Index of Paper Presentations for the Parallel Sessions - Academy of ...

Model Fit: The observed values in the measurement model indicated an acceptable model fit of the data (χ 2 =185.192, df = 48, p ≤ 0.001; χ 2 /df = 3.858; CFI = 0.939; TLI = 0.917; IFI = 0.940; NFI = 0.920; and RMSEA =0.065). In addition, all the indicators loaded significantly on the latent constructs. The values of the fit indicesindicate a reasonable fit of the measurement model with data as per the suggested acceptable range of values in theliterature. It reflects that the measurement model confirms the four-factor structure of retail customer experiencescale.Reliability of the measurement instrument: Cronbach‘s Alpha for retail customer experience scale was0.820 which is acceptable as per the suggested range (0.7 – 0.6) for scale reliability (Nunnally, 1978). TheCronbach‘s alpha values for the four factors were 0.715, 0.728, 0.717, and 0.664 respectively (Table - 2), indicatingthe reliability within acceptable limits. After performing CFA, the Composite Reliability of all the factors werefound to be 0.71, 0.75, 0.59 and 0.67 respectively. Composite reliability of all the latent variables should be greaterthan .70 (Carmines & Zeller, 1988). For the present scale, calculated values of two latent variables are greaterthan.70, whereas, remaining two latent variables have relatively low values.Validity of the measurement instrument: The validity of the measurement instrument can be established byface validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2006). The scale has high face (content)validity as all the measurement items have been developed on the basis of careful review of available literature(Table - 1). The convergent validity was assessed by examining the factor loadings and average variance extracted ofthe constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All the indicators had significant loadings onto the respective latentvariables (p < 0.001). The average variance extracted (AVE) for each latent variable should be greater than 0.50(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). It was found that for only one construct, AVE was greater than 0.50, whereas, for otherthree it had relatively low values (Table - 3).