The measurement of end‐user computing satisfaction of online banking services: empirical evidence from Finland

Abstract

Purpose

Although research into the adoption and use of online banking services has grown in many parts of the world, the centre of attention has been largely on determinants of online banking adoption, not on users' satisfaction with use. This paper aims to test and validate the End‐User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) model in order to investigate online banking users' satisfaction with the service.

Design/methodology/approach

A survey (n=268) was carried out using convenience sampling. An exploratory factor analysis followed by a confirmatory factor analysis run in LISREL 8.7 is used to test the validity of the model in an online banking context.

Findings

The survey results support three constructs (content, ease of use, accuracy) from the original model, indicating that the modified EUCS model labelled EUCS2 can be utilized in analyzing user satisfaction with online banking among private customers.

Research limitations/implications

The obtained model suffered from two cross‐loadings between individual items. Another limitation concerns the sample obtained. Therefore, future studies should test the model with larger samples to verify the model in this context.

Practical implications

Findings of the study indicate that banks could improve end‐user computing satisfaction with online banking by concentrating on the three constructs obtained from the analyses. Moreover, the results indicate that banks can increase satisfaction of online banking services by personalising the service, allowing easier and more convenient use experience.

Originality/value

The paper makes a significant contribution by testing and modifying the EUCS model in the online banking context.

Citation

Pikkarainen, K., Pikkarainen, T., Karjaluoto, H. and Pahnila, S. (2006), "The measurement of end‐user computing satisfaction of online banking services: empirical evidence from Finland", International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 158-172. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320610659012