Cfa

CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 Introduction
Statistician John Tukey (1962)1 defined data analysis as: "Procedures for
analyzing data, techniques for interpreting the results of such procedures, ways of
planning the gathering of data to make its analysis easier, more precise or more
accurate, and all the machinery and results of (mathematical) statistics which apply
to analyzing data." (John Tukey-The Future of Data Analysis-July 1962 1).
Data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure and meaning to the
mass of collected data. It is a messy, ambiguous, time consuming, creative, and
fascinating process. It does not proceed in a linear fashion; it is not neat. Qualitative
data analysis is a search for general statements about relationships among categories
of data (Marshall & Rossman, 1990:1112). Hitchcock and Hughes (1995:295)3 further
added to this by saying that: "…the ways in which the researcher moves from a
description of what is the case to an explanation of why what is the case is the case."
In simpler terms, analysis of data is a process of inspecting, cleaning, transforming,
and modeling data with the motive of discovering useful information, suggesting
conclusions, and supporting decision-making. The purpose of analyzing data is to
obtain usable and useful information. The analysis, may:
• Describe and summarize the data
• Identify relationships between variables
• Compare variables
• Identify the difference between variables
• Forecast outcomes
Data interpretation is the process of making sense of numerical data that has
been collected, analyzed, and presented. Statistical analysis is a common technique
to assess the numerical data, and inferential statistics is the technique to analyze
and interpret data to make predictions.
Data Analysis and Interpretation 2
In the present research study, primary data has been collected with the help
of structured questionnaire. Later, the data from questionnaire has been edited,
coded and tabulated for further statistical analysis.
4.2 Demographics
The respondents of the study were retail employees from organized retail
sector from different cities of India. A total of 302 retail employees were
administered the questionnaire on the employee engagement. Demographics of the
study is below here:
Table 4.1. Demographics

Gender Male Female
Number 232 70
Working Area Front-end Back-end
Number 161 141
Age (years) 20 years and below 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 Above
Number 32 62 58 67 71 12
Job Experience Less than a year 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 Above
(years)
Number 32 62 58 67 71 12
Department Name Number Name Number
Accounts & Finance 18 Marketing & PR 31

HR & Training 26 Merchandising 13
Buying 14 Logistics & Supply 14

Chain
Administration 9
IT 16 Operations 16
Education High School Bachelor's Degree Master’s Degree
Number 25 102 175

4.3 Reliability Measurement of Employee Engagement
To make precise measurements, researchers have to check the data for its
reliability and validity. In the field of psychometrics reliability stands for overall
consistency of a measure. A measure in the study is assumed to have a high reliability
if it yields similar outcomes under consistent circumstances (Bruton, Conway &
Holgate, 20004). Reliability explained as the reproducibility of a measurement.
Reliability analysis consists of measures to the degree to which a testing instrument
is free from random error and maintains internal consistency of multiple-item scales
that estimates an individual construct or latent variable (Kline, 20055; Rosnow &
Rosenthal, 19886).
4.3.1 Cronbach’s Alpha

Instrument/questionnaire reliability depends on the congruence of instrument
for its evaluation. This can be predicted by items total correlations and internal
consistency. In this study, to measure internal consistency we first used Cronbach’s
coefficient or “alpha” statistic. Cronbach’s alpha is one of the most renowned
methods to measure the reliability (Rosnow et al., 19886). The value of alpha depicts
the correlation among the measurement indicators or items with higher correlations
among the indicators are symbol of high alpha value (Pedhazur & Schmelkin
19917). Value of alpha ranges between 0 and 1, and its criteria for assessment is, if
the value is ≥ 0.70 indicate adequate reliability for group comparisons and if it is ≥
0.90 indicate adequate reliability for individual monitoring.
The reliability of this study was tested by using SPSS 21 software. The
accepted lower value of Cronbach’s alpha is 0.7 (Kline, 20055; Nunnally, &
Bernstein, 19788). Cronbach’s alpha values of set of items for employee engagement
and engagement determinants are greater than 0.7. Hence, Cronbach’s alpha value
for all items shows good reliability. All values of corrected item total correlation
exhibits value more than 0.05, therefore shows good value and at this stage of
analysis and there is no need to delete any item. The results are shown in table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Corrected Item Total Correlation, Cronbach’s Alpha and

Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted of all Measured Items
Corrected Item Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha

Construct Items
Total Correlation Alpha If Item Deleted
Q1 .653 .893
Q2 .661 .893
Q3 .594 .896
Q4 .569 .897
Q5 .591 .896
Q6 .633 .894
Gallup Q12 .902
Q7 .595 .896
Q8 .642 .894
Q9 .580 .897
Q10 .653 .893
Q11 .699 .891
Q12 .626 .894
Engagement Item 1 .686 .963 .961

Determinants
Item2 .674 .961
Item3 .604 .962
Item4 .601 .962
Item5 .621 .962
Item6 .645 .962
Item7 .635 .962
Item8 .685 .961
Item9 .661 .961
Item10 .636 .962


Construct Items
Item11 .668 .961
Item12 .639 .962
Item13 .612 .962
Item14 .615 .962
Item15 .580 .962
Item16 .620 .962
Item17 .611 .962
Item18 .627 .962
Item19 .552 .962
Item20 .522 .962
Item21 .548 .962
Item22 .739 .961
Item23 .649 .962
Item24 .640 .962
Item25 .564 .962
Item26 .559 .962
Item27 .602 .962
Item28 .575 .962
Item29 .587 .962
Item30 .696 .961
Item31 .722 .961
Item32 .724 .961
Item33 .652 .961
Item34 .580 .962


Construct Items
Item35 .634 .962
Item36 .559 .962
Item37 .555 .962
Item38 .577 .962

4.3.2 Composite Reliability

Werts, Linn & Joreskog in 19749 developed new method to measure the
reliability for items, called composite reliability. Composite reliability is a measure
of the total reliability of an assembly of heterogeneous but similar items. Composite
reliability gives a closer approximation under the assumption that the parameter
estimates are accurate (Chin, 199810) in comparison to alpha statistic (Fornell &
Larcker 198111). Composite reliability is an analogous to Cronbach’s alpha and
calculated with the help of figures obtained after confirmatory factor analysis by
Amos. Values of composite reliability ≥ 0.70 are considered good (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 199412) and in the study all values came more than 0.70. The values of
composite reliability are shown in table 5.3. The internal consistencies of all
engagement determinants are considered good as all values came into the good
region. Therefore, the instrument for this study was considered as reliable.
4.4 Validity Measurement of Employee Engagement

Validity states the agreement to which measurements actually measures the
constructs that are intended to measure (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007 13) or the degree
of correlation between the test and a criterion. Researchers compute validity by
equating their measurements with values that are adjacent to the true values as
likely. In descriptive studies, poor validity deteriorates the precision of a single
measurement and it diminishes the ability to depict relationships among variables.
Validity is of different types. In this research work, we are concerned to measure
constructs validity. Construct validity defined as the degree to which a test measures,
what that tests titles or purports to be measured (Brown, 1996 14; Cronbach & Meehl,
195515). Samuel Messick (1989)16, a psychologists given an integrated opinion for
construct validity and defined it “as an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree
to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and
appropriateness of inferences and actions based on test scores”. Construct validity is
of two types, namely; Convergent validity and Discriminant validity. Convergent
validity is defined as “the degree by which different measures of constructs that
supposedly should be related are, in fact, related”. In contrast to discriminant
validity, where whether “measures that are theoretically to be unrelated are, in fact,
unrelated”.
4.4.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis
The first step in the study is to assess the validity by measuring convergent
validity of measures of construct by performing factor analysis. Factor analysis is a
method to carry inter-correlated variables all together under more general, underlying
variables, in other words, an attempt to elucidate the variance in the observed
variables in relations to underlying latent factors (Habing, 200317). In simpler terms,
factor analysis is a statistical technique to describe variability among observed,
correlated variables in terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved variables
called as factors.
For factor analysis, we did an exploratory factor analysis with an aim to
explore or identify the underlying relationships among measured variables.
Exploratory factor analysis is based on the common factor model. Within the
common factor model, a function of common factors, unique factors, and errors of
measurements expresses measured variables (Norris & Lecavalier, 200918).
KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Prior to exploratory factor analysis, the sampling adequacy and sphericity of
the raw data was checked and only after that suitability of the data was decided. For
this purpose the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett test of sphericity was
performed. The KMO measures the sampling adequacy, and it should be greater
than 0.5 Kaiser (1974)19 to proceed for a satisfactory factor analysis. Looking at
table 4.3, the KMO measure is 0.937. Same table, shows that the Bartlett’s test of
sphericity is significant, such that the associated probability is less than 0.05 Field,
(2000)20. In fact, it is actually 0.000. It can be inferred that the correlation matrix
was not an identity matrix and that correlation between items was sufficiently large.
The above all evidences specify that the data on engagement determinants was
appropriate for the factor analysis.
Table 4.3 KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .937

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 8655.881

df 703
Sig. .000
Principal Components Analysis
Factor analysis by the extraction method of principal components analysis
(PCA) on the independent variables was performed. It is a technique used to
examine among large number of items the interdependent correlations and later
explaining the variables on the terms of their common underlying factors or
dimensions.
Hair, (2010)21 elucidated that PCA is performed for following reasons:

• to explore the items with high correlation with each another,
• to excerpt that items and further classify the items to make numerous small
groups of factors, and
• to appraise the accurateness of the cataloguing.
The varimax orthogonal rotation approach was used while performing PCA
in present research work to deliver easier factor structure to every data set.
According to Hair (2010)21, the varimax rotation approach provides a clear view of
factors, and resulted factor pattern by varimax rotation is more invariant in
comparison to other approaches. In addition, rotation is desirable because it simplifies
the factor structure, it reformulates the factors for the sharper segregations to provide
meanings to the factors, and its generally tough to define whether the unrotated
factors are meaningful (Hair, 2010)21.
The significance of factor loadings are used to decide the number of factors
retained after PCA. The absolute value of 0.50 of factor loading is the condition to
decide the significance of factors. Therefore, items in the questionnaire instrument
were deleted that correlate less than 0.50 because less than 25% variance was
accounted to them and they were interpreting the structure at the minimal level only.
The loadings at 0.50 or above are practically significant (Hair, 2010 21) and are kept
in study for further analysis. Thus, after conducting the PCA, the 38 initial items in
factor or determinants of employee engagement were reduced to 34 items in 7 factors.

Results of PCA by the rotation method of Varimax are presented in table 4.4 below.
Table 4.4 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis

Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
Items Items Name
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q28 SUP1 .796 .087 .156 .043 .113 .083 -.006
Q25 SUP2 .789 .139 .118 .071 .169 .017 -.007
Q29 SUP3 .789 .111 .196 .149 .139 .125 .027
Q30 SUP4 .780 .081 .166 .156 .067 .122 .048
Q33 SUP5 .758 .082 .235 .135 .065 .140 .019
Q27 SUP6 .712 .103 .192 .085 .263 .163 -.020
Q2 SUP7 .701 .139 .061 .114 .272 .158 .278
Q32 SUP8 .674 .197 .215 .127 .213 .074 .029
Q4 SUP9 .672 .153 .029 .134 .283 .183 .310
Q3 SUP10 .628 .135 -.019 .126 .247 .262 .365
Q12 WE1 .174 .825 .066 .103 .104 .112 .168
Q11 WE2 .160 .818 .104 .116 .149 .067 .190
Q10 WE3 .158 .808 .309 .197 .092 .093 .015
Q18 WE4 .068 .804 .235 .229 .093 .183 .072
Q19 WE5 .129 .798 .263 .217 .078 .174 .031
Q20 WE6 .142 .791 .299 .201 .026 .191 .041
Q31 COM1 .125 .214 .750 .082 .106 .065 .094
Q24 COM2 .141 .100 .710 .264 .122 .050 .049
Q1 COM3 .235 .218 .687 .129 .070 .188 -.041
Q26 COM4 .210 .245 .640 .096 .011 .141 .120
Q8 COM5 .125 .231 .512 .165 .007 .302 .081
Q15 COM6 .297 .282 .501 .308 .032 .001 -.038
Q23 APP1 .150 .270 .209 .815 .116 .087 .000
Q22 APP2 .172 .215 .102 .799 .142 .105 .064
Q21 APP3 .140 .340 .281 .718 .066 .072 .080
Q13 APP4 .208 .132 .218 .684 .078 .141 .192
Q17 PB1 .396 .136 .083 .162 .791 .091 -.010
Q16 PB2 .443 .142 .032 .107 .756 .146 .058
Q14 PB3 .402 .105 .081 .158 .740 .154 -.089
Q9 PB4 .301 .170 .378 .018 .455 -.008 .352
Q7 PB5 .371 .106 .347 .041 .414 .049 .351
Q36 TS1 .275 .226 .163 .129 .138 .714 .216
Q37 TS2 .258 .284 .238 .123 .111 .685 .213
Q38 TS3 .138 .092 .084 .044 .094 .672 .109
Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
Items Items Name
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q6 TS4 .211 .413 .349 .264 .053 .427 -.275
Q5 TS5 .200 .394 .311 .262 .105 .403 -.235
Q35 TL1 .178 .196 .048 .203 .000 .298 .614
Q34 TL2 .101 .232 .405 .131 -.036 .345 .549
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
Seven factors were identified as employee engagement determinant after the
analysis, which contributed to 68.9% of the total variance. It can be said that if these
employee engagement determinant are taken care of, it would cause a 68.9%
increase in engagement of retail employees. All these factors are detailed in table 4.5
below. Table contains the eigen values and extraction sums of squared loading
which helped in determining the variance caused. Accordingly, the extracted factors
were labeled and used for further analysis.
Table 4.5 Total Variance of Seven Factors Which Were Extracted
Total Variance Explained

Rotation Sums of
Initial Eigen values
Squared Loadings
Component
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Total Total
Variance % Variance %
1 14.972 39.400 39.400 6.866 18.068 18.068
2 4.036 10.622 50.023 5.270 13.869 31.938
3 1.772 4.662 54.685 3.965 10.435 42.373
4 1.661 4.372 59.056 3.150 8.290 50.663
5 1.474 3.880 62.936 2.710 7.132 57.795
6 1.209 3.181 66.117 2.579 6.787 64.581
7 1.055 2.775 68.893 1.638 4.311 68.893
8 .955 2.514 71.407
9 .895 2.354 73.761

Rotation Sums of
Squared Loadings
Component
Total Total
10 .863 2.270 76.031
11 .685 1.803 77.835
12 .640 1.684 79.519
13 .611 1.609 81.128
14 .562 1.478 82.606
15 .542 1.428 84.033
16 .510 1.343 85.376
17 .478 1.258 86.635
18 .453 1.192 87.827
19 .398 1.047 88.874
20 .383 1.008 89.882
21 .362 .953 90.835
22 .352 .926 91.761
23 .309 .812 92.573
24 .301 .792 93.365
25 .271 .714 94.078
26 .252 .663 94.741
27 .247 .650 95.391
28 .220 .579 95.970
29 .208 .546 96.516
30 .196 .516 97.033
31 .189 .497 97.529
32 .168 .443 97.972
33 .147 .387 98.359

Rotation Sums of
Squared Loadings
Component
Total Total
34 .139 .365 98.725
35 .129 .340 99.064
36 .127 .333 99.397
37 .120 .317 99.714
38 .109 .286 100.00
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Further, to comprehend the results, a scree plot was drawn to understand the
factors which would majorly affect the engagement so that inferences and
suggestions could be drawn out of the research work. As can be seen from the figure
4.1 of the scree plot, from the slop of the curve seven factors were leveled out.
Figure 4.1 Scree Plot on The Basis of Eigen Values

Total seven factors were extracted, as per the variance caused by them and
their loadings are presented in the table 4.6 along with the name of each factor.
Table 4.6: Showing Factor Analysis for Items of Engagement Determinants
Eigen Value
S.
Factor Name % Cumulative Variance Variables Converged Loadings
No. Total
Variance (%)
Supervisor’s feedback on performance. .796

Supervisor understands problems and needs. .789
Supervisor is flexible to accomplish job objectives. .789

Supervisor supports ideas and ways of getting things done. .780
Supervisor Supervisor strongly consider goals and values. .758

1. 6.866 18.068 18.068
Role Supervisor gives sufficient information about work goals. .712
Supervisor is personally inclined to solve problems related to work. .701

Supervisor really cares about well-being. .674
Supervisor and employee are well suited for each other. .672
Supervisor considers suggestion for change. .628
2. Work 5.270 13.869 31.938 Feel like an important team member. .825
Environment
Work environment at company is good. .818
Treated with respect by co-workers, supervisor and management. .808
Top management commits resources to maintaining and improving the quality

.804
of work.
Eigen Value
S.
No. Total
Variance (%)
Recognize and appreciate high quality work and service. .798

Team members are adequately trained. .791
Feedback is an important part of communication. .750
Can tell supervisor what employee think without getting into trouble. .710
Providing a clear company vision for the future .687
3. Communication 3.965 10.435 42.373
Supervisor keeps well informed. .640
Upper management effectively communicate the plan to all employees. .512
Understand team's goals. .501
Concerns expressed during previous employee surveys are being addressed. .815
Appraisal Opportunities for advancement at company. .799

4. 3.150 8.290 50.663
Process Supervisor has supported development plan. .718
Feedback received was appropriate. .684
Good opportunities for salary increase. .791
Pay and
5. 2.710 7.132 57.795 Benefits are competitive. .756
Benefits
Total compensation is competitive. .740
6. Time 2.579 6.787 64.581 Ability to change schedule when family or personal business to take care of. .714
Scheduling
People are willing to swap hours or cover when need to take time off for a .685
Eigen Value
S.
No. Total
Variance (%)
personal or family matter.
Ability to modify schedule, when an unexpected personal or family matter
.672
arises.
Transformational Supervisor treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages development. .614
7. 1.638 4.311 68.893
Leadership Supervisor fosters trust, involvement and cooperation among team members. .549
Data Analysis and Interpretation
4.4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Going further in the analysis was by measuring discriminant validity of measures or
construct or factors or determinants obtained after exploratory factor analysis by performing
confirmatory factor analysis and results of this are shown in a correlation matrix. The concept of
discriminant validity was given by Campbell & Fiske (1959)22 within their debate on evaluating
test validity. Psychologist practices discriminant validity tests to identify the constructs that
should have no relationship rather, not have any relationship. A successful estimation of
discriminant validity demonstrates that items of a construct are not highly correlated with other
items designed to measure theoretically different constructs.
In the present research study, to further confirm the factors obtained after PCA,
confirmatory factor analysis, with the help of SPSS Amos 22 software was performed.
Confirmatory factor analysis is a distinct form of factor analysis, primarily used in social research
(Kline, 201123). The objective of confirmatory factor analysis is to measure that the data fit the
hypothesized measurement model or not. In other words, confirmatory factor analysis is a
statistical technique, which allows researcher to test the hypothesis that a relationship among the
observed variables and their basic latent constructs exists or not (Suhr, 200624). Structural
equation modelling’s software was used for performing CFA. For this purpose, CFA model was
prepared. CFA models are often referred as 'the measurement model' in the situation of structural
equation model, while the relation of latent variables with each other (that are shown with
directed arrows) are called 'the structural model'. The CFA model for the study is shown in figure
4.2.
Figure 4.2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis

First, the CFA model was built with 7 latent constructs and 38 measures to analyze that
models fits the data well or not. In the second step, the items with more standardized residual
covariance values were removed as these were not significantly contributing in increasing the
fitness of the model. These items were SUP7, SUP8, SUP9, SUP10, COM5, COM6, PB4, PB5,
TS4 and TS5. Out of these PB4, PB5, TS4 and TS5 were the same items, loaded with lower
values in the table 4.3 resulted after exploratory factor analysis by the extraction method of PCA.
Further, to increase the model fitness and to minimize the error, the highly loaded error values of
same construct were combined. These are depicted in CFA model figure 4.2.
The final CFA model comes up with 7 latent constructs and 28 items. To evaluate model
fit absolute fit indices were used (McDonald & Ho 200225), these absolute fit indices include,
however they were not limited to, the Chi-Squared test, GFI (Goodness of Fit Index with cutoff
value of .9), AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index with cutoff value of .9), RMSEA (Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation with value ≤ .06), CFI (Comparative Fit Index with cutoff value
of .9), and RMR (Root Mean Square residual with value ≤ .05) (Baumgartner & Homburg,
199626; Hooper, Coughlan & Mullen 200827; Hu & Bentler, 199928; Suhr, 200624).
The confirmatory factor analysis produced good results, such that items of the constructs
achieved discriminant validity, shown in table 4.7. The statistics for the goodness-of-fit of the
model are as follows: χ2 (478.884) with DF = 322, p = .000, GFI = .902, AGFI = .877, RMSEA =
.040, CFI = .974, RMR = .041. Table 4.8 brings confirmatory factor analysis results and displays
the standardized regression weights, variance errors and t-values with mean and standard
deviation of individual items and composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE)
calculated from CFA results. Composite Reliability, we have discussed earlier in reliability
section. AVE is the variance in the indicators explained by the common factor or in another
word, represents the ratio of the total variance due to latent variable. AVE value varies from 0 to
1 and above 0.5 is treated an indication of good convergent validity and that was attained in this
research work.
Table 4.7 Goodness-of-Fit of the Model Statistics

Absolute Fit Indices Values
χ2 478.884
DF 322
P .000
GFI .902
AGFI .877
RMSEA .040
CFI .974
RMR .041
Table 4.8 CFA Results

Std. Reg. Variance
Factors Items Mean SD t-value CR AVE
Weights Error
SUP1 2.99 1.015 0.794 0.039
SUP2 2.86 1.030 0.801 0.037 14.91
SUP3 2.91 1.042 0.837 0.034 19.247
SUP 0.9 0.63
SUP4 3.13 1.144 0.746 0.049 13.603
SUP5 3.06 1.063 0.758 0.042 13.887
SUP6 2.92 1.007 0.812 0.036 15.168
COM1 3.07 1.123 0.759 0.042
COM2 2.97 1.051 0.715 0.048 11.764
COM 0.82 0.54
COM3 3.05 .997 0.74 0.054 12.162
COM4 2.82 1.031 0.716 0.049 11.771
APP1 3.02 1.078 0.818 0.044
APP2 3.06 1.138 0.724 0.049 18.549
APP 0.86 0.62
APP3 3.28 .972 0.878 0.041 16.01
APP4 2.94 1.077 0.712 0.05 12.946
PB1 3.26 1.044 0.915 0.026
PB PB2 3.10 1.087 0.902 0.025 23.408 0.92 0.79
PB3 3.07 1.068 0.847 0.031 20.746
TS1 3.02 .991 0.869 0.032
TS TS2 2.80 1.012 0.9 0.035 17.933 0.82 0.61
TS3 3.15 1.001 0.525 0.137 9.411
TL1 2.99 1.064 0.634 0.056
TL 0.73 0.59
TL2 2.85 1.011 0.88 0.065 8.897
WE WE1 2.92 1.002 0.758 0.042 0.94 0.73
WE2 2.82 1.024 0.769 0.044 22.084
WE3 2.77 1.168 0.885 0.029 16.547

WE4 3.23 .964 0.896 0.028 16.812
WE5 3.13 .895 0.902 0.028 16.828
WE6 3.20 .902 0.903 0.028 16.855
Table 4.9 shows the correlation matrix with square roots of AVE values. Correlation
matrix is a simple procedure, which shows at a glance how variables correlate with each other
and AVE values state that how much variance captured by the latent variable in a structural
equation model is shared between other variables. Square roots of each construct’s AVE values
were put diagonally on correlation matrix and the value came was greater than its correlation
coefficients with other constructs (Chin, 199829), this demonstrates that each latent variable has a
higher correlation with its items in comparison with other latent variables and confirms good
discriminant validity (Gefen, Straub & Boudreau, 200030) and in our research study this was
achieved, results are in table 4.9. As a test of discriminant validity the correlations between the
latent variables are significantly less than 1 (Bagozzi & Yi, 198831).
Table 4.9 Correlation Matrix
Correlationsb
Fat. Mean SD SUP WE COM APP PB TS TL
SUP 2.98 .859 0.80
.371**
WE 3.06 .985 .000 0.85
.466** .544**
COM 3.05 .815 .000 .000 0.73
.416** .562** .510**

APP 2.94 .893 .000 .000 .000 0.79
.621** .348** .334** .378**

PB 2.91 .953 .000 .000 .000 .000 0.89
.454** .481** .438** .404** .371**

TS 3.56 .964 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 0.78
.337** .449** .419** .395** .246** .499**

TL 3.27 .843 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 0.77
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

b. List wise N=302
4.5 Discussion of Factors of Employee Engagement

Understanding of the determinants of employee engagement for retail employees is
detailed below:
1. Supervisor Role (6.866) - This is the most important determinant of the employee
engagement emerged out after the analysis of factors in the research with a total variance
of 18%. The major elements of this factor include the feedback by supervisor (.796),
supervisor understands problems and needs (.789), supervisor is flexible to accomplish
job objectives (.789), supervisor supports ideas and ways of getting things done (.780),
supervisor considers goal and values (.758), and supervisor gives sufficient information
about work goals (.712). Supervisor’s support, feedback and a good relation is a link to
greater employee motivation and desire to be engaged in the work place (Lee, 201232;
Menguc, Auh, Fisher & Haddad, 201333; Saks, 200634; Shuck & Wollard 201035).
2. Work Environment (5.270) - This is the second most important determinant of the
employee engagement emerged out after the analysis of factors in the research with a
total variance of 13.86%. Top contributing measures in this factor include, feels like an
important team member (.825), work environment is good (.818), treated with respect
(.808), and top management commits resources (.804). Other researchers also recognized
work environment as criteria to engage and retain employees (Gill, 201236; Kennedy &
Daim 201037; Lee, 201233).
3. Communication (3.965) - This is the third most important determinant of the employee
engagement emerged out after the analysis of factors in the research with a total variance
of 10.43%. Top contributing measures in this factor include, feedback as important part
of communication (.750), can tell supervisor without getting into trouble (.710), and clear
company vision for the future (.687). Similar results echoed in other studies also of Gill,
(2012)36 and Kennedy et al., (2010)37. A clear dialog between employees and supervisor
is a way to engage them.
4. Appraisal Process (3.150) - This is the fourth most important determinant of the
employee engagement emerged out after the analysis of factors in the research with a
total variance of 8.29%. The key measures for this factor are: previous employee surveys
concerns are addressed well (.815), opportunities for advancement (.799), and supervisor
has supported development plan (.718). Gill (2012)36 also confirmed same in his study on
a service firm.
5. Pay and Benefits (2.710) - This came out as the fifth determinant of the employee
engagement after the analysis of factors in the research with a total variance of 7.13%.
The key measures of the factor are, good opportunities for salary (.791), benefits are
competitive (.756), and total compensation is competitive (.740). Similar studies by Gill
(2012)36 and Kennedy et al., (2010)37 supported the criteria.
6. Time Scheduling (2.579) - This came out as the sixth determinant of the employee
engagement after the analysis of factors in the research with a total variance of 6.78%.
The key measures of the factor are, ability to change the schedule when personal work to
take care (.714), people are willing to swap hours (.685), and ability to modify schedule
when unexpected work comes (.672). James, McKechine & Swanberg, (2011)38 in his
study on age diversified retail employees also used and supported that schedule satisfaction
is one of the important determinant for retail employees engagement.
7. Transformational Leadership (1.638) - This came out as the last determinant of the
employee engagement after the analysis of factors in the research with a total variance of
4.31%. The key measures of the factor are, supervisor supports staff, treats well and
encourages development (.614), and supervisor fosters trust, involvement and
cooperation among team members (.549). Wefald, (2008)39 in his research depicted the
relation between transformational leadership and engagement.
4.6 Employee Engagement Score

The employee engagement score is defined as “the score of the number of engaged
employees to the number of actively disengaged employee” (Gallup Inc., 201040). The Gallup
organization has done the most research in terms of measuring employee engagement. According
to the Gallup, the Consulting organization there are three different types of employees in an
organization:-
• “Engaged employees who know the desired expectations for their role so they can meet
and exceed them”.40
• “Not-engaged employees who tend to concentrate on tasks rather than the goals and
outcomes they are expected to accomplish.”40
• “Actively disengaged employees are the "cave dwellers." They are consistently against
Virtually Everything."40
According to Gallup, in average organizations, the score of engaged to actively disengaged

employees is 1.83:1. In ‘world class organizations’, the score of engaged to actively disengaged
employees is 9.57:1. However, Gallup Inc. established these limits, based on the analysis of Q12
survey questions from several organizations. In calculating the employee engagement score,
engaged employees have average rounded survey ratings of 4 or above, while unengaged
employees have average rounded survey ratings of 3 and actively disengaged employees have
average rounded survey ratings of 2 or less (Crabtree, 200441; Taylor, 200942). In current
research, below table shows the statistics of engaged, not engaged and actively disengaged
employees.
Table 4.10 Statistics of Engaged, Not-Engaged and Actively

Disengaged Employees
Employee Type Number Percentage

Engaged 66 22
Not-engaged 151 50
Actively Disengaged 85 28
Total 302 100

In current research the score of employee engagement i.e. ratio of the engaged employees
to the actively disengaged employees was 0.78. This is approx. half of the score of engaged to
actively disengaged employees of the average organizations score, given by Gallup, which is
very alarming. Below figure shows the graphical representation of the above statistics.
Figure 4.3 Employee Engagement Score
4.7 Independent Sample t-Test of Employee Engagement for Different

Work-place, Job Experience and Age
t-Tests are commonly used while making comparisons between the means of two samples
or between some standard value and the mean of one sample. In the current research work, we
are performing independent sample t-test. Independent sample t-test helps researcher in detecting
differences between the means of two independent groups, when he cannot determine the exact
value of the population mean.
Independent samples test results table depicts results of two tests – first, Levene’s Test
for Equality of Variances and second, t-test for Equality of Means. The Levene’s test shows that
to analyze the equality of the means which statistic has to consider. It tests the null hypothesis, a
small value or a big value of significance related with Levene’s test demonstrates that two
groups have unequal variance or equal variance, respectively.
4.7.1 Employee Engagement for Different Work Area

Hypothesis
H(0)1 – There is no difference on employee engagement between front-end and back-end
employees.
Front-end and back-end employees do not have much in common as front-end employees
handle store operations and directly interacts with customers, whereas, back-end employees are
responsible to provide support to front-end staff members in all areas e.g. human resources,
marketing, finance, IT, supply chain etc. To compare the engagement level of the retail
employees working in the front and back end department of retail company, the mean score of
each retail employee was taken and an independent sample t-test was applied. Below table
represents the descriptive statistics for the two groups.
Table 4.11 Descriptive Statistics of Work Area Employees
Group Working Area No. of Employees
1 Front-End 161
2 Back-End 141
Table 4.12 Group Statistics of Work Area Employees
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
1 161 33.40 7.942 .626

Score
2 141 36.02 9.424 .794
The table 4.12 displays group statistics, the sample size, mean, standard deviation, and
standard error for both groups. On average, the engagement of retail employees in both front-end
and back-end looked similar in the comparison groups, and they vary little around their average.
Table - 4.13 Test Results of Work Area Employees

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
Motivation F Sig. T Df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence
(2-tailed) diff. diff. Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances 6.680 .010 -2.625 300 .009 -2.624 .999 -4.591 -.657
assumed
Equal variances -2.596 275.178 .010 -2.624 1.011 -4.614 -.634
not assumed
Independent sample t-test was applied. The significance value of the Levene’s test
statistic was 0.010 (less than .05). A small value of significance of Levene’s test indicates that
two groups have unequal variances.
The t-test result displays t statistic of -2.596 with 275.178 degrees of freedom. The
corresponding, 2-tailed ρ-value was 0.010, which was less than 0.05. Hence, the null hypothesis
was rejected at 5% significance level. It signified that there was a statistically significant
variance in employee engagement for front-end and back-end employees. Since, group statistics
box revealed that the mean for the back-end employees was greater than the mean for the front-
end employees so, it could be concluded that back-end employees were relatively more engaged
than front-end employees. Below graph delivers a one point location to compare the means for
front-end and back-end employees with statistically significant values.
Figure 4.4 Graphical Representation of t-Test Results for Front-end

& Back-end Employees
4.7.2 Employee Engagement for Different Years of Job Experience

Hypothesis
H(0)2 – There is no difference on employee engagement on the basis of different years of job
experience of employees.
To compare the engagement level of the retail employees having different years of job
experience, three groups were made of different years of job experience. Each group was
compared and analyzed with other group. The mean score of each retail employee was taken and
an independent sample t-test was applied. Descriptive statistics of three group are shown in table
below:
Table 4.14 Descriptive Statistics of Different Job Experience Employees
Group Job Experience No. of Employees Name
1 Less than a year – 3 years 94 Emerging adults
2 4 – 10 years 125 Settling-in adults
3 11 years – Above 83 Prime-working years
Group 1 and Group 2
Table 4.15 Group Statistics of Group 1 & 2 (Job Experience)

1 94 27.90 7.935 .818

Score
2 125 34.63 5.574 .499
standard error for both groups. Engagement level of retail employees in two different job
experience groups varies, thus the groups vary around their average.
Table 4.16 Test Results of Group 1 & 2 (Job Experience)

Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
2.858 .092 -7.367 217 .000 -6.728 .913 -8.528 -4.928
assumed
Equal variances
-7.020 158.463 .000 -6.728 .958 -8.621 -4.835
not assumed
statistic was 0.092 (more than .05). A big value of significance of Levene’s test indicates that
two groups have equal variances.
The t-test result displays t statistic of -7.367 with 217 degrees of freedom. The
corresponding, 2-tailed ρ-value was 0.000, which is less than 0.05. It signifies that there was a
statistically significant variance in employee engagement for emerging adults and settling-in
adults. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for job experience for emerging adults
was smaller than the mean for the settling-in adults so, it could be concluded that employees with
more job experience were relatively more engaged than lesser job experience employees.
Group 2 and Group 3

1 125 34.63 5.574 .499
Score
2 83 42.22 7.245 .795

Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances 4.674 .032 -8.513 206 .000 -7.585 .891 -9.341 -5.828
assumed
Equal variances -8.081 144.383 .000 -7.585 .939 -9.440 -5.730
not assumed
statistic was 0.032 (less than .05). A smaller value of significance of Levene’s test indicates that
two groups have unequal variances.
The t-test result displays t statistic of -8.081 with 144.383 degrees of freedom. The
corresponding, 2-tailed ρ-value was 0.000, which was less than 0.05. It signifies that there was a
statistically significant variance in employee engagement for settling-in adults and adults with
prime-working years of job experience. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for
settling-in adults was smaller than the mean for adults with prime-working years of job
experience employees so, it could be concluded that employees with more job experience were
relatively more engaged than lesser job experience employees.
Group 1 and Group 3
1 94 27.90 7.935 .818

Score
2 83 42.22 7.245 .795
experience groups varies significantly, thus the groups vary largely around their average.
Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances .056 .813 12.471 175 .000 14.313 1.148 12.048 16.578
assumed
Equal variances 12.542 174.796 .000 14.313 1.141 12.060 16.565
not assumed
statistic was 0.813 (more than .05). A higher value of significance of Levene’s test indicates that
The t-test result displays t statistic of 12.471 with 175 degrees of freedom. The
statistically significant difference in employee engagement for emerging adults and adults with
prime-working years of job experience. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for
emerging adults was smaller than the prime-working years of job experience employees so, it
could be concluded that employees with more job experience were relatively more engaged than
lesser job experience employees.
Hence, the null hypothesis was rejected at the 5% significance level. Below graph
delivers a one point location to compare the means for different job experience groups with
statistically significant values.
Figure 4.5: Graphical Representation of t-test Results for Employees

with Different Years of Job Experience
4.7.3 Employee Engagement for Different Age of Employees

Hypothesis
H(0)3 – There is no difference on employee engagement on the basis of different age of
employees.
To compare the engagement level of the retail employees having different age, three
groups were made of different years of age. Each group is compared and analyzed with other
group. The mean score of each retail employee was taken and an independent sample t-test was
applied. Descriptive statistics of three group are shown in table below:
Table 4.21 Descriptive Statistics of Employees of Different Age
Group Age No. of Employees Name
1 20 years and below – 25 years 94 Emerging adults

2 26 – 35 years 125 Settling-in adults
3 36 years – Above 83 Prime-working years

Group 1 and Group 2
Table 4.22 Group Statistics of Group 1 & 2 (Age)
1 94 28.45 7.768 .801

Score
2 125 34.33 6.223 .557
Table 4.23 Test Results of Group 1 & 2 (Age)

Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances 1.212 .272 -6.219 217 .000 -5.881 .946 -7.745 -4.017
assumed
Equal variances -6.029 174.027 .000 -5.881 .976 -7.807 -3.956
not assumed
statistically significant variance in employee engagement for emerging adults and settling-in
adults. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for emerging adults was smaller than the
mean for settling-in adults so, it could be concluded that employees with more age are relatively
more engaged than younger employees.
Group 2 and Group 3

1 125 34.33 6.223 .557
Score
2 83 42.06 7.361 .808
experience groups varies, thus the groups vary little around their average.

Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances 2.660 .104 -8.152 206 .000 -7.732 .949 -9.602 -5.862
assumed
Equal variances -7.881 155.1843 .000 -7.732 .981 -9.670 -5.794
not assumed
statistically significant variance in employee engagement for settling-in adults and adults with
prime-working years. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for settling-in adults was
smaller than the mean for adults with prime-working years so, it could be concluded that
employees with more age are relatively more engaged than younger employees.
Group 1 and Group 3

1 94 28.45 7.768 .801
Score
2 83 42.06 7.361 .808
experience groups varies significantly, thus the groups vary largely around their average.

Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances .149 .700 -11.924 175 .000 -13.613 1.142 -15.867 -11.360
assumed
Equal variances -11.964 174.112 .000 -13.613 1.138 -15.859 -11.368
not assumed
statistically significant variance in employee engagement for emerging adults and adults with
prime-working years. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for emerging adults was
smaller than the mean for adults with prime-working years so, it could be concluded that
employees with more age are relatively more engaged than younger employees.
Hence, the null hypothesis was rejected at the 5% significance level. Below graph
delivers a one point location to compare the means for different age groups with statistically
significant values.
Figure 4.6 Graphical Representation of t-test Results for

Employees with Different Age
REFERENCES
1. Tukey, J. W. (1962). The future of data analysis. The Annals of Mathematical

Statistics, 33(1), 1-67.
2. November, 20, 2015 Retrieved from http://wilderdom.com/courses/survey

research/assessment/ labreport/QualitativeAnalysis.html
3. Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher: A qualitative
introduction to school-based research. Psychology Press.
4. Bruton, A., Conway, J. H., & Holgate, S. T. (2000). Reliability: what is it, and how is it
measured?. Physiotherapy, 86(2), 94-99.
5. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford.
6. Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1988). Focused tests of significance and effect size
estimation in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35(2), 203.
7. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, Design and Analysis: An
Integrated Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
8. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory.
9. Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates:
Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological measurement, 34(1), 25-
33.
10. Chin, W. W. (1998) "Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling," MIS
Quarterly (22)1, March, pp. vii-xvi.
11. Fornell, C. and D. Larcker (1981) "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research (18)1,
pp. 39-50.
12. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3) McGraw-Hill. New
York.
13. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2007). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont,
CA: Thompson Learning.Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. 1988……pg 34
14. Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall Regents.
15. Cronbach, L. J.; Meehl, P.E. (1955). "Construct Validity in Psychological Tests".
Psychological Bulletin 52 (4):281302. doi:10.1037/h0040957. PMID 13245896.
16. Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators

Research, 45(1-3), 35-44.
17. Habing, B. (2003). Exploratory Factor Analysis. Website: http://www.stat.sc.

edu/~habing/courses/530EFA.pdf (accessed 10 May 2004).
18. Norris, M., & Lecavalier, L. (2010). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in
developmental disability psychological research. Journal of autism and developmental
disorders, 40(1), 8-20.
19. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
20. Fidel, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows.
21. Hair, J. F. (2010). Multivariate data analysis.
22. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56(2), 81.
23. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford
press.
24. Suhr, D. D. (2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis? (pp. 200-231). Cary:
SAS Institute.
25. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural
equation analyses. Psychological methods, 7(1), 64.
26. Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in
marketing and consumer research: a review. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.
27. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines
for determining model fit. Articles, 2.
28. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
29. Chin, W. W. (1998) "Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling," MIS
Quarterly (22)1, March, pp. vii-xvi.
30. Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and
regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the association for
information systems, 4(1), 7.
31. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
32. Lee, J. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement: empirical study
of hotel employees and managers (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University).
33. Menguc, B., Auh, S., Fisher, M., & Haddad, A. (2013). To be engaged or not to be
engaged: The antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. Journal of
business research, 66(11), 2163-2170.
34. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of

managerial psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
35. Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of
the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.
36. Gill, P. S. (2012). An investigation of employee engagement and business outcomes at an

engineering services firm.
37. Kennedy, E., & Daim, T. U. (2010). A strategy to assist management in workforce
engagement and employee retention in the high tech engineering
environment. Evaluation and program planning, 33(4), 468-476.
38. James, J. B., McKechnie, S., & Swanberg, J. (2011). Predicting employee engagement in
an age‐diverse retail workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 173-196.
39. Wefald, A. J. (2008). An examination of job engagement, transformational leadership,

and related psychological constructs. ProQuest.
40. November, 20, 2015 Retrieved from https://blog.questionpro.com/2009/12/ do-engaged-

employees-make-for-profitable-companys-try-the-gallup-q12/
41. Crabtree, S. (2004). Getting personal in the workplace. Gallup Management Journal.
Retrieved from http://gmj.gallup.com/content/11956/Getting-Personal-Workplace.aspx
42. Taylor, I. (2009). Do engaged employees make for profitable companys? Try the Gallup
Q12 [Web log post]. Retrieved from QuestionPro Blog:
http://blog.questionpro.com/2009/12/14/do-engaged-employees-make-forprofi table-
companys-try-the-gallup-q12/

Cfa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cfa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 4.1. Demographics

Working Area Front-end Back-end

Number 161 141

Department Name Number Name Number

Accounts & Finance 18 Marketing & PR 31

Buying 14 Logistics & Supply 14

Education High School Bachelor's Degree Master’s Degree

Number 25 102 175

4.3.1 Cronbach’s Alpha

Table 4.2 Corrected Item Total Correlation, Cronbach’s Alpha and

Corrected Item Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha

Q10 .653 .893

Q11 .699 .891

Q12 .626 .894

Engagement Item 1 .686 .963 .961

Item3 .604 .962

Item4 .601 .962

Item5 .621 .962

Item6 .645 .962

Item7 .635 .962

Item8 .685 .961

Item9 .661 .961

Item10 .636 .962

Corrected Item Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha

Item11 .668 .961

Item12 .639 .962

Item13 .612 .962

Item14 .615 .962

Item15 .580 .962

Item16 .620 .962

Item17 .611 .962

Item18 .627 .962

Item19 .552 .962

Item20 .522 .962

Item21 .548 .962

Item22 .739 .961

Item23 .649 .962

Item24 .640 .962

Item25 .564 .962

Item26 .559 .962

Item27 .602 .962

Item28 .575 .962

Item29 .587 .962

Item30 .696 .961

Item31 .722 .961

Item32 .724 .961

Item33 .652 .961

Item34 .580 .962

Corrected Item Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha

Item35 .634 .962

Item36 .559 .962

Item37 .555 .962

Item38 .577 .962

4.3.2 Composite Reliability

4.4 Validity Measurement of Employee Engagement

KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Table 4.3 KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .937

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 8655.881

Hair, (2010)21 elucidated that PCA is performed for following reasons:

factor or determinants of employee engagement were reduced to 34 items in 7 factors.

Table 4.4 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis

.416 .562 .510**

.621 .348 .334 .378

.454 .481 .438 .404 .371**

.337 .449 .419 .395 .246 .499