• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Examining the data is an essential step before starting the analysis since biases, outliers, or missing values can lead to violation of the multivariate analysis assumptions and consequently might lead to insignificant results or biases (Hair, et al., 2010).

4.1.1 Data Screening and Checking and Replacing Missing Values

First, data screening means that the research should ensure that the data are clean and ready to be used before conducting further analysis. Any data that might lead to biases, for example, responses answering all (1) strongly disagree or all (5) strongly agree, mainly when the questionnaire contains a negative question; this might demonstrate that the respondents did not read the items thoroughly before answering. Furthermore, the inconsistency in answers for the items within one dimension was also screened; these two screening steps were followed as a proactive approach to eliminate the possibility that the

134

respondents answered the question randomly. The following Table (14) indicates the number of questionnaires that contain answers with all 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 to this criterion and that were removed from any further analysis.

Table 14:Data screening, detecting valid answers Type of answer Number Respondents

All 5 21 8,44,65,72,73,91,92,113,144,145,213,221,

226,267,307,310,320,356,369,371,377

All 4 8 120,122,219,252,316,319,329,430

All 3 1 182

All 2 0 -

All 1 0 -

Total 30

Second, missing values are defined as the unavailable valid value of one or more items and can lead to reducing the sample size and affect the data generalizability; some cases might lead to biased results (Hair, et al., 2010). In this research, no missing data were found since the questionnaire was distributed using an online platform with an option to make it mandatory for the respondent to answer all the questions; otherwise, the questionnaire will not be submitted. Nonetheless, to confirm this, descriptive statistics and frequency tests were run on the SPSS in order to confirm the absence of missing data. The results are provided in Table (15).

Table 15: Data screening, Missing Data analysis item

N Minimu

m

Maximu

m item

N Minimu

m

Maximu Vali m

d

Missin g

Vali d

Missin g CSA1

401 0 1 5 EPHY

1

401 0 1 5

CSA2

401 0 1 5 EPHY

2

401 0 1 5

CSA3

401 0 1 5 EPHY

3

401 0 1 5

CSA4

401 0 1 5 EPHY

4

401 0 1 5

DPO1

401 0 1 5 EPHY

5

401 0 1 5

DPO2 401 0 1 5 TP1 401 0 1 5

DPO3 401 0 1 5 TP2 401 0 1 5

135

DPO4 401 0 1 5 TP3 401 0 1 5

DPO5 401 0 1 5 TP4 401 0 1 5

DPO6 401 0 1 5 TP5 401 0 1 5

LIP1

401 0 1 5 CtextP

1

401 0 1 5

LIP2

401 0 1 5 CtextP

2

401 0 1 5

LIP3

401 0 1 5 CtextP

3

401 0 1 5

LIP4

401 0 1 5 CtextP

4

401 0 1 5

LIP5

401 0 1 5 CtextP

5

401 0 1 5

LIP6

401 0 1 5 CtextP

6

401 0 1 5

ECOG 1

401 0 1 5 CtextP

7

401 0 1 5

ECOG 2

401 0 1 5 CtextP

8

401 0 1 5

ECOG 3

401 0 1 5 Count

P1

401 0 1 5

ECOG 4

401 0 1 5 Count

P2

401 0 1 5

EEMO 1

401 0 1 5 Count

P3

401 0 1 5

EEMO 2

401 0 1 5 Count

P4

401 0 1 5

EEMO 3

401 0 1 5 Count

P5

401 0 1 5

EEMO 4

401 0 1 5

No missing data were found

As can be seen from the previous Tables (14 and 15), the analysis start with 431 respondent it was reduced to 401 after screening the responses. Accordingly, all the following tests have used the 401 valid responses.

4.1.2 Negatively Worded Items

All answers to the reversed questions were studied and reversed to fit with the normal questionnaire items. In this research, four negatively worded questions were found in the Employee Engagement questionnaire, as shown in the following Table (16):

Table 16: Negatively worded Items

Item Wording

ECOG2 I often think about other things when performing my job. (r)

136

EEMO3 I often feel emotionally detached from my job. (r) EPHY3 I avoid working overtime whenever possible. (r) EPHY5 I avoid working too hard. (r)

Since this is a (5) point Likert scale questionnaire, the answers were studied, and the responses were reversed. Answers with (5) were reversed to (1, 4 to 2) and vice versa;

nonetheless, (3) remained the same.

4.1.3 Test of Outliers

Outliers are responses with unique combinations of answers that may be distinguished from other responses by their high or low observations for one or more items (Hair, et al., 2010).

It is observations that do not adhere to a pattern similar to most of the data (Rousseeuw &

Van Zomeren, 1990). According to Hair et al. (2010), outliers might obviously affect statistical analysis; however, they should be assessed within the context.

The outlier detection can be in three forms, univariate, bivariate or multivariate. In univariate outlier detection, each item of the questionnaire should be examined, either by using graphical methods such as box and plot or by standardising the answers and comparing them against cut points (Hair, et al., 2010). Usually, the cut point is (-+1.95), which is the Z value for (95%) confidence intervals. In bivariate outlier detection, the variables are paired, and a scatter plot is detected. Finally, in multivariate outlier detection, several variables in the research are tested to find their outliers in a combined manner. In another way, the outliers are calculated concerning the research variables combined. It should be noted that responses classified as outliers in one test are not necessarily an outlier in another test.

Usually, for multivariate tests, multivariate outliers should be detected. Three tests can be used to detect the multivariate outlier: Cook's, Leverage or Mahalanobis distance; the latter are the most commonly used method (Garson, 2012).

137

The Mahalanobis distance can be calculated in SPSS and AMOS. In SPSS, the variables are aggregated and tested in a regressing test where the Mahalanobis distance is calculated. The value is then converted to Chi2- probability distribution, and any value less than (0.001) will be removed (Hair, et al., 2010). While in AMOS, all the variables with their observable items are introduced in AMOS, and the Mahalanobis distance is produced by the programme, the same cut point can be used as SPSS. However, the outliers should be studied within the context and how they might affect the mean of the items to decide on omitting them. The following Table (17) presents the responses IDs (Top 20) and the P-value for the Mahalanobis test.

Table 17:Outlier Detection

ID Mahalanobis p-value

387 1.17296 0.0010756

46 1.36918 0.0019941

124 1.42942 0.0023627

374 1.45942 0.0025632

96 1.47435 0.0026674

337 1.55335 0.0032687

227 1.66875 0.0043094

49 1.70252 0.0046529

370 1.78306 0.0055477

348 1.79239 0.0056586

79 1.80985 0.00587

155 1.91307 0.0072312

189 1.92445 0.0073933

256 2.02207 0.0088862

11 2.0484 0.0093211

355 2.22406 0.0125913

281 2.24274 0.0129783

135 2.24829 0.0130947

35 2.32535 0.0147824

101 2.33252 0.0149463

As can be seen from Table (17), no outliers were detected; all the P-values for the Mahalanobis distance were higher than the cut point (0.001). As a result, (401) valid responses will be used.

4.1.4 Common Method Variance

138

This research follows a self-reported method to collect the data from the designated sample.

Accordingly, this may lead to the risk of common method Variance (CMV). Collecting data from a single respondent for more than one item might create correlations between the items (Podsakoff, et al., 1990). Corrective measures such as statistical and post Hoc remedies can be used to avoid the common method variance issue.

Harman's single factor test is one of the most used approaches to detect CMV (Fuller, et al., 2016). In the test, it is assumed that if CMV exist, a single factor (component) will be responsible for more than (50%) of the variance. This can be detected using an exploratory factor analysis test that includes all the questionnaires in none rotated factor analysis with a principal component analysis in order to produce a variance table (Fuller, et al., 2016). Table (18) provides the results of the CMV test.

Table 18: Common Method Variance Test

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % Of

Variance

Cumulative % Total % Of Variance

Cumulative %

1 15.954 33.946 33.946 15.954 33.946 33.946

2 4.129 8.786 42.732 4.129 8.786 42.732

3 2.988 6.358 49.090 2.988 6.358 49.090

4 2.150 4.575 53.664 2.150 4.575 53.664

5 1.817 3.866 57.531 1.817 3.866 57.531

6 1.510 3.214 60.745 1.510 3.214 60.745

7 1.363 2.900 63.645 1.363 2.900 63.645

8 1.198 2.550 66.194 1.198 2.550 66.194

9 1.068 2.273 68.468 1.068 2.273 68.468

10 1.005 2.138 70.606 1.005 2.138 70.606

11 .846 1.801 72.407

12 .758 1.614 74.021

13 .734 1.561 75.582

14 .690 1.468 77.049

15 .616 1.310 78.359

16 .607 1.291 79.650

17 .581 1.236 80.886

18 .547 1.163 82.049

19 .530 1.128 83.176

20 .507 1.079 84.255

21 .460 .980 85.235

22 .441 .938 86.173

23 .428 .910 87.083

24 .408 .867 87.950

25 .394 .838 88.788

26 .384 .817 89.605

27 .372 .791 90.396

139

28 .352 .749 91.145

29 .349 .743 91.889

30 .328 .697 92.585

31 .314 .668 93.253

32 .294 .625 93.878

33 .280 .595 94.473

34 .266 .566 95.039

35 .253 .538 95.576

36 .240 .510 96.086

37 .231 .492 96.578

38 .219 .467 97.045

39 .196 .417 97.462

40 .187 .397 97.859

41 .178 .379 98.238

42 .168 .357 98.595

43 .157 .334 98.929

44 .154 .327 99.256

45 .126 .269 99.525

46 .118 .250 99.775

47 .106 .225 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

As can be seen in Table (18), introducing all the questionnaire items in an unrotated factor analysis resulted in (47) components, (10) components having Eigenvalues higher than (1), which have a Cumulative variance of (70.606%). Nevertheless, one component is responsible for (33.946%) of the variance, less than (50%); hence, according to Harman's single factor test, the CMV issue was not detected.