Exploring biometric identification in FinTech applications based on the modified TAM

Financial Innovation

Table 1 AHP analysis results

Object and criteria	AHP weights	Final weights	Recognitions
Object and criteria	AHP weights	Final weights	Face	Fingerprint	Iris	Voice
Perceived ease of use	0.276		0.279	0.254	0.206	0.260
PE1	0.369	0.102	0.282	0.196	0.233	0.289
PE2	0.334	0.092	0.253	0.347	0.155	0.245
PE3	0.298	0.082	0.305	0.223	0.231	0.241
Perceived usefulness	0.257		0.261	0.253	0.188	0.298
PU1	0.395	0.102^a	0.264	0.268	0.137	0.331
PU2	0.285	0.073	0.262	0.244	0.223	0.271
PU3	0.320	0.082	0.256	0.244	0.218	0.282
Perceived trust	0.184		0.222	0.252	0.299	0.227
PT1	0.306	0.056	0.190	0.243	0.352	0.215
PT2	0.317	0.058	0.246	0.285	0.205	0.264
PT3	0.378	0.070	0.225	0.233	0.337	0.205
Perceived privacy	0.283		0.272	0.240	0.257	0.231
PP1	0.374	0.106	0.294	0.238	0.241	0.227
PP2	0.284	0.080	0.295	0.220	0.280	0.205
PP3	0.342	0.097	0.229	0.260	0.254	0.257
Final scores			0.262	0.250	0.233	0.255
Rank			1	3	4	2

Saaty (1980) considered that the CI measurement of the AHP analysis is consistent with the CR measurement below 0.1. Thus, the objects and criteria of this study are consistent with the consistency test and have validity
^aLarger at the fifth decimal digit