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 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | 0.4900 |
 Training → O. Performance = c (only direct effect) | Sig. |  | 0.3275 | 0.1768 |  |  |  |
Model B | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | 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 |  |  |  |  |  |