Operationalization of variables is a crucial step for the researcher to consider before developing data collection tool (Brace 2018; Hellerstein 2008). The operationalization process describes precisely what researchers intend to research and refer to the variables in the study. Thus, this chapter explains the meaning and measurements of the variables. The common approach of operationalization of constructs is to have two or more indicators of each construct (Ilieva, Baron
& Healey 2002) and all constructs must be operationalized in terms of scale item and type (Hinkin 1995).
In this study, the survey consists of four parts: the first part is about key participant’s attributes (age, education, income, etc.) and the second part focuses on data on positive and negative factors related to Fintech (economic benefit, convenience, perceived service quality, seamless transaction processing, perceived operational risk, perceived security risk, perceived privacy risk, and perceived legal risk). The third part aims to verify confirmation and customer satisfaction. The fourth part contains constructs on repurchase behavioural intentions and customer loyalty. The researcher developed the questionnaire using prior literature due to the suitability of UAE financial institutions context, as well as to achieve the best response results to meet the research aim, objectives and hypotheses.
4.10.1 ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Economic benefits are related items that deal with the cost of transactions, applied interest rates and pricing of services that are established by firms (Featherman & Pavlou 2003; Mohammed et al. 2019; Levesque et al. 1996; Lee & Cunningham 2001). Therefore, items 1, 2 and 3 are specific extrinsic motivational characteristics for the consumer to use Fintech in the banking sector. In addition, item 4 was included to obtain the extent to which Fintech utilization worth customer extra
effort in dealing from a cost-pricing point view (Lee & Cunningham 2001). These three items allowed measuring the extent to which Fintech is utilized by the consumer for the perceived economic /save money factor (Ryu 2018). Therefore, based on the measurement of prior studies (Featherman & Pavlou 2003; Lee 2009) asking respondents ― “whether customers perceive economic benefit by using Fintech products and services, and it is worth the extra effort it takes”.
Table 4.2 shows the details of items of Economic benefit.
Table 4.1: Items for Measuring Economic Benefit
Variables Items Scale Sources
Economic Benefit
1. Using Fintech is cheaper than using traditional financial services.
2. I can save money when I use Fintech.
3. I can use various financial services at a low cost when I use Fintech.
4. To get an economic service, Fintech is worth the extra effort it takes.
7-point Likert Scale:
1-Strongly disagree 7-Strongly agree
Featherman and Pavlour (2003); Lee (2009); Roy and Sinha (2014)
4.10.2 CONVENIENCE BENEFIT
Convenience benefit is referred to the level of convenience in financial services when using Fintech towards, time, place, executions that users feel and lower the cognitive emotional and physical burdens for a user (Kim & Bernhard 2014; Seiders et al. 2007; Okazaki & Mendez 2013).
Consistent with the measurement used by Kim and Bernhard (2014), Seiders et al. (2007), Okazaki
& Mendez (2013), respondents are asked to indicate to what extent the Fintech perceived convenience in using financial services. Therefore, items from 1 to 6 measure the effects of convenience factor on user experience in using Fintech. The details are shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.2: Items for Measuring Convenience Benefit
Variables Items Scale Sources
Convenience Benefit
1. I can use financial services very quickly when I use Fintech.
2. I can use financial services anytime and anywhere when I use Fintech 3. I can use financial services easily
when I use Fintech.
4. I believe Fintech eliminates the time- consuming application processes.
5. I believe Fintech provides convenience in financial service because it eliminates the need to have an intermediary or bank physical presence.
7-point Likert Scale:
1-Strongly disagree 7-Strongly agree
Okazaki and Mendez (2013); Kim and Bernhard (2014);
Seiders et al. (2007
4.10.3 SEAMLESS TRANSACTION PROCESSING
In this study, seamless transaction processing is referred to the transaction-related benefit of using Fintech for money payments, money transferring, lending and investing (Ryu 2018; Abramova &
Böhme 2016). The seamless transaction processing provided in Fintech transactions is a fundamental characteristic that makes traditional institutions like banks change the methods of transactions, especially in the financing process. It allows users to manage transactions on a cost- effective platform which results in simple and fast financial transactions (Chishti 2016; Zavolokina et al. 2016). Hence, for measuring seamless transaction processing, the present study applies the measurement developed by Chishti (2016) asking the respondents to ―determine whether Fintech has helped to faster transaction process digitally in financial services. The details of the measurement of seamless transaction processing are demonstrated in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Items for Measuring Seamless Transaction Processing
Variables Items Scale Sources
Seamless Transaction Processing
1. I can control my money without the middleman when I use Fintech.
2. I can use various financial services at the same time (e.g. one-stop processing) when I use Fintech.
3. I can have peer-to-peer transactions between providers and users without a middle man when I use Fintech.
7-point Likert Scale:
1-Strongly disagree 7-Strongly agree
Chishti (2016)
4.10.4 PERCEIVED SERVICE QUALITY
Service quality referred to meeting and exceeding customer expectations, being an accessible and reliable source of transactions in financial platforms. In this study, service quality is viewed as the consumer’s overall perceived evaluation and judgment on the quality of the services that are delivered through the internet provided in financial services in terms of meeting and exceeding users’ expectations, accessibility and reliability of an application (Keisidou et al. 2013;
Parasurman et al. 1988; Amin 2016; Ladhari, Ladhari & Morales 2011). Consistent with the measurement used by Parasuraman et al. (1994), Roca et al. (2006) and Oghuma (2016), respondents are asked to evaluate provided service quality in Fintech by reflecting on application user-friendliness, the efficacy of website or application using measurers from 1 to 6. The details of the measurement of perceived service quality are in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Items for Measuring Perceived Service Quality
Variables Items Scale Sources
Perceived Service Quality
1. I feel comfortable in using Fintech functions and services provided by the bank.
2. The bank provides services with a sincere attitude when I face service and system problems related to Fintech.
3. Fintech information provided by the bank is accurate and reliable
4. The bank gives me prompt services when I use Fintech
5. The bank gives me the right solution to my request during service and system failures related to Fintech
6. The overall quality of Fintech services provided by my bank is excellent
7-point Likert Scale:
1-Strongly disagree 7-Strongly agree
Parasuraman et al.
(1994), Roca et al.
(2006), and Oghuma (2016)
4.10.5 PERCEIVED OPERATIONAL RISK
Perceived operational risk refers to the potential loss due to security flaws or incidents of stolen passwords (Vasek et al. 2016; Grant & Hogan 2015), system’s vulnerabilities and the irreversibility of Fintech transactions (Abramova & Böhme 2016; Eyal & Sirer 2014; Karame, Androulaki & Capkun 2012), and failed internal operational implementation systems and processes (Barakat & Hussainey 2013). Drawing from Barakat and Hussainey (2013), Grant and Hogan (2015) and Eyal and Sirer (2014), measures of operational risk are gathered. Respondents are asked to evaluate operational risk based on their experience of doing financial services in Fintech. The details of the measurement of operational risk are in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Items for measuring operational risk
Variables Items Scale Sources
Operational Risk
1. When using Fintech provided by the bank I do not worry about losses due to application modification or weaknesses.
2. When using Fintech provided by the bank I don’t worry about Fintech application lacks mechanisms to reverse wrong transactions
3. The bank is willing to solve issues when financial losses or financial information leakages occur of any transactions done via Fintech.
4. The bank responds to any financial losses or financial information leakages that occur for Fintech transactions.
7-point Likert Scale:
1-Strongly disagree 7- Strongly agree
Barakat &
Hussainey (2013);
Grant & Hogan (2015); Eyal & Sirer (2014)
4.10.6 SECURITY RISK
Security risk is viewed as the possible invasion of customer privacy and personal information which affects the effectiveness of transactions, thereby this is a critical concern to customers when using online for financial service (Cheung & Lee 2006; Casaló et al. 2008; Susanto et al. 2013).
Definition of security risk in online transactions is the possible loss due to cyber-attack and fraud that compromise the security of the financial transactions; thereby, the cause harm to the user’s transactions. Hence, this study looks at the effect of security risk on customers' experience when they use Fintech. The details of measurements are shown in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Items for Measuring Security Risk
Variables Items Scale Sources
Security risk
1. The bank implements security measures to protect all of its Fintech users.
2. The bank has the ability to verify Fintech users’ identities for security purposes.
3. The bank shows great concern for the security of any transactions done via Fintech.
4. I feel secure using Fintech services provided by the bank.
7-point Likert Scale:
1-Strongly disagree 7-Strongly agree
Cheung & Lee (2006); Casaló et al.
(2008); Susanto et al.
(2013)
4.10.7 FINANCIAL RISK
Financial risk is derived from the potential loss of money in the financial transactions of Fintech.
Forsythe et al. (2006) included consumers' sense of insecurity regarding the usage of online payment, which has been evidenced as a major obstacle to mobile payment (Osturk et al. 2017).
Therefore, similar to Featherman and Pavalou (2003) and lee (2009), respondents are asked to indicate the degree to which the financial institute perceives financial risk when users use Fintech.
The details of measurements are shown in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Items for Measuring Financial Risk
Variables Items Scale Sources
Financial Risk
1. The bank has the ability to identify financial and payment frauds on Fintech Transactions.
7-point Likert Scale:
1-Strongly disagree
Featherman & Pavlou (2003); Lee (2009)