Skip to main content

Table 5 Summary of evaluation of the structural models

From: Training and business performance: the mediating role of absorptive capacities

Comparison of models  effects on endogenous variables Direct effectsa 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. 0.0445b      
  H3 = ACAP → O. Performance = b 1 Sig. 0.5832      
  1. aSig. denotes a significant direct effect; Nsig. denotes a nonsignificant direct effect
  2. 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