Measures and CFA results
| Construct | Measurement items | Standardized factor loadinga | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived product quality1 (sneakers “Made in Italy”) | 0.900 | 0.694 | ||
| Please rate the sneaker | ||||
| Poor workmanship – excellent workmanshipb | 0.812 | |||
| Not durable – very durableb | 0.823 | |||
| Not reliable – very reliableb | 0.869 | |||
| Poor quality – excellent qualityb | 0.826 | |||
| Perceived product quality1 (sneakers “Made in Germany”) | 0.930 | 0.768 | ||
| Please rate the sneaker | ||||
| Poor workmanship – excellent workmanshipb | 0.869 | |||
| Not durable – very durableb | 0.886 | |||
| Not reliable – very reliableb | 0.890 | |||
| Poor quality – excellent qualityb | 0.859 | |||
| Construct | Measurement items | Standardized factor loadinga | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived product quality1 (sneakers “Made in Italy”) | 0.900 | 0.694 | ||
| Poor workmanship – excellent workmanshipb | 0.812 | |||
| Not durable – very durableb | 0.823 | |||
| Not reliable – very reliableb | 0.869 | |||
| Poor quality – excellent qualityb | 0.826 | |||
| Perceived product quality1 (sneakers “Made in Germany”) | 0.930 | 0.768 | ||
| Poor workmanship – excellent workmanshipb | 0.869 | |||
| Not durable – very durableb | 0.886 | |||
| Not reliable – very reliableb | 0.890 | |||
| Poor quality – excellent qualityb | 0.859 | |||
Note(s): 1 Chao (1998), Dodds et al. (1991); a all significant at p < 0.001; b seven-point, bipolar semantic differential scale
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.