Advertisement

Structural Equation Modeling: Results and Analysis

  • Tanachart Raoprasert
  • Sardar M. N. Islam
Chapter
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to empirically examine and test the hypotheses of relationships between the motivational factors for adaptation and acceptance (vision, leadership, resources support, reward, structure, and relationship), and adaptation and acceptance as described in Chap. 3, using structural equation modeling (SEM). SEM provides the ability to measure causal relationships between unobserved (latent) variables while determining the amount of un-explained variance. SEM also has the ability to evaluate how well a proposed conceptual model containing observed indicators and hypothetical constructs explains or fits the collected data (Bollen 1989).

Keywords

Latent Variable Structural Equation Modeling Regression Weight Japanese Management Motivational Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson JG, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 107(1):238–246Google Scholar
  2. Arbuckle JL, Wothke W (1999) AMOS 4.0 user’s Guide. Small Waters Corp, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  3. Baharim SB (2007) ‘The influence of knowledge sharing on motivation to transfer training: a Malaysian public sector context.’ PhD thesis, Victoria UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandalos D (2002) The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modelling. Struct Equat Modell 9(1):78–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandalos D, Finney S (2001) Item parceling issues in structural equation modelling. In: Schumacker GAMRE (ed) New developments and techniques in structural equation modelling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahawah, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentler PM (1978) The interdependence of theory, methodology, and empirical data: causal modelling as an approach to construct validation. In: Kandel DB (ed) Longitudinal drug research. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107(1):238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentler PM (1992) On the fit of models to covariance and methodology to the bulletin. Psychol Bull 112:400–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blalock HM (1979) ‘The presidential address: measurement and conceptualization problems: the major obstacle to integrating theory and research’. Am Sociol Rev 44(6):881–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown D, Ferris DL, Heller D, Keeping L (2007) Antecedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward social comparisons at work. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 101(1):59–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen A, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. Browne MW, Mels G (1990) RAMONA user’s guide. Ohio State University, Ohio, Department of PsychologyGoogle Scholar
  14. Byrne BM (2001) Structural equation modelling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  15. Chau PYK (1997) Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success using a structural equation modelling approach. Decis Sci 28(2):309–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hair JE, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2003) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmes-Smith P, Rowe KJ (1994) The development and use of congeneric measurement models in school effectiveness research: improving reliability and validity of composite and latent variables for fitting multilevel and structural equation models, paper presented to International Conference for School Effectiveness and Improvement. Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  18. Holt JK (2004) Item parceling in structural equation models for optimum solutions’, paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association Columbus, OH, October 13–16Google Scholar
  19. Houghton JD, Bonham TW, Neck CP, Singh K (2004) The relationship between self-leadership and personality: a comparison of hierarchical factor structures. J Manag Psychol 19(4):427–441Google Scholar
  20. Hu L, Bentler PM (1995) Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Structural equation modelling: concepts, issues, and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  21. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fir indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Modell 6(1):1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hughes MA, Price RL, Marrs DW (1986) Linking theory construction and theory testing: models with multiple indicators of latent variables. Acad Manag Rev 11(1):128–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaccard J, Wan CK (1996) LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Joreskog KG (1969) A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometric 34(1):183–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Joreskog KG, Sorbom D (1993) LISREL 8: structural equation modelling with the SIMPLIS command language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  26. Joreskog KG, Sorbom D (1996) PRELIS 2 user’s reference guide. Scientific Solfware International, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Kacmar M, Anderews M, Van Rooy D, Steiberg C, Cerrone S (2006) Sure everyone can be replaced...but at what cost? turnover as a predictor of unit-level performance. Acad Manag 49(1):133–144Google Scholar
  28. Kaplan D (2000) Structural equation modelling. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. Kline RB (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Avey JB, Norman SM (2007) Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers Psychol 60(3):541–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacKinnon (2000) Contrasts in multiple mediator models. In: Rose JS, Chassin L, Presson CC, Sherman S (eds) Multivariate applications in substance use research. New methods for new questions. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsh HW, Balla JR, McDonald RP (1988) Goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Bull 103(1):391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mulaik SA, James LR, Van-Alstine J, Bennett N, Lind S, Stilwell CD (1989) Evaluation of goodness of fit indices for structural equation models. Psychol Bull 105(1):430–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nguyen T-H (2003) ‘Travel behavior and its cultural context: an empirical study of vietnamese community in Australia.’ PhD thesis, Victoria UniversityGoogle Scholar
  35. Peyrot M (1996) Causal analysis: theory and application. J Pediatr Psychol 21(1):3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Quintana SM, Maxwell SE (1999) Implications of recent developments in structural equation modelling for counseling psychology. Counsel Psychol 27(1):485–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rhoades L, Eisenberger R, Armeli S (2001) Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. J Appl Psychol 86(5):825–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2004) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modelling, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Shammout A (2008) ‘Evaluating an extended relationship marketing model for Arab guests of five-star hotels.’ PhD thesis, Victoria UniversityGoogle Scholar
  40. Steiger JH (1989) Causal modelling: a supplementary module for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. SYSTAT, Evanston, ILGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor SA, Celuch K, Goodwin S (2004) The importance of brand equity to customer loyalty. J Prod Brand Manag 13(4):217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tucker L, Lewis C (1973) A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometric 38(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner RL (2007) ‘The development of a two-stage regression model describing the IS graduate.’ PhD thesis, Monash UniversityGoogle Scholar
  44. Wheaton B, Muthen B, Alwin DF, Summers GF (1977) Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In: Heise DR (ed) Sociological methodology. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  45. Zeidan S (2006) ‘The relationship between high commitment management and employee attitudes and behaviours: the role of psychological contract fulfilment and justice’, PhD thesis, Victoria UniversityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Accountancy and ManagementMahasarakham UniversityMahasarakhamThailand
  2. 2.Victoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations