Table 3

Reflective measurement model: reliability and validity

ConstructIndicatorsMeanSDCAρCρAAVE
ABS service compatibility (ABS_COMP)33.7680.1760.8860.9300.8950.815
ABS service loyalty (ABS_LOY)a23.8141.1220.7430.8840.7990.792
Attitude to. ownership (ATT_OWN)44.0970.3940.7680.8520.7710.590
Product purchase intention (PURC_INT)32.4290.5050.9040.9390.9370.837
Control: satisfaction (SAT)45.0270.0830.8830.9190.8830.740

Note(s): The constructs were assessed using CA = the standardized Cronbach’s alpha (a reliability measure limited by the assumption that all indicators are equally reliable); ρC = the composite coefficient (a reliability measure prioritizing indicators according to their individual reliability and most suited to PLS-SEM); ρA = the approximately exact (or consistent) coefficient (a reliability measure considered a good compromise, as it lies between CA and ρC); and AVE = the average variance extracted (convergent validity). In addition, discriminant validity was established based on the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratios, which are all below 0.7, and the confidence intervals (estimated using the bootstrapping procedure) exclude 1 (see Appendix B). There are no multicollinearity issues, such as common method bias, to report (see Appendix C)

a

A third indicator, “I would complain to others if I experienced problems with the e-scooter company” intended to measure the complaining dimension of ABS Loyalty was removed in the purification stage of the analysis due to an outer loading below the 0.7 threshold measure for construct validity

Source(s): The above table was created by the authors

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal