Data Analysis

Chapter4
Introduction

This chapter presents and discusses the findings, of the study. The data was tabulated and

interpreted according to the research questions. The chapter reports the responses of the

participants which were collected through questionnaires. The results of the survey carried out

aim to provide insight to the factors that influence students’ performance in accounting units.

4. Result
4.1 Reliability
Reliability infers to the extent that the variables under investigation are consistent with each

other. The aim of carrying out a reliability test is to show that there is some form of

relationship between the variable under investigation. The common method for measuring

internal consistency is Cronbach’s alpha. It is often preferred when a research has a set of

questions that are used to determine the relationship among the variables under investigation.

Besides, it is good to note that Cronbach’s alpha is not a statistical measure but a coefficient

of internal consistency. The components for calculating the Cronbach’s alpha is a function of

the number of items (N), the average inter-item covariance, and the average variance (Geiger,

& Shelton, 2019). A higher value for Cronbach’s alpha shows there is high level of internal

consistency while a small value shows that the levels of reliability of variable under

investigation is low.

Reliability Statistics
Table 1
Reliability Statistics
 Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items

0.908 0.906 25

From the output in table 1, the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.90 which shows a high level of internal

consistency for the variables under investigation

Table 2

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Corrected Squared Cronbach's

Scale Mean if Variance if Item-Total Multiple Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted

HRMS1 82.71 165.094 0.572 . 0.903

HRMS2 82.68 167.095 0.479 . 0.905

HRMS3 82.67 167.079 0.462 . 0.905

HRMS4 82.66 165.303 0.554 . 0.904

HRPO1 82.84 171.361 0.348 . 0.907

HRPO2 82.83 173.495 0.272 . 0.909

HRPO3 82.76 173.622 0.261 . 0.909

HRPR1 83.01 169.542 0.422 . 0.906

HRPR2 83.00 168.949 0.416 . 0.906

HRPR3 82.94 170.782 0.320 . 0.908

OCB1 83.03 161.072 0.674 . 0.901

OCB2 83.05 163.653 0.604 . 0.903

OCB3 83.07 161.913 0.669 . 0.901

EAD1 82.88 167.265 0.453 . 0.906

EAD2 82.91 167.266 0.470 . 0.905

 EAD3 82.90 166.485 0.500 . 0.905

OCM1 82.46 167.492 0.444 . 0.906

OCM2 82.54 165.718 0.510 . 0.904

OCM3 82.52 166.567 0.477 . 0.905

OCM4 82.51 166.996 0.453 . 0.906

JSA1 83.03 161.072 0.674 . 0.901

JSA2 83.05 163.653 0.604 . 0.903

JSA3 83.07 161.913 0.669 . 0.901

JSA4 83.05 163.071 0.616 . 0.902

JSA5 83.05 162.240 0.638 . 0.902

The column Cronbach’s alpha if item is deleted represents the value of internal consistency in

case one item of the 25 items is deleted. From the output it is clear that the removal of all

other items except item HRPO2, and item HRPO3, would result in a lower value of

Cronbach’s alpha, there it is not prudent to remove them. However, the removal of items

HRPO2 and HRPO3 would result in a slight increase in the value of alpha to 0.909. Besides,

an examination of the alpha value for corrected Item-Total Correlation was as low as 0.272

and 0.261, a factor that may prompt the researcher to remove the items from the list.

Statistical Significance

ANOVA test is used to determine if there exist statistical differences between variables under

study. The main aim of conducting an ANOVA test is to determine, whether to accept the

null or alternative hypothesis (Andrew, Pedersen, & McEvoy, 2011). From the output in table

3, it is clear that there is a statistical significance between the items given that Q> than 1 at

14.480.
Table 3
ANOVA with Cochran's Test

Sum of Squares df Mean Square Cochran's Q

Between People 2546.110 354 7.192

Within People Between Items

347.511 24 14.480

Residual 5620.729 8496 0.662

Total 5968.240 8520 0.700

Total 8514.350 8874 0.959

4.2 Validity

Validity is the measure of the extent to which the conclusions from a given study match with

the real situation in the ground. Apparently, this is determined by a number of factors among

them the instrument used to collect data and the respondents (Esposito, 2010). The main aim

of conducting a validity test is to determine whether the study carried out the research in the

area that they had intended to study

Factor Analysis

Table 4
Pattern Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6

HRMS1 0.877

HRMS2 0.904

HRMS3 0.820

HRMS4 0.870
 HRPO1 0.848

HRPO2 0.882

HRPO3 0.862

HRPR1 0.792

HRPR2 0.837

HRPR3 0.838

OCB1 0.862

OCB2 0.890

OCB3 0.897

EAD1 0.925

EAD2 0.911

EAD3 0.885

OCM1 0.804

OCM2 0.916

OCM3 0.927

OCM4 0.879

JSA1 0.862

JSA2 0.890

JSA3 0.897

JSA4 0.771

JSA5 0.888

Factor analysis technique of data reduction. Apparently, this is done by eliminating a number

of unseen variables that are shown in the observable variables. The primary methods for

conducting factor analysis entails generalised least squares, principal axis factor and

maximum likelihood. The pattern matrix contains loadings of correlations between variables

and range from the values of -1 to +1. The value in the final matrix shows the proportional of
each value variance that can be accounted for in the remaining factors. It is also imperative to

note that variables with higher variables are well represented while variables with low values

have a small representation (Esposito, 2010). The output from the pattern matrix table shows

that there is a strong relation between human resource management strategies and factor 3

with a minimum of 0.820. Similarly, there is a strong correlation between human resource

policy (HRPO) and factor 5 with a minimum value of 0.792. There is a positive correlation

between organizational citizenship behaviour and factor 1 with a minimum value of 0.862.

4.3 Model Fit Summary

Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extraction (AVE)

Composite reliability (CR) also referred to as McDonald coefficient that takes into account

the variance of various factor loadings of items. If the items measure the same construct, then

CR and alpha coefficient will be the same as there are no error covariance (Andrew,

Pedersen, & McEvoy, 2011). However, if there are variations between the factor loadings

then there will be big differences between CR and Cronbach’s alpha. A value of 0.7 and

above for CR shows that there are no great variances between factor loadings implying that

the construct is reliable.

The average variance extracted (AVE) is a parameter that measures the value of variance that

is accounted for in the construct as regards deviations due to measurement error. (Andrew,

Pedersen, & McEvoy, 2011). If the value of AVE is less than 0.50, then the variation while

measuring is greater than the variance due to construct, a factor that makes the convergent

validity of the construct questionable.

The CR and AVE for the HRM strategy is 0.824 and 0.577 respectively. A CR of 0.824

shows that the variations between the factors loadings are within the construct therefore
reliable. While an AVE value of 0.577 is above the required threshold hence the convergent

validity of the construct can be used.

The CR and AVE for the HR policies are 0.837 and 0.634respectively. A CR of 0.837 shows

that the variations between the factors loadings are within the construct therefore reliable.

While an AVE value of 0.634 is above the required threshold hence the convergent validity

of the construct can be used.

The CR and AVE for the organizational is 0.837 and 0.634 respectively. A CR of 0.837

shows that the variations between the factors loadings are within the construct therefore

reliable. While an AVE value of 0.634 is above the required threshold hence the convergent

validity of the construct can be used.

The CR and AVE for the job satisfaction are 0.803 and 0.579respectively. A CR of 0.803

shows that the variations between the factors loadings are within the construct therefore

reliable. While an AVE value of 0.579 is above the required threshold hence the convergent

validity of the construct can be used.

CMIN
Model NPAR CMIN DF P

Default model 74 429.012 156 0.000

Saturated model 230 0.000 0

Independence
20 4722.844 210 0.000
model

Baseline Comparisons
NFI RFI IFI TLI
Model
Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2

Default model 0.909 0.878 0.940 0.919

Saturated model 1.000 1.000

Independence
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
model
Parsimony-Adjusted Measures
Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI

Default model 0.743 0.675 0.698

Saturated model 0.000 0.000 0.000

Independence
1.000 0.000 0.000
model

NCP
Model NCP LO 90 HI 90

Default model 273.012 215.164 338.515

Saturated model 0.000 0.000 0.000

Independence
4512.844 4292.831 4740.113
model

FMIN
Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90

Default model 1.185 0.754 0.594 0.935

Saturated model 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Independence
13.047 12.466 11.859 13.094
model

RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model 0.070 0.062 0.077 0.000

Independence
0.244 0.238 0.250 0.000
model

Table 1. Results of reliability and validity

α

Factors
Scale items
 HRMS

HRM Strategy

HRMS1

.768
Does the appraisal system effectively used to determine employee career development?

HRMS2

.770
The annual amount spent on employee training and development part of HR strategies effective or not?

HRMS3

.772
Have you observed increased productivity after your personal or co-worker training?

HRMS4

.774
Do you think HR Strategies properly meet the needs of workforce in your company?

HRPO

HR Policies

HRPO1
.760
Are you satisfied with the health and safety policies

HRPO2
.765
Are the HR policies effective to meet employee needs or not?

HRPO3
.766
Were the HR policies conveyed to you via proper channel or not?

HRPR

HR Practices

HRPR1
.768
Does your company recruit the right person for the right job?

HRPR2
.769
Candidate selection is based on merit or not?
HRPR3
.771
Training programs introduced for employee development helpful or not?

OCB

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

OCB1
.796
Have you ever helped co-worker in completing his/her work?

OCB2
.792
Have you ever gave up meal and other breaks to complete work

OCB3
.792
Have you ever defended a co-worker who is scolded by the manager or others

EAD

Employee Advocacy

EAD1
.773
Does company support increase commitment for the company?

EAD2
.773
Does the monetary benefit have an influence on worker?

EAD3
.775
The more a worker satisfied the more employee advocacy?

OCM

Organizational Commitment

OCM 1
OCM 2
.760
Do you feel a strong association with your company?

OCM 3
.765
A balance in work and life increased your organizational commitment

OCM 4
.766
Does a frequent monetary reward increase your commitment?
OCM 5
.760
Do you have an emotional commitment with your company?

JSA

Job Satisfaction

JSA 1
.768
How satisfied are you with the work conditions?

JSA 2
.769
How satisfied are you with the pay?

JSA 3
.771
How satisfied are you with promotions in the company?

JSA 4
.796
How satisfied are you with co-workers?

JSA 5
.792
How satisfied are you with work place?

Model fit statistics: X2=429.0126, (df=156, p<.01), X2/df =2.75, CFI =.940, PCFI: .698, RMSEA: .070.
4.4 Model

The independent factors are variables that are varied to see their effect of the dependent

variable. The research’s independent variables include Human Resource Management

Strategy, Human Resource Policies, and Human Resource Practices.

A mediating exists because the independent factor cannot influence the dependent factor.

Ideally, the mediating variable is used to explain the observed relationship between the

independent variable and the dependent variable. The mediator variable for the study

included OCB (Organizational Citizenship) and EAD (Employee Advocacy).

On the other hand, dependent variables are factors that depend on the independent variables.

That is if the value of the independent variable like human resource policy is changed, then
there is a change in the dependent variable like organizational commitment. The dependent

variables for the study research include job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

H1: The relationship and effect between Human Resource Strategies (HRS) as

independent variable and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) and

Employee Advocacy (EAD) as mediator.

H1a: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Management

Strategies (HRMS) and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)?

There is a strong positive relationship between the mediating factor of organizational

citizenship behaviour (OCB) and dependent variables of organizational commitment and job

satisfaction. The lambda value for assistance to co-workers is high as 0.818 and working

during lunch time or extra hours for free is 0.79 and defending a co-worker was 0.813 on a

scale of 1.

H1b: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Management

Strategies (HRMS) and Employee Advocacy (EAD)?

There is a positive relationship between the mediating factor of employee advocacy (EA) and

organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The lambda value for increased commitment

to the organization is high as 0.821 and job satisfaction to the extent of 0.750 and 0.923 on a

scale of 1.

H1c: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Policies (HRPO)

and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)?

Human resources policies like recruiting the right person for the right job have a positive

impact on organizational citizenship behaviour with a lambda of 0.830. Besides, the existence

of training programs for employees with a value of 0.640 implying that they are positively

related.

H1d: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Policies (HRPO)

and Employee Advocacy (EAD)?

Human resource policies like ensuring the health and safety of employees have a positive

influence on employee advocacy to an extent of 0.816. Besides, there is a strong relationship

between the effectiveness of human resource policies for meeting the needs of the workers at

0.886.

H1e: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Practices (HRPR)

and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)?

If an organization has human resource policies that lead to the recruitment of the right person

for the right job, then there is increased organizational citizenship behaviour to the tune of

0.830. Besides, if the selection process is based on merit then there is a strong OCB, of 0.799.

Further, the existences of training programs foster organizational citizenship behaviour as

indicated by the lambda value of 0.640.

H1f: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Practices (HRPR)

and Employee Advocacy (EAD)?

If an organization has human resource policies that lead to increased commitment to the

organization, then there is increased employee advocacy to the tune of 0.821. Besides, if the

monetary benefit then there is an increased employee advocacy, of 0.923

H2: The relationship and effect between Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

(OCB) and Employee Advocacy (EAD) as mediator and Organizational Commitment

(OCM) and Job Satisfaction (JSA) as independent variable.

H2a: Is there any relationship and effect between Organizational Citizenship

Behaviour (OCB) and Organizational Commitment (OCM)?

There is a strong positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship

behaviour. The lambda value for good working condition is high as 0.830 and good pay is

0.799 and satisfaction with g a co-worker was 0.818 on a scale of 1.

H2b: Is there any relationship and effect between Organizational Citizenship

Behaviour (OCB) and Job Satisfaction (JSA)?

hotels?

There is a strong positive relationship between the job satisfaction and employee advocacy.

The lambda value for increased monetary benefit for the workers is high as 0.923 and

satisfaction of a worker is 0.79 and the company’s commitment for the firm 0.821 on a scale

of 1.

H2c: Is there any relationship and effect between Employee Advocacy (EAD) and

Organizational Commitment (OCM)?

There is a strong positive relationship between employee advocacy of company support,

monetary benefit and organizational commitment. The lambda value for increased company
support for the workers is high as 0.821 and monetary support is 0.773 and the workers

satisfaction due to employee advocacy is 0.750 on a scale of 1.

H2d: Is there any relationship and effect between Employee Advocacy (EAD) and

Job Satisfaction (JSA)?

There is a strong positive relationship between the job satisfaction and employee advocacy.

The lambda value for increased monetary benefit for the workers is high as 0.923 and

satisfaction of a worker is 0.79 and the company’s commitment for the firm 0.821 on a scale

of 1.

H3: The relationship and effect between Human Resource Strategies (HRS) as

independent variable and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) and Job

Satisfaction (JSA) as dependent variable.

H3a: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Management

Strategies (HRMS) and Organizational Commitment (OCM)?

Factors that make workers to be committed to an organization like monetary rewards have a

positive impact on organizational citizenship commitment of 0.671. While an organization

that values workers life outside work led to increased organizational citizenship behaviour

with a lambda of 0.886.

H3b: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Management

Strategies (HRMS) and Job Satisfaction (JSA)?

There is a strong positive relationship between the job satisfaction and human resource

management strategies. The lambda value for increased monetary benefit for the workers is
high as 0.923 and satisfaction of a worker is 0.79 and the company’s commitment for the

firm 0.821 on a scale of 1.

H3c: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Policies (HRPO)

and Organizational Commitment (OCM)?

Human resource policies like monetary rewards have a positive impact on organizational

citizenship commitment of 0.671. While an organization that values workers life outside

work led to increased organizational citizenship behaviour with a lambda of 0.886.

H3d: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Policies (HRPO)

and Job Satisfaction (JSA)?

There is a strong positive relationship between human resource policies of company support,

monetary benefit and organizational commitment. The lambda value for increased company

support for the workers is high as 0.821 and monetary support is 0.773 and the workers

satisfaction due to employee advocacy is 0.750 on a scale of 1.

H3e: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Practices (HRPR)

and Organizational Commitment (OCM)?

Human resource practices measures that make workers to be committed to an organization

like monetary rewards have a positive impact on organizational citizenship commitment of

0.671. While an organization that values workers life outside work led to increased

organizational citizenship behaviour with a lambda of 0.886.

H3f: Is there any relationship and effect between Human Resource Practices (HRPR)

and Job Satisfaction (JSA)?

There is a strong positive relationship between human resources practices and job

satisfaction. The lambda value for good working condition is high as 0.830 and good pay is

0.799 and satisfaction with g a co-worker was 0.818 on a scale of 1.

4.5 Regression Analysis

There is a strong positive relationship between organization commitment behaviour and

human resource strategies because it has a p value of 0.00 which is less than 0.05. Similarly,

there is a positive relationship between organization commitment behaviour and human

resource policies because the p value is 0.03. However, the p value for job satisfaction and

employee advocacy is more than more 0.05 that is 0.585 and 0.385 respectively implying that

they are not affected due to changes in human resource strategies.

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

<--
OCB HRMS .251 .062 4.020 *** par_29
-

<--
OCB HRPO .211 .071 2.986 .003 par_30
-

<--
OCB HRPR .443 .078 5.653 *** par_31
-

<--
EAD HRMS .254 .068 3.733 *** par_32
-

<--
EAD HRPO .153 .077 1.996 .046 par_33
-

<--
EAD HRPR .276 .080 3.432 *** par_34
-

<--
JSA OCB -.024 .045 -.547 .585 par_43
-

<--
JSA EAD .225 .043 5.204 *** par_44
-
 Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

OC <--
OCB .367 .074 4.961 *** par_45
M -

OC <--
EAD -.057 .065 -.868 .385 par_46
M -

<--
JSA HRMS .309 .056 5.554 *** par_47
-

OC <--
HRMS -.114 .083 -1.381 .167 par_48
M -

<--
JSA HRPO -.019 .058 -.332 .740 par_49
-

OC <--
HRPO .035 .092 .380 .704 par_50
M -

<--
JSA HRPR .161 .065 2.483 .013 par_51
-

OC <--
HRPR .014 .100 .139 .889 par_52
M -

4.6 Correlations

Standard Effect Weights

From the weights table it’s apparent that effective human resource management strategies are

likely to enhance employee organizational commitment with a weight of 0.328, followed by

job satisfaction at 0.323. However, the weight of organizational commitment and human

resource strategies is negative at -0.087

 Estimate

<--
OCB HRMS .213
-

<--
OCB HRPO .163
-

<--
OCB HRPR .326
-

<--
EAD HRMS .215
-

<--
EAD HRPO .118
-

<--
EAD HRPR .203
-

<--
JSA OCB -.030
-

<--
JSA EAD .277
-

OC <--
OCB .328
M -

OC <--
EAD -.051
M -

<--
JSA HRMS .323
-

OC <--
HRMS -.087
M -

<--
JSA HRPO -.018
-

OC <--
HRPO .024
M -

<--
JSA HRPR .146
-

OC <--
HRPR .009
M -
 References

Andrew, D. P. S., Pedersen, P. M., & McEvoy, C. D. (2011). Research methods and design in

sport management. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Esposito, V. V. (2010). Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and

applications. Berlin: Springer

Geiger, T., & Shelton, C. (2019). Learn to calculate Cronbach's Alpha in SPSS with data

from a school dropout prevention program (DPP) study (2017). London: SAGE

Publications, Ltd