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