Transcultural Adaptation, Validation, Psychometric Analysis, and Interpretation of the 22-Item Thai Senior Technology Acceptance Model for Mobile Health Apps: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The rapid advancement of technology has made mobile health (mHealth) a promising tool to mitigate health problems, particularly among older adults. Despite the numerous benefits of mHealth, assessing individual acceptance is required to address the specific needs of older people and promote their intention to use mHealth. Objective This study aims to adapt and validate the senior technology acceptance model (STAM) questionnaire for assessing mHealth acceptance in the Thai context. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we adapted the original, 38-item, English version of the STAM using a 10-point Likert scale for mHealth acceptability among the Thai population. We translated the mHealth STAM into Thai using forward and backward translation. A total of 15 older adults and experts completed the pilot questionnaire and were interviewed to assess its validity. The pilot items of the Thai mHealth STAM were then reworded and revised for better comprehension and cross-cultural compatibility. The construct validity of the Thai mHealth STAM was evaluated by a multidimensional approach, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and nonparametric item response theory analysis. Discriminative indices consisting of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) were used to determine appropriate banding and discriminant validity for the intention to use mHealth. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach α and McDonald ω coefficients. Results Out of the 1100 participants with a mean age of 62.3 (SD 8.8) years, 360 (32.7%) were adults aged 45-59 years, and 740 (67.3%) were older adults aged 60 years and older. Of the 40-item pilot questionnaire, exploratory factor analysis identified 22 items with factor loadings >0.4 across 7 principal components, explaining 91.45% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that 9-dimensional sets of 22 items had satisfactory fit indices (comparative fit index=0.976, Tucker-Lewis index=0.968, root mean square error of approximation=0.043, standardized root mean squared residual=0.044, and R2 for each item>0.30). The score banding D (low≤151, moderate 152-180, and high≥181) was preferred as the optimal 22-item Thai mHealth STAM cutoff score based on the highest sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 86.1%-91.5%) and AUROC of 72.4% (95% CI 70%-74.8%) for predicting the intention to use mHealth. The final Thai mHealth STAM, consisting of 22 items, exhibited remarkable internal consistency, as evidenced by a Cronbach α of 0.88 (95% CI 0.87-0.89) and a McDonald ω of 0.85 (95% CI 0.83-0.87). For all 22 items, the corrected item-total correlations ranged between 0.26 and 0.71. Conclusions The 22-item Thai mHealth STAM demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties in both validity and reliability. The questionnaire has the potential to serve as a practical questionnaire in assessing the acceptance and intention to use mHealth among pre-older and older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".