Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, Mª Eugenia Sánchez-Vidal and David Cegarra-Leiva
0.033). From an examination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> results shown in Table 1, we can state that all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> constructs
are reliable. For all <strong>the</strong> measures, Bagozzi and Yi’s (1988) composite reliability index and Fornell and
Larker’s (1981) average variance extracted index are higher than <strong>the</strong> evaluation criteria <strong>of</strong> 0.7 for
composite reliability and 0.5 for <strong>the</strong> average variance extracted.
Table 1: Factor loadings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> resulting items and scale reliability
g g y
Construct Standardiz
ed loading
t-value Reliability
(SCR a ., AVE b The framework for relational learning (RL)
)
In this business unit, we meet with customers at least once a year to find
out what products or services <strong>the</strong>y will need in <strong>the</strong> future 0.90
17.942 AVE=0.51
We poll end users at least once a year to assess <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> our product
and services 0.94
16.840 SCR=0.76
We periodically review <strong>the</strong> likely effect <strong>of</strong> changes in our business
environment (e.g., regulation) on customers
Work life balance culture (WBC)
0.93
10.274
Starting a family, becoming pregnant or adopting a child 0.744 10.986 AVE=0.657
Going home during <strong>the</strong> workday to attend personal responsibilities such
as a sick child 0.846
13.637 SCR=0.851
Setting limits on hours spent at work
Organizational performance (OP)
0.699 10.387
Quality <strong>of</strong> products, services and programmes 0.682 8.817 AVE=0.684
Ability to retain essential employees 0.664 9.254 SCR=0.866
Satisfaction <strong>of</strong> customers or clients
Notes:
The fit statistics for <strong>the</strong> measurement model were:
0.731 10.618
Satorra-Bentler χ 2 (80)= 85.16; χ 2 /d.f= 1.06; GFI=0.94; CFI=0.98; IFI=0.98; RMSEA= 0.033.
a 2 2
Scale Composite Reliability (SCR) <strong>of</strong> pc= (Σλi) var (ξ) / [(Σλi) var (ξ) +Σ θii] (Bagozzi and Yi, 1998).
b 2
Average variance extracted (AVE) <strong>of</strong> pc= (? λi2 var (ξ))/[? λi var (ξ) + ? θii] (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
The asymptotic covariance matrices were generated to obtain <strong>the</strong> scaled chi-square (Satorra and Bentler, 1988) and robus
estimation <strong>of</strong> standard errors.
Discriminant validity was determined by comparing <strong>the</strong> square root <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> AVE (i.e., <strong>the</strong> diagonals in
Table 2) with <strong>the</strong> correlations among constructs (i.e., <strong>the</strong> lower triangle <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> matrix in Table 2). On
average, each construct related more strongly to its own measures than to o<strong>the</strong>rs (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). In <strong>the</strong> interest <strong>of</strong> thorough discriminant validity, an additional test was examined, which
supports this assumption since <strong>the</strong> confidence interval (± 2 standard errors) around <strong>the</strong> correlation
estimated between any two latent indicators never includes 1.0 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The
constructs correlation matrix, shared variances, means and standard deviations are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Construct correlation matrix
Correlation matrix
Mean S.D CA 1 2 3
1. Relational learning 4.93 1.29 0.92 0.71
2. Work life balance culture 4.44 1.29 0.79 0.38 0.80
3. Organizational performance
Notes:
5.37 0.86 0.72 0.46 0.33 0.82
Mean = <strong>the</strong> average score for all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> items included in this measure; S.D. = Standard Deviation; CA = Cronbach’s
Alpha; Intercorrelations are presented in <strong>the</strong> lower and shady triangle <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> matrix. The bold numbers on <strong>the</strong>
diagonal are <strong>the</strong> square root <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Average Variance Extracted.
Once <strong>the</strong> psychometric properties <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> measures had been checked, <strong>the</strong> next step was <strong>the</strong>
evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sised relationships developed from consideration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relevant literature
(see Figure 1), discussed in <strong>the</strong> text as H1–H2. The fit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> model is satisfactory (Satorra-Bentler
χ2(85)=110.342; χ2/d.f= 1.29; GFI=0.927; CFI=0.980; IFI=0.973; RMSEA= 0.037), <strong>the</strong>reby suggesting
that <strong>the</strong> nomological network <strong>of</strong> relationships fits our data – ano<strong>the</strong>r indicator <strong>of</strong> support for <strong>the</strong> validity
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se scales (Churchill, 1979). Figure 1 shows that <strong>the</strong> relational learning process had a positive
influence on <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> a work-life balance supporting culture at a level <strong>of</strong> (p