Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Maria Cabrita

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 3. Methodological approach to testing research hypotheses 5 Data analysis

Figure 3 Methodological approach to testing research hypotheses 5 Data analysis

Related Figures (9)

Figure 1 Conceptualisation of intellectual capital Source: Bontis (1999).
Figure 1 Conceptualisation of intellectual capital Source: Bontis (1999).
Figure 2 Research model Embedded in this model are the following hypotheses (H1—H2) that we intend to test:
Figure 2 Research model Embedded in this model are the following hypotheses (H1—H2) that we intend to test:
Table 1 Loadings and principal component analysis
Table 1 Loadings and principal component analysis
able 1 Loadings and principal component analysis (continued) n the principal component analysis, the items were forced into four factors (human capital, structural capital, relational capital and performance), a VARIMAX rotation was used and the output was sorted and ranked based on a 0.5 loading cut-off. Item R12 Employees in the firm generally understand our targeted market segments and customer profiles.), had a loading of 0.6082 (in the PLS analysis), but cross-loaded on two factors 0.482 in human capital and 0.333 in relational capital) when we examined the principa component analysis. As a result, we dropped this item. Item R4 (Our market share is the highest in the sector). loaded incorrectly at 0.684 for the performance construct and oaded poorly (0.350) in its corresponding construct when we used PLS techniques. It was dropped as well. This left us with 14 indicators for the human capital construct; 14 indicators for relational capital; 10 indicators for structural capital and; 10 items to measure performance. We also compared our results with the studies administered in Canada and Malaysia and confirmed that 15 items were reliable in all three studies and 18 were reliable in at least two contexts (see Table 2).
able 1 Loadings and principal component analysis (continued) n the principal component analysis, the items were forced into four factors (human capital, structural capital, relational capital and performance), a VARIMAX rotation was used and the output was sorted and ranked based on a 0.5 loading cut-off. Item R12 Employees in the firm generally understand our targeted market segments and customer profiles.), had a loading of 0.6082 (in the PLS analysis), but cross-loaded on two factors 0.482 in human capital and 0.333 in relational capital) when we examined the principa component analysis. As a result, we dropped this item. Item R4 (Our market share is the highest in the sector). loaded incorrectly at 0.684 for the performance construct and oaded poorly (0.350) in its corresponding construct when we used PLS techniques. It was dropped as well. This left us with 14 indicators for the human capital construct; 14 indicators for relational capital; 10 indicators for structural capital and; 10 items to measure performance. We also compared our results with the studies administered in Canada and Malaysia and confirmed that 15 items were reliable in all three studies and 18 were reliable in at least two contexts (see Table 2).
*reliable measures in the Malaysian and Portuguese contexts. **reliable measures in the Canadian and Portuguese contexts. ***reliable measures in all three studies. le 2 Reliable items — comparing studies in Canada, Malaysia and Portugal
*reliable measures in the Malaysian and Portuguese contexts. **reliable measures in the Canadian and Portuguese contexts. ***reliable measures in all three studies. le 2 Reliable items — comparing studies in Canada, Malaysia and Portugal
Table 3 Measurement model results *Diagonal elements are the square roots of average variance extracted.
Table 3 Measurement model results *Diagonal elements are the square roots of average variance extracted.
ble 4 PLS path analysis results (standardised beta coefficients and t-values) *Significant at p-value <0.001; **Significant at p-value <0.05.
ble 4 PLS path analysis results (standardised beta coefficients and t-values) *Significant at p-value <0.001; **Significant at p-value <0.05.
Figure 4 Model I (main effects) Note: Top number is path, ¢-values in brackets, ***Significant at p-value <0.001.
Figure 4 Model I (main effects) Note: Top number is path, ¢-values in brackets, ***Significant at p-value <0.001.
Note: Top number is path, t-values in brackets, **Significant at p-value <0.05; ***Significant at p-value <0.001.
Note: Top number is path, t-values in brackets, **Significant at p-value <0.05; ***Significant at p-value <0.001.
Related topics:
MarketingEuropean StudiesEnvironmental SustainabilityBusiness and ManagementManufacturing System
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved