Table A1. Priors testing Path β...

Table A1.

Priors testing

Path	β	Precision as γ (0.01,0.01)		Without priors
Path	β	β	Relative bias (%)	β	Relative bias (%)
CSE → workplace creativity	0.296	0.294	−0.47	0.295	−0.11
Intrinsic motivation → workplacecreativity	0.228	0.227	−0.32	0.227	−0.63
LGO → workplace creativity	0.392	0.391	−0.25	0.404	3.09
POSfC → workplace creativity	0.024	0.024	2.12	0.024	−0.64
LGO → CSE	0.533	0.523	−1.79	0.541	1.51
POSfC → CSE	0.161	0.162	0.92	0.162	1.01
POSfC → intrinsic motivation	0.152	0.150	−1.34	0.152	0.26
POSfC → LGO	0.089	0.087	−2.04	0.088	−1.28
Intrinsic motivation → LGO	0.237	0.238	0.17	0.237	−0.14

Path	β	Precision as γ (0.01,0.01)		Without priors
Path	β	β	Relative bias (%)	β	Relative bias (%)
CSE → workplace creativity	0.296	0.294	−0.47	0.295	−0.11
Intrinsic motivation → workplacecreativity	0.228	0.227	−0.32	0.227	−0.63
LGO → workplace creativity	0.392	0.391	−0.25	0.404	3.09
POSfC → workplace creativity	0.024	0.024	2.12	0.024	−0.64
LGO → CSE	0.533	0.523	−1.79	0.541	1.51
POSfC → CSE	0.161	0.162	0.92	0.162	1.01
POSfC → intrinsic motivation	0.152	0.150	−1.34	0.152	0.26
POSfC → LGO	0.089	0.087	−2.04	0.088	−1.28
Intrinsic motivation → LGO	0.237	0.238	0.17	0.237	−0.14

Note(s):

The potential impact of priors on the parameter estimates is examined by comparing the results from the original proposed model against the alternative model specifications using when different variant priors and non-informative priors

Source(s): Authors’ own work

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable