Once four factors-solution has been decided, the researcher did rerun the EFA with the PCA. When examining the interAs examined the variance explained by each factor (see Table 4), Factor 1 accounts for 20.8 % of the total variance; Factor 2 accounts for 15.2% of the total variance; Factors 3 accounts for 12.9% of the total variance; and, Factor 4 accounts for 9.8 % of the total variance in the items after rotation. Also note that four-factor solution has accounted for 58.84 % of the total variance (15.298766/26 = 0.5884). Finally, the matrix of inter-factor correlations (Table 5) shows that the factors are substantially correlated with each other. The inter-factor correlations range between 0.13 and 0.43.-item correlation matrix, the data
…show more content…
As seen in Table 6, reliability analysis for four factors revealed Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.92 for Factor 1; 0.85 for Factor 2; 0.82 for Factor 3; and, 0.77 for Factor 4. All of factors in turn yielded high levels internal consistency reliability. Also, the overall internal consistency reliability of all of four subscales was 0.91, which proves a very high level of internal consistency reliability.
Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Method
A total of 348 undergraduate and graduate students were recruited from various campuses in one of the eastern United states universities. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire extracted from the exploratory factor analysis, including 26 items, through an anonymous online survey.
Results
A confirmatory factor analysis was completed to examine the construct validity of the fear of failure in learning scale. For structural equating modeling (SEM), maximum likelihood method was adopted. Prior to CFA, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity were replicated among the extracted four factors and 26 items. As a result, the KMO measure of sampling adequacy was .928, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 4970.720 (p = .00) at significance level .01. Thus, it could be interpreted as fit for factor
As seen in Table 6, reliability analysis for four factors revealed Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.92 for Factor 1; 0.85 for Factor 2; 0.82 for Factor 3; and, 0.77 for Factor 4. All of factors in turn yielded high levels internal consistency reliability. Also, the overall internal consistency reliability of all of four subscales was 0.91, which proves a very high level of internal consistency reliability.
Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Method
A total of 348 undergraduate and graduate students were recruited from various campuses in one of the eastern United states universities. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire extracted from the exploratory factor analysis, including 26 items, through an anonymous online survey.
Results
A confirmatory factor analysis was completed to examine the construct validity of the fear of failure in learning scale. For structural equating modeling (SEM), maximum likelihood method was adopted. Prior to CFA, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity were replicated among the extracted four factors and 26 items. As a result, the KMO measure of sampling adequacy was .928, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 4970.720 (p = .00) at significance level .01. Thus, it could be interpreted as fit for factor