Table 9. Evaluation of the specific... | Emerald Publishing

Table 9.

Evaluation of the specific indirect effects in the structural model

Indirect paths	Hypothesis tested	Specific indirect effects	p-value	95% confidence interval
Strategy deliberation → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H1a	0.048	0.084	[0.012, 0.109]
Strategy deliberation → acc. involvement in strategy → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H2a	0.015	0.120	[0.001, 0.039]
Market orientation → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H1b	0.030	0.153	[−0.004, 0.076]
Market orientation → acc. involvement in strategy → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H2b	0.000	0.988	[−0.016, 0.019]
Nonfinancial priorities → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H1c	0.063	0.051	[0.023, 0.135]
Nonfinancial priorities → acc. involvement in strategy → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H2c	0.013	0.140	[0.002, 0.034]
Accountants’ involvement in strategy → managerial reliance on SMA → performance (nested path)	–	0.057	0.045	[0.019, 0.118]

Indirect paths	Hypothesis tested	Specific indirect effects	p-value	95% confidence interval
Strategy deliberation → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H1a	0.048	0.084	[0.012, 0.109]
Strategy deliberation → acc. involvement in strategy → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H2a	0.015	0.120	[0.001, 0.039]
Market orientation → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H1b	0.030	0.153	[−0.004, 0.076]
Market orientation → acc. involvement in strategy → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H2b	0.000	0.988	[−0.016, 0.019]
Nonfinancial priorities → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H1c	0.063	0.051	[0.023, 0.135]
Nonfinancial priorities → acc. involvement in strategy → managerial reliance on SMA → performance	H2c	0.013	0.140	[0.002, 0.034]
Accountants’ involvement in strategy → managerial reliance on SMA → performance (nested path)	–	0.057	0.045	[0.019, 0.118]

Note(s):

If the confidence interval does not contain zero value, the effect is statistically significant