0.215 | 0.584 | 0.475 | 0.577 | 0.661 | 0.517 | 0.875 |
| Items/ Contructs | ACC | CMP | CVC | FMT | PRR | RLB | STS | TML |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACR.1 | 0.795 | 0.253 | 0.519 | 0.468 | 0.511 | 0.499 | 0.427 | 0.514 |
| ACR.2 | 0.858 | 0.179 | 0.523 | 0.482 | 0.559 | 0.411 | 0.488 | 0.479 |
| ACR.3 | 0.736 | 0.171 | 0.524 | 0.396 | 0.574 | 0.431 | 0.400 | 0.450 |
| CMP.1 | 0.239 | 0.964 | 0.207 | 0.268 | 0.313 | 0.288 | 0.159 | 0.224 |
| CMP.2 | 0.191 | 0.735 | 0.141 | 0.270 | 0.210 | 0.171 | 0.063 | 0.114 |
| CNV.1 | 0.496 | 0.201 | 0.820 | 0.407 | 0.480 | 0.351 | 0.364 | 0.412 |
| CNV.2 | 0.533 | 0.173 | 0.841 | 0.421 | 0.600 | 0.419 | 0.488 | 0.480 |
| CNV.3 | 0.578 | 0.154 | 0.820 | 0.458 | 0.551 | 0.402 | 0.500 | 0.537 |
| FMR.1 | 0.489 | 0.307 | 0.421 | 0.870 | 0.419 | 0.371 | 0.510 | 0.387 |
| FMR.2 | 0.492 | 0.213 | 0.485 | 0.871 | 0.494 | 0.365 | 0.511 | 0.440 |
| PRC.1 | 0.576 | 0.203 | 0.568 | 0.418 | 0.850 | 0.457 | 0.515 | 0.486 |
| PRC.2 | 0.577 | 0.203 | 0.569 | 0.439 | 0.838 | 0.480 | 0.491 | 0.503 |
| PRC.3 | 0.277 | 0.473 | 0.218 | 0.285 | 0.792 | 0.235 | 0.182 | 0.191 |
| RLB.1 | 0.498 | 0.287 | 0.398 | 0.371 | 0.445 | 0.869 | 0.340 | 0.557 |
| RLB.2 | 0.494 | 0.224 | 0.446 | 0.381 | 0.540 | 0.908 | 0.402 | 0.615 |
| STS.1 | 0.438 | 0.093 | 0.441 | 0.489 | 0.456 | 0.295 | 0.798 | 0.364 |
| STS.2 | 0.444 | 0.082 | 0.481 | 0.445 | 0.489 | 0.354 | 0.832 | 0.444 |
| STS.3 | 0.459 | 0.151 | 0.421 | 0.493 | 0.446 | 0.361 | 0.797 | 0.410 |
| STS.4 | 0.439 | 0.147 | 0.448 | 0.467 | 0.500 | 0.345 | 0.802 | 0.450 |
| TML.1 | 0.525 | 0.202 | 0.523 | 0.413 | 0.502 | 0.591 | 0.427 | 0.860 |
| TML.2 | 0.528 | 0.176 | 0.499 | 0.418 | 0.509 | 0.568 | 0.475 | 0.889 |
| Hypothesis | β | T | Bootstrapping CI 97.5% | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||
| H.1, Completeness → Satisfaction | 0.096** | 2.863 | 0.168 | 0.040 | Accept |
| H.2, Accuracy → Satisfaction | 0.070 | 1.247 | 0.037 | 0.182 | Reject |
| H.3, Precision → Satisfaction | 0.245*** | 3.681 | 0.117 | 0.378 | Accept |
| H.4, Reliability → Satisfaction | 0.016 | 0.400 | 0.118 | 0.086 | Reject |
| H.5, Timeliness → Satisfaction | 0.138** | 2.396 | 0.025 | 0.249 | Accept |
| H.6, Convenience → Satisfaction | 0.126** | 2.192 | 0.014 | 0.239 | Accept |
| H.7, Format → Satisfaction | 0.323*** | 5.115 | 0.202 | 0.444 | Accept |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).