Data in Brief 44 (2022) 108521

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Data in Brief

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dib

Data Article

The determinants of willingness to

continuously use financial technology among
university students: Dataset from a private
university in Indonesia
Sumardi, Ummu Salma Al Azizah∗, Herri Mulyono,
Anisa Maulita Suryana
Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA, Indonesia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The dataset examines the two perceived benefit and risk fac-
Received 25 April 2022 tors that continuously influence university students’ willing-
Revised 15 June 2022 ness to use financial technology (Fintech). A non-probability
Accepted 1 August 2022 sampling technique was employed to target the study par-
Available online 7 August 2022
ticipants. A total of 436 students from a private university
in Jakarta, Indonesia, completed a self-administered online
Keywords:
questionnaire. The collected quantitative data were screened
Willingness
Fintech
and analyzed using Partial Least Square Structural Equa-
Technology tion Modeling (PLS-SEM). The quantitative analysis result re-
University students vealed that students’ willingness to utilize Fintech continu-
Indonesia ously is associated with their perceived benefits from such
Fintech use. Particularly, students perceived that the benefits
of seamless transactions offered by the technology had been
the most critical factors that promoted their strong willing-
ness. The data provides new insight related to the university
students’ use of Fintech for their economic and financial ac-
tivities. The dataset is also significant for financial technol-
ogy companies to target and attract more users, particularly
from those university students. More importantly, the dataset
will be useful for university program development to prepare
their students with financial literacy.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ummusalma@uhamka.ac.id (U.S.A. Azizah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2022.108521
2352-3409/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
2 Sumardi, U.S.A. Azizah and H. Mulyono et al. / Data in Brief 44 (2022) 108521

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.

This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Specifications Table

Subject Business, Management

Specification subject High Business and Financial Technology
Types of data Primary data, tables, figures, and excel data
How the data were acquired The quantitative data were collected using a survey method by distributing a
Google form link to the study participants
Data format Raw
Analyzed
Parameters for data collection The collected data were analyzed to explain the two contributing factors (i.e.
perceived benefit and perceived risk) of Indonesian university students’
continued willingness to use financial technology. Using a non-probability
sampling technique, a total of 436 students of a private university in Indonesia
participated in the study.
Description of data collection The current study adapted a five-point Likert scale survey questionnaire to
collect the required data. The questionnaire included 32 items classified into
three primary constructs: perceived benefits, perceived risks, and continuance
intention. The data were presented in the article included the raw and the
analyzed data. Seven tables were developed to describe the analyzed the data
covering the respondents’ profiles, descriptive statistics, the reliability and
validity of the instrument, and correlation and hypothesis testing.
Data source location Province: Jakarta
Country: Indonesia
Data accessibility Repository name: Mendeley Data
Digital identification number: 10.17632/6ncwmyx6y4.3
Direct link to the data:
https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/6ncwmyx6y4/3

Value of the Data

• The data describe the factors contributing to Indonesian private university students’ contin-
ued willingness to use financial technology (Fintech).
• The dataset makes it possible for financial technology companies to attract more users
around the globe, especially university students in Jakarta, Indonesia.
• This dataset will be useful for university program development and financial technology
managers to improve their technology.
• The data present that millennials are more aware of using Fintech for their economic and
financial activities.
• The data can be used to test the willingness of university students’ perceptions of Fintech
usage in a wider context.

1. Data Description

The present article describes the quantitative data used to examine the determinants of In-
donesian university students’ willingness to use financial technology (Fintech) continuously. Data
for the current study were collected using a survey method. The five-point Likert scale survey
instrument was developed by adapting three primary constructs of Ryu [1], including perceived
benefit (N = 12), perceived risk (N = 16) and continuance intention to reflect students’ willing-
ness to continuously use Fintech (N = 4). The perceived benefits also included three main sub-
 Sumardi, U.S.A. Azizah and H. Mulyono et al. / Data in Brief 44 (2022) 108521 3

constructs such as perceived economic benefit (EB), seamless transaction (ST) and convenience
(CV). The other perceived risk construct had three subconstructs (i.e. financial risk (FR), legal risk
(LR), security risk (SR) and operational risk (OR)); and Continuance intention (CI). The response
for ‘strongly agree’ was scored by 5, ‘agree’ = 4, ‘neutral’ = 3, ‘disagree’ = 2, and ‘strongly dis-
agree’ = 1. The original questionnaire was shown to have an acceptable range of internal con-
sistency (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7). However, the assessment of the survey instrument’ internal
consistency in the current study was performed on each subconstruct and revealed that most of
the constructs possessed a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.8), except for
the perceived risk and security risk that had a moderate level (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.6). Seven
tables were developed to describe the analyzed the data covering the respondents’ profiles, de-
scriptive statistics, the reliability and validity of the instrument, and correlation and hypothesis
testing.
Tables 1 and 2 below describes the respondent profiles (N = 400) and the descriptive statis-
tics.

Table 1
Profile and characteristics of respondents (n = 400).

Attributes Characteristic N Percentage (%)

Gender Male 104 26%

Female 296 74%
Department Accounting 133 33%
Management 194 49%
Islamic economics 45 11%
D3 accounting 14 4%
D3 tax 14 4%

The total of 400 data were obtained after the screening process of the original 432 Indone-
sian private university students data. As shown in Table 1 above, majority of the participants
were 296 (74%) and 104 (26%) respectively, and many of them came from the management de-
partment (N = 194, 49%), followed by accounting department (N = 133, 33%), Islamic economics
department (N = 45, 11%), and accounting and taxation vocation (N = 14, 4%).The 400 data were
then analyzed statistically and the result was shown in Tables 2–7 below.

Table 2
Mean, standard deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis.

Construct Item Mean Median Standard Deviation Excess Kurtosis Skewness

Perceived benefit 1 3.905 4 0.715 −1.038 0.141

2 3.9 4 0.696 −0.834 0.094
3 3.828 4 0.691 −0.909 0.243
Economic benefit 1 3.873 4 0.725 −0.759 0.042
2 3.54 3 0.767 −0.075 0.265
3 3.78 4 0.712 −0.79 0.223
Seamless transaction 1 3.708 4 0.743 −0.496 0.237
2 3.68 4 0.705 −0.688 0.373
3 3.683 4 0.687 −0.666 0.368
Convenience 1 3.842 4 0.726 −1.007 0.211
2 3.935 4 0.746 −0.939 −0.003
3 3.92 4 0.72 −0.972 0.081
Perceived Risk 1 3.502 3 0.791 −0.434 0.312
2 3.3 3 0.7 0.642 0.386
3 3.783 4 0.704 −0.816 0.247
Financial risk 1 3.41 3 0.76 −0.1 0.565
2 3.533 3 0.833 −0.474 0.248
3 3.417 3 0.695 0.122 0.746
Legal risk 1 3.053 3 0.827 0.311 0.274
(continued on next page)
4 Sumardi, U.S.A. Azizah and H. Mulyono et al. / Data in Brief 44 (2022) 108521

Table 2 (continued)

Construct Item Mean Median Standard Deviation Excess Kurtosis Skewness

2 3.197 3 0.774 0.436 0.391

3 3.34 3 0.79 0.267 0.384
4 3.212 3 0.783 0.494 0.141
Security risk 1 3.68 4 0.87 −0.799 0.008
2 3.2 3 0.8 0.316 0.329
3 3.658 4 0.849 −0.446 −0.02
Operational risk 1 3.245 3 0.794 0.773 0.045
2 3.362 3 0.759 0.355 0.283
3 3.535 3 0.774 −0.25 0.175

Continuance intention 1 3.68 4 0.719 −0.539 0.201

2 3.598 3 0.725 −0.587 0.546
3 3.558 3 0.722 −0.418 0.457
4 3.775 4 0.748 −0.916 0.249

The measurement and PLS-SEM model is presented in the following figure:

Fig. 1. Measurement and structural model analysis.

 Sumardi, U.S.A. Azizah and H. Mulyono et al. / Data in Brief 44 (2022) 108521 5

Tables 3 and 4 describe the reliability and validity of the instrument.

Table 3
Reliability and validity.

Cronbach’s alpha (CA) Rho A Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

Continuance intention 0.867 0.87 0.919 0.79

Convenience 0.902 0.903 0.939 0.837
Economic Benefit 0.784 0.816 0.872 0.696
Financial Risk 0.847 0.849 0.908 0.766
Legal Risk 0.88 0.89 0.917 0.735
Operational Risk 0.817 0.819 0.892 0.734
Perceived Benefit 0.829 0.835 0.898 0.747
Perceived Risk 0.638 0.635 0.805 0.579
Security Risk 0.759 0.76 0.861 0.675
Seamless Transaction 0.817 0.833 0.891 0.732

Table 4
Discriminant Validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion).

CI CV EB FR LR OR PB PR SR ST

CI 0.889
CV 0.649 0.915
EB 0.641 0.736 0.834
FR 0.407 0.478 0.446 0.875
LR 0.203 0.147 0.192 0.543 0.858
OR 0.444 0.357 0.36 0.65 0.566 0.857
PB 0.628 0.703 0.72 0.395 0.14 0.299 0.865
PR 0.462 0.466 0.576 0.596 0.445 0.467 0.483 0.761
SR 0.274 0.323 0.292 0.623 0.603 0.653 0.26 0.457 0.821
ST 0.625 0.698 0.768 0.505 0.256 0.399 0.665 0.573 0.303 0.856
∗
Root square of AVE.

Table 5 below presents the correlation test and Table 6 shows the hypothesis testing analysis.

Table 5
Correlation test.

Original Sample (O) Sample Mean (M) Standard Deviation (STDEV) T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)

CV -> PB 0.328 0.326 0.048 6.86

EB -> PB 0.35 0.353 0.063 5.579
FR -> PR 0.447 0.445 0.059 7.511
LR -> PR 0.131 0.135 0.062 2.114
OR -> PR 0.065 0.068 0.058 1.114
PB -> CI 0.529 0.529 0.044 11.961
PR -> CI 0.207 0.206 0.05 4.131
SR -> PR 0.057 0.052 0.065 0.886
ST -> PB 0.167 0.168 0.058 2.856

Note. “ρ < 0.05.

6 Sumardi, U.S.A. Azizah and H. Mulyono et al. / Data in Brief 44 (2022) 108521

Table 6
Hypothesis testing.

Standard
Hypothesis Original Sample Deviation T Statistics
(H) Path Sample (O) Mean (M) (STDEV) (|O/STDEV|) P-Value Result

H1 CV -> PB 0.328 0.326 0.048 6.86 0 Supported

H2 EB -> PB 0.35 0.353 0.063 5.579 0 Supported
H3 FR -> PR 0.447 0.445 0.059 7.511 0 Supported
H4 LR -> PR 0.131 0.135 0.062 2.114 0.035 Supported
H5 OR -> PR 0.065 0.068 0.058 1.114 0.266 Not Supported
H6 PB -> CI 0.529 0.529 0.044 11.961 0 Supported
H7 PR -> CI 0.207 0.206 0.05 4.131 0 Supported
H8 SR -> PR 0.057 0.052 0.065 0.886 0.376 Not Supported
H9 ST -> PB 0.167 0.168 0.058 2.856 0.004 Supported

Significant at ρ < 0.05 (5%).

The result of coefficient analysis is explained in the Table 7 below:

Table 7
The coefficient analysis.

R Square R Square Adjusted

CI 0.428 0.425
PB 0.594 0.591
PR 0.381 0.375

2. Experimental Design, Materials and Methods

The current data article was part of a study examining the role of benefit and risk factors that
continuously influence Indonesian university students’ willingness to use financial technology
(Fintech). To collect the data for the study, the study questionnaire was distributed online to the
target population through a Google form. Using a non-probability sampling technique, a total of
436 data were gathered from a private university in Jakarta, Indonesia; after a screening process,
400 of 436 were analyzed quantitatively. Participants consents were obtained during the data
collection process.
The collected data were analyzed using Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling
(PLS-SEM to gain the best measurement [2,3] and the model is presented in Fig. 1. The collected
data were tabulated using an excel application and filtered for missing values and outliers be-
fore the analysis. Literature [3,4] has suggested that the number of outliers (residual value higher
than 1.96) will be deleted from the data. The removal of outlier data was expected to improve
the PLS-SEM results [5]. In addition, the normality of the data was examined by observing the
Skewness and Kurtosis. As shown in Table 1, all data corresponded to the acceptable range of
Skewness and Kurtosis values. Skewness and Kurtosis values were observed to be normal, show-
ing that Skewness values of the data ranged between 1 and 1, and the Kurtosis values were
between 2 and 2. These values indicated that the data were normally distributed.
The reflective measurement for Partial Least Square Structure Equation Model (PLS-SEM) was
performed using Smart PLS software. Table 3 below shows the result for the Composite Reliabil-
ity (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha (CA) of all sub-constructs, and Table 4 describes the discriminant
validity. A correlation analysis was performed on the data, and the results are shown in Table 4.
The results of the correlation suggests that perception was statistically associated with aware-
ness (r = 0.840, ρ < 0.05) and financial literacy (r = 0.885, ρ < 0.05). To test the hypotheses
presented in this study, the bootstrap technique was employed to calculate the statistical value
 Sumardi, U.S.A. Azizah and H. Mulyono et al. / Data in Brief 44 (2022) 108521 7

of t by making a certain number of samples (resampling). The acceptable t values for the two-
tailed test were 1.65 (10% significance level), 1.96 (55% significance level), and 2.58 (11% signifi-
cance level) [2]. The hypothesis testing analysis is shown in Table 6.
Table 6 shows that H1, H2, H3, H4, H6, H7, H9 have a T-Statistic higher than 1.96 with
p < 0.05. However, H5 and h8 had T-statistics less than 1.96 and p > 0.05. Thus, the proposed
hypothesis (H1, H2, H3, H4, H6, H7, H9) is supported in this study because it meets the criteria,
while the proposed hypothesis (H5 and H8) is not supported. The findings show that the vari-
ables CV, EB, and ST significantly affected the PB variable. Furthermore, the FR and LR variables
significantly affect the PR variable, while the OR and SR variables have no significant effect on
the PR variable. However, it can be seen in Table 5 that the exogenous PB and PR variables have
a significant effect on the endogenous CI variable. In addition, the coefficient (β ) or path coef-
ficient is also tested for its performance along with the t value. The coefficient (β ) shows how
strong the influence of a construct is on the other constructs in the structural model. The high-
est value indicates the most significant influence of the construct as a predictor. Table 5 shows
that the highest value is 0.529 for PB, so PB as an exogenous variable has the most significant
effect on CI as an endogenous variable.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the local ethics commission for social
science research, Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA No. 140/F.03.01/2022. Informed
consents of all participants had been obtained during the data collection process.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal rela-
tionships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this chapter.

CRediT Author Statement

Sumardi: Conceptualization, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – orig-

inal draft; Ummu Salma Al Azizah: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation,
Writing – original draft; Herri Mulyono: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Valida-
tion, Supervision, Writing – review & editing; Anisa Maulita Suryana: Investigation, Data cura-
tion, Project administration, Writing – original draft.

Acknowledgment

This study was funded by a research grant from the research and development institute of
Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA.

References
[1] H.S. Ryu, What makes users willing or hesitant to use Fintech?: the moderating effect of user type, Ind. Manag. Data
Syst. 118 (3) (2018) 541–569, doi:10.1108/IMDS- 07- 2017- 0325.
[2] J.F. Hair, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better
results and higher acceptance, Long Range Plan. 46 (1–2) (2013) 1–12, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001.
[3] U.S. Al Azizah, H. Mulyono, Dataset on determinants of intention and investment behaviour amongst young Indone-
sian millennials, Data Brief 32 (2020) 106083, doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.106083.
[4] J. Peng, S. Peng, Y. Hu, Partial least squares and random sample consensus in outlier detection, Anal. Chim. Acta 719
(2012) 24–29, doi:10.1016/j.aca.2011.12.058.
[5] A. Leguina, A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM, Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 38 (2)
(2015) 220–221, doi:10.1080/1743727x.2015.1005806.