Training and business performance: the mediating role of absorptive capacities

SpringerPlus

Table 5 Summary of evaluation of the structural models

Comparison of models effects on endogenous variables	Direct effects^a	Explained variance	R² value	Q² value	ΔR²	f²	GoF
Model A							0.4900
Training → O. Performance = c (only direct effect)	Sig.		0.3275	0.1768
Model B							0.6241
Endogenous latent variables
ACAP			0.5987	0.3147
H2 = Training → ACAP = a ₁	Sig.	0.5987
O. Performance (mediated by ACAP)			0.5387	0.4417	0.2112	0.4578
Training → O. Performance = c’	Nsig.	0.0445^b
H3 = ACAP → O. Performance = b ₁	Sig.	0.5832

^aSig. denotes a significant direct effect; Nsig. denotes a nonsignificant direct effect
^bThis sum (0.0446 + 0.5832) is not equal to R² (0.5387), note that the contribution of training to the explained variance of O. Performance is negative, but very small. This commonly occurs when the sign of the zero-order correlation is the opposite of the sign of the path coefficient (Menard 2009). In Model B, the path coefficient c’ is negative, but very small and nonsignificant direct effect