Exploratory Factor Analysis on Determinants of the Waqf Blockchain Ecosystem among Millennial Public University Alumni in Malaysia

Purpose: This study aims to develop a measurement instrument for the Waqf Blockchain Ecosystem (Waqfchain) and to establish the underlying factor structure of that instrument using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology among millennial public university alumni in Malaysia. Based on past research, UTAUT hypothesises four variable constructs: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions. These characteristics are predictive of behavioural intent. This study adds smart contract as a fifth exogenous construct and retains voluntariness of use as the sole moderator in place of the four moderators originally proposed.
Design/methodology/approach: A total of 150 pilot questionnaires were distributed to millennial alumni of Malaysian public universities, returning 106 responses, of which 87 were usable after univariate and multivariate outlier screening. Following normality and multicollinearity checks, exploratory factor analysis using principal component extraction, with varimax rotation where more than one component emerged, was applied separately to each of the seven constructs measured on a ten-point interval scale. The choice of principal component extraction for item screening is justified explicitly, and Cronbach's alpha and attenuation-corrected inter-construct correlations were then examined.
Findings: Six constructs, namely performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, smart contract and behavioural intention, resolved into a single component, while voluntariness of use resolved into two. Effort expectancy, social influence and behavioural intention required no item reduction, whereas performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, smart contract and voluntariness of use did. KMO values for all constructs exceeded 0.50, ranging from 0.776 to 0.875, and every Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant at p < .001. Total variance explained ranged from 51.922% to 67.631% and Cronbach's alpha from 0.812 to 0.908. Within-construct dimensionality and internal consistency were therefore satisfactory. Discriminant validity, however, was not established at the pilot stage: correlations between effort expectancy and social influence (r = .894) and between voluntariness of use and behavioural intention (r = .872) approach unity once corrected for attenuation.
Research limitations/implications: The pilot sample of 87 respondents is modest and concentrated in Malaysia's urban central region, and responses reflect anticipated rather than observed use of a platform that has not yet been deployed. The factor structure and, in particular, discriminant validity must be confirmed through confirmatory factor analysis on an independent field sample before the instrument is used for structural hypothesis testing.
Originality/value: This study addresses a gap in the blockchain-based waqf literature by developing and screening a measurement instrument that treats smart contract as a distinct exogenous construct and voluntariness of use as a moderator, and by identifying the specific measurement issues that the confirmatory stage must resolve.

Waqf blockchain, Smart contract, Exploratory factor analysis

1. Abdullah, A., Hassan, R., & Rahman, A. (2022). Blockchain for Islamic social finance: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Islamic Financial Studies, 8(1), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Al-Daihani, M., Dirie, K. A., Alam, M. M., & Abdullah, A. S. (2023). Business process model for crowdfunding cash waqf model. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIABR-02-2023-0046 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Alkhowaiter, W. A. (2020). Digital payment and banking adoption research in Gulf countries: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Information Management, 53, 102102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Aloui, D., Hammami, S., & Sarwar, S. (2021). Blockchain technology in Islamic finance: A comprehensive review. Research in International Business and Finance, 58, 101478. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Awang, Z. (2015). SEM made simple: A gentle approach to learning structural equation modeling. MPWS Rich Publication. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Baabdullah, A. M., Alalwan, A. A., Rana, N. P., Kizgin, H., & Patil, P. (2019). An integrated model for m-banking adoption in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37(2), 452–478. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-07-2018-0183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Balbinotti, M. A. A., Benetti, C., & Terra, P. R. S. (2007). Translation and validation of the Graham-Harvey survey for the Brazilian context. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 3(1), 26–48. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bartlett, M. S. (1951). The effect of standardization on a chi-square approximation in factor analysis. Biometrika, 38(3/4), 337–344. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61–77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Memon, M. A., Ting, H., Cheah, J.-H., Thurasamy, R., Chuah, F., & Cham, T. H. (2020). Sample size for survey research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 4(2), i–xx. https://doi.org/10.47263/jasem.4(2)01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Mohaiyadin, N. M., Aman, A., Palil, M. R., & Said, S. M. (2022). Addressing accountability and transparency challenges in waqf management using blockchain technology. Journal of Islamic Monetary Economics and Finance, 8, 53–80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Mohsin, M. I. A. (2013). Financing through cash-waqf: A revitalization to finance different needs. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 6(4), 304–321. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Mohsin, M. I. A., & Muneeza, A. (2018). Waqfcoin: An innovation to serve humanity. International Centre for Education in Islamic Finance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Muda, H., Loganathan, N., & Awang, Z. (2018). Sample size determination and multi-group analysis in structural equation modeling. MPWS Rich Publication. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Muller, W. (2025). Determinants of smart contract adoption in supply chains: A UTAUT-based PLS-SEM analysis. Operations Management Research, 18(4), 1113–1124. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (4th ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (7th ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Shrestha, A. K., Vassileva, J., & Deters, R. (2021). Augmenting the technology acceptance model with trust model for the initial adoption of a blockchain-based system. PeerJ Computer Science, 7, e502. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Soomro, Y. A. (2019). Understanding the adoption of SADAD e-payments: UTAUT combined with religiosity as moderator. International Journal of e-Business Research, 15(1), 55–74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEBR.2019010104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Taherdoost, H. (2022). Critical review of blockchain acceptance models: Blockchain technology adoption frameworks and applications. Computers, 11(2), 24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Taherdoost, H., Sahibuddin, S., & Jalaliyoon, N. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis: Concepts and theory. Mathematics and Computers in Science and Engineering Series, 27, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Usman, M., & Ab Rahman, A. (2023). Funding higher education through waqf: A lesson from Malaysia. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 39(1), 107–125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 1–28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care, 8(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Willis, G. B. (2016). Questionnaire pretesting. In The SAGE handbook of survey methodology (pp. 359–381). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Zulaikha, S., & Rusmita, S. A. (2018). Blockchain for waqf management. The 2018 International Conference of Organizational Innovation, 1152–1158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact of Ownership Structure on Dividend Payout Policy of Listed Plantation Companies in Sri Lanka
• Urban Sustainability in North-East India: A Study through the lens of NER-SDG index
• Performance Assessment of Predictive Forecasting Techniques for Enhancing Hospital Supply Chain Efficiency in Healthcare Logistics
• The Fractured Self in Julian Barnes' Postmodern Fiction: Identity Crisis and Deflation in Metroland and the Sense of an Ending
• Impact of Flood on the Employment, Labour Productivity and Migration of Agricultural Labour in North Bihar