I think your structure is clear and logically aligned with the Technology Acceptance Model, especially the distinction between perceived usefulness and ease of use. That ...
I think your structure is clear and logically aligned with the Technology Acceptance Model, especially the distinction between perceived usefulness and ease of use. That makes your interpretation quite strong theoretically.
One suggestion is that you might want to look more closely at whether any items could be “cross-loading” between the two factors. For example, something like idea generation or organization could sometimes be influenced by how easy the tool is to use, not just its usefulness. Clarifying this could strengthen your factor interpretation.
Also, you could improve your explanation by briefly mentioning how strongly the items load onto each factor (e.g., factor loadings), since that would provide more evidence to support your grouping.
Overall, your structure works well, but adding a bit more detail about item behavior and potential overlap could make your analysis more convincing.
One suggestion is that you might want to look more closely at whether any items could be “cross-loading” between the two factors. For example, something like idea generation or organization could sometimes be influenced by how easy the tool is to use, not just its usefulness. Clarifying this could strengthen your factor interpretation.
Also, you could improve your explanation by briefly mentioning how strongly the items load onto each factor (e.g., factor loadings), since that would provide more evidence to support your grouping.
Overall, your structure works well, but adding a bit more detail about item behavior and potential overlap could make your analysis more convincing.