Chapter 4th

Measurement Models
4.1 Measures
4.1.1 Operationalization and Measurement Items of Construct
4.2 Reliability and Validity of Questionnaire
4.2.1 Pilot Study
4.2.2 Reliability Test
4.2.3 Cronbach’s Alpha
4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis
4.3.1 EFA on E-service Quality
4.3.2 EFA on Customer Satisfaction
4.3.3 EFA on Repurchase Intention
4.3.4 EFA on Perceived Value
4.4 Measurement Model Assessment (Confirmatory Factor Analysis)
4.4.1 Approaches of CFA in PLS-SEM
4.4.1.1 Extended Repeated Indicator
Approach 4.4.1.2: Two Stage Approach
(a) Embedded Two Stage Approach
(b) Disjoint Two Stage Approach
4.4.2 Stage One in Path Model (For Lower Order Constructs)
4.4.2.1 Factor Loadings
4.4.2.1 Indicator Multicollinearity
4.4.2.3 Reliability Analysis
4.4.2.4 Construct Validity
4.4.2.5 Convergent Validity
4.4.2.6 Discriminant Validity
4.4.2.6(a) Fornell and Larcker Criterion
4.4.2.6(b) HTMT ratio
4.4.3 Stage Two of the Path Model (For Higher Order Construct)
4.4.3.1 Validating Higher Order Construct
4.4.3.1(a) Collinearity
4.4.3.1(b) Significance and Relevance of Outer Weights
4.4.3.1(c) Significance and Relevance of Outer Loadings.

1
This section of the thesis is devoted to ensure that a valid and reliable instrument is used
to achieve the study objectives. The chapter discusses the process by which the
questionnaires were put for reliability and validity tests. The main goal of this chapter
was to create an instrument that could (a) translate the needed information into specific
questions/items that the respondent could easily answer; (b) inspire, motivate, and
encourage the respondent to participate and complete the questionnaire; and (c) reduce
response error.

4.1 Measures

With the fast growth of business to consumer (B2C) electronic commerce, electronic
retailers understand that irrespective of their business category and product offerings, they
have to provide superior service quality over the web termed as e-service quality. Delivering
superior service quality is regarded as an important policy for business growth and survival
(Zeithaml et al. 1996, Reichheld & Schefter 2000). Companies are creating attractive
websites to interact and converse with online customers.

It takes lot of effort to comprehend e-service quality in terms of web interaction

(Aladwani & Palvia 2002; Loiacono et al. 2007). Measuring e-service quality using signs
that appears from interacting with the website were found to be inadequate and unsuitable to
evaluate the quality of the online service experience (Gilly & Wolfinbarger 2003). As per
industry analyst Data monitor, US e-retailer lost over $6.1 billion in 1999 in online sales due
to the failure of executing efficient e-service solutions (Bnet, 2000). This means that
companies efforts in delivering superior service quality lack an exact measurement tool to
identify the failing factors in their e-service delivery systems.

The electronic delivery of retail services varies in many ways from traditional ‘Brick
and mortar’. Online services have distinctive characteristics that offline service do not have,
which can influence the perception of service quality. These features could include, for
example outages of backing up information, connectivity issues and server problems. With
the growing interest in service in online retailing context, an increasing number of research
studies have concentrated on understanding online service quality. Many different scales
measuring online service quality have been developed mainly based on consumer perception

2
or on evaluation of service quality such as WebQual, E-QUAL, SITEQUAL, e-SQ and eTailQ.

Online retailer cannot easily use these scale to assess their current service performance because
these scales do not contain all aspects of the buying process. Electronic retailing (in distinction to
traditional retailing) is not a one and only rather than consistent marketing activity (White & Francis
2004). Thus, web based service systems vary based on product type, service content and channels of
delivery (Voss 2003). There are many research instruments availiable to measure e-service quality,
present study, however,has chosen the research instrument developed by Parasuraman,et.al.,(2005) as it
has been widely reported in many research studies while as (sohn and Tadisina,2008;Gounaris
et.al.,2010;Surajadja et.al.,2012).

The study's questionnaire was broken into four sections. Part I examines the demographic
profile of respondents; Part II to assess e-service quality; Part III was to assess customer satisfaction;
Part IV to assess repurchase intention and Part V to assess perceived value. The scale items of E-service
quality (30 items) were adapted from Parasuraman et al., (2005), to measure customer satisfaction,
seven (07) scale items were adapted from Srinivasan et al.,(2002), to measure repurchase intention
four(04) scale items were adapted from Kim et al.,(2012) and to measure perceived value, three (03)
scale items were adopted from Tsai and Huang,(2007).

To meet the current research objectives, all of the items chosen for the questionnaire were
updated and reworded in terms of both phrasing and contextual uses. A preliminary pool of 70
items was created based on the literature review. After conducting in-depth interviews with
consumers, one more item was added, and each item was double-checked to ensure that it reflected the
study's needs. All of the items in the questionnaire were then ordered according to their ease of
understanding, with the easiest items being placed first, and so on, in order to encourage respondents to
complete the lengthy questionnaire.

Five-point Likert scale was used to measure e-service quality, customer satisfaction, repurchase
intention and perceived value ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

3
agree). The scale was purified in two steps; first a panel of experts assessing the content and face
validity of the scale, and the second, a field test, as suggested by Brady and Cronin (2001) was
conducted. Ten online buyers with three years of experience in online-shopping and three research
faculty members made up the panel. No item was dropped in the initial screening by this panel. The
final questionnaire contained 41 questions, including 30 on e-service quality, 7 on customer satisfaction,
4 on repurchase intention,3 on perceived value construct, and 9 on demographics, after the inclusion,
and paraphrasing of several questions.

The second stage was to undertake a pilot study, for which scale items of e-service quality,
customer satisfaction, repurchase intention and perceived value are given below: -

4.1(1) Measurement items of E-service Quality

1. Efficiency (the quality or degree of being efficient)

1 Website information related to online shopping of E-commerce Company is

well organized.

2 Website of the company is easy to go anywhere.

3 Website enables me to complete the transaction/s quickly.
4 Company website makes me easy to find what I need.
5 Website of this E-commerce company is simple to use.
6 Website enables me to get on to it quickly.
7 Website of this E-commerce company loads its pages quickly.

2. System Availability (Performance metric that helps a company determine the

likelihood that a system is available at a specific time instance.)

8 Website of this E-commerce company is always available for shopping.

9 Website of this E-commerce company does not crash.

10 Pages at this website do not freeze after I enter my order information.

11 Website of this E-commerce company launches and runs right away.

3. Fulfillment (the achievement of something desired, promised, or predicted)

12 Company has the items in-stock it claims.

13 E-Commerce company delivers orders as promised.

4
 14 Company delivers ordered items within a reasonable time frame.

15 The delivery of ordered products of this e-commerce company is very quick.

16 Company is truthful about its offerings.

4. Privacy (freedom from unauthorized intrusion)

17 The company doesn’t share my personal information.

18 Company protects information about my credit/debit card/s.

19 Company protects information related to my web-shopping behaviour.

5. Responsiveness (the quality of reacting quickly and positively)

20 Company has a comprehensive product return policy.

21 Company offers a meaningful guarantee.

22 Company provides convenient options for returning items.

23 Company takes care of problems promptly.

24 Company guides me in case any transaction in not processed.

6. Compensation (the act of compensating)

25 Company compensates me for problems it creates.

26 I am compensated by the company for the delay in delivery of ordered items.

27 This E commerce company picks up items I want to return from my home or

business.

7. Contact (communicate with (someone), typically in order to give or receive

information)

28 Company provides a telephone number to reach the company.

29 Company has customer service representatives/available online.

30 Company offers the option to speak to a live person in case there is a problem.

4.2(2) Measurement items of Customer Satisfaction

1 I am satisfied with the quality of products offered by this E-commerce company.

5
 2 Online shopping is a satisfying experience as it offers customized product at my

Convenience.
3 I am satisfied with cash-on-delivery mode of payment offered by this
company.
4 My choice to purchase from this E-commerce company was right.
5 I have truly enjoyed purchasing from this E-commerce company.
6 I am satisfied with my most recent decision to purchase from this E-commerce

Company.

7 I think I did the right thing by buying the products from this E-commerce
company.

4.3(3) Measurement items of Repurchase Intention

1. I intend to continue to purchase more products from this E-commerce company.
2. I am very likely to buy products online recommended by my friends.
3. I intend to recommend this E-commerce company to other people.
4. Except for any unanticipated reason, I intend to purchase products from this E-
commerce company.

4.4(4) Measurement items of Perceived Value

1. Products that I have purchased from this E-commerce company are considered of good quality.
2. Products that I have purchased from this E-commerce company are value for money.
3. Products that I have purchased from this E-commerce are worth the money paid.

4.2 Reliability and Validity of Questionnaire

The main goal of this part was to create a scale that was contextually relevant and allows the least
amount of influence from personal beliefs, bias, and subjective judgment in the measurement of
the phenomenon under consideration.
The instruments for measuring understudy variables were built in well-defined stages: (1) pilot test
(2) exploratory factor analysis (3) reliability test and (4) confirmatory factor analysis.

6
 4.2.1 Pilot Study
The major goal of the pilot study was to become familiar with all the items and dimensions
associated with the understudy population and the underlying concept. A pilot study was done on a
small group of e-customers. The investigation's sample is balanced by including customers who
purchase goods and services from different e-retailer platforms which I taken in my study. The
need for this was felt because the sample respondents' needs, aspirations, and perceptions differed
significantly. The questions were thoroughly examined with the sample respondents and
interviews were done with them to get their views and ideas concerning the instrument in order to
ensure relevance and clarity of the items integrated in the measuring scale. A total of 120 people
took part in the pilot trial. Item-total correlation was used to examine the constructs' reliability
and validity.

The following were the final results of the pilot study after careful assessment of respondents'
opinions and conversations with experts in the relevant field: -

Items that were discovered to be too long, ambiguous, or confusing were rewritten to provide
more clarity and precision. As a result of the new version of the instrument being developed, and
finally the items which become relevant to my study are shown below: -

Table 4.1 Reliability Analysis of Pilot Study (E-service quality)

item total
Correlation
Corrected
Item label
dimension
E-service
quality

Scale items
s

Website information related to online

EFF1 shopping of E-commerce company is well 0.432
organized.
Website of the company is easy to go
EFF2 0.521
anywhere.
Efficienc

Website enables me to complete the

EFF3 0.479
transaction/s quickly.
Company website makes me easy to find
y

EFF4 0.722
what I need.
Website of this E-commerce company is
EFF5 0.841
simple to use.
EFF6 Website enables me to get on to it quickly. 0.545

7
 Website of this E-commerce company
EFF7 0.711
loads its pages quickly.
Website of this E-commerce company is
SYS1 0.533
always available for shopping.
Website of this E-commerce company does
SYS2 0.809
Availability

not crash.
Pages at this website do not freeze after I
System

SYS3 0.699
enter my order information.
Website of this E-commerce company
SYS4 0.706
launches and runs right away.
FUL1 Company has the items in-stock it claims. 0.477
E-Commerce company delivers orders as
FUL2 0.371
Fulfilment

promised.
Company delivers ordered items within a
FUL3 0.601
reasonable time frame.
The delivery of ordered products of this e-
FUL4 0.523
commerce company is very quick.
FUL5 Company is truthful about its offerings. 0.672
The company doesn’t share my personal
PRI1 0.702
information.
Privacy

Company protects information about my

PRI2 0.611
credit/debit card/s.
Company protects information related to
PRI3 0.931
my web-shopping behaviour.
Company has a comprehensive product
RES1 0.877
return policy.
Responsiveness

RES2 Company offers a meaningful guarantee. 0.632

Company provides convenient options for
RES3 0.375
returning items.
RES4 Company takes care of problems promptly. 0.511
Company guides me in case any transaction
RES5 0.625
in not processed.
Company compensates me for problems it
COM1 0.498
Compensation

creates.
I am compensated by the company for the
COM2 0.554
delay in delivery of ordered items.

COM3 This E commerce company picks up items I

0.790
want to return from my home or business.

Company provides a telephone number to

CON1 0.549
reach the company.
Contact

Company has customer service

CON2 0.606
representatives/available online.
Company offers the option to speak to a
CON3 0.632
live person in case there is a problem.

8
From the above Table:4.1 it can be seen that Item-total correlation of all the items were above the
minimum threshold of 0.3 (Costello and Osborne, 2005).

Table 4.2 Reliability Analysis of Pilot Study (Customer Satisfaction)

Corrected item
Item label
Construct

Correlation
Scale Items

total
I am satisfied with the quality of products
0.700
CS1 offered by this E-commerce company.
Online shopping is a satisfying experience as it
0.594
CS2 offers customized product at my convenience.
Customer Satisfaction

I am satisfied with cash-on-delivery mode of

0.391
CS3 payment offered by this company.
My choice to purchase from this E-commerce
0.811
CS4 company was right.
I have truly enjoyed purchasing from this E-
0.633
CS5 commerce company.
I am satisfied with my most recent decision to
0.612
CS6 purchase from this E-commerce company.
I think I did the right thing by buying the
CS7 0.760
products from this E-commerce company.

From the Table:4.2 above the reliability analysis was examined to ensure that inter-item correlations
were substantial (>0.30). As it is evident that all the above statements were meeting the minimum
criteria.

9
Table 4.3 Reliability Analysis of Pilot Study (Repurchase Intention)

item total
Corrected
Item label
Construct

Correlatio
Scale Items

n
I intend to continue to purchase more
RI1 products from this E-commerce 0.802
company.
I am very likely to buy products
RI2 online recommended by my friends. 0.620
Repurchase
Intention I intend to recommend this E-
RI3 commerce company to other people. 0.571
Except for any unanticipated reason, I
RI4 intend to purchase products from this 0.467
E-commerce company.
The results of the above Table 4.3 shows reliability analysis from the data collected from the
pilot study. All statements were meeting the minimum threshold of 0.3. All statements were
carried for further data collection and analysis.

Table 4.4 Reliability Analysis of Pilot Study (Perceived value)

item total
Corrected
Item label
Construct

Scale Items Correlatio

n

Products that I have purchased from

RI1 this E-commerce company are 0.432
considered of good quality.
Products that I have purchased from
Perceived
RI2 this E-commerce company are value 0.522
Value
for money.
Products that I have purchased from
RI3 this E-commerce are worth the 0.670
money paid.
The results of the above Table: 4.4 shows reliability analysis from the data collected from the pilot
study. All statements were meeting the minimum threshold of 0.3. All statements were carried for
further data collection and analysis.

10
 4.2.2 Reliability Test

A reliability test was performed to determine the degree of consistency among multiple variable
measurements. The Caramine and Zeller (1979) approach was used to ensure the scale's overall
dependability at each dimension. The method requires a relationship between an item's score and
the items specified, as well as item-to- total correlation and Cronbach's alpha. This was determined
using the correlation matrix shown in the Tables:4.5-4.8 as well as the application of Cronbach's
alpha, which is shown next to the correlation matrix table.

Table 4.5 Inter-item correlation of E-service Quality items

Inter-Item Correlation

Item Label EFF1 EFF2 EFF3 EFF4 EFF5 EFF6 EFF7

EFF1 1.000

EFF2 .424 1.000

Efficiency EFF3 .521 .351 1.000

EFF4 .601 .533 .590 1.000

EFF5 .451 .498 .423 .529 1.000

EFF6 .511 .590 .611 .421 .544 1.000

EFF7 .621 433 .523 .433 .612 .520 1.000

Item Label SYS1 SYS2 SYS3 SYS4

SYS1 1.000
System
SYS2 .621 1.000
Availability
SYS3 .431 .711 1.000

SYS4 .522 .530 .538 1.000

Item Label FUL1 FUL2 FUL3 FUL4 FUL5

Fulfilment FUL1 1.000

FUL2 .651 1.000

11
 FUL3 .722 .544 1.000

FUL4 .433 .721 .526 1.000

FUL5 .671 .639 .721 .688 1.000

Item Label PRI1 PRI2 PRI3

PRI1 1.000
Privacy
PRI2 .624 1.000

PRI3 .458 .521 1.000

Item Label RES1 RES2 RES3 RES4

RES1 1.000

Responsiveness RES2 .608 1.000

RES3 .562 .690 1.000

RES4 .619 .646 .695 1.000

Item Label COM1 COM2 COM3

COM1 1.000
Compensation
COM2 .547 1.000

COM3 .566 .694 1.000

Item Label CON1 CON2 CON3

CON1 1.000
Contact
CON2 .654 1.000

CON3 .586 .653 1.000

Note;EFF1-EFF5= Efficiency; SYS1-SYS4= System Availability: FUL1-FUL5= Fulfilment:

PRI1-PRI3= Privacy;;:RES1-RES5=Responsiveness;COM1-COM3=Compensation;CON1-
CON3=Contact.
The value of correlation as suggested by Hair, et. al., (2003) has to be between 0.3 and 0.9. It is
important to have correlation between the items greater than 0.3 in same scale, as they are
supposed to measure the same target. The table 4.5 clearly shows that inter-item correlation of all
the items of e-service quality are falling in the recommended threshold.

12
Table 4.6 Inter-item correlation of Customer Satisfaction items

Inter-Item Correlation

CS1 CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6 CS7

CS1 1.000

CS3 .684 1.000

CS4 .425 .590 1.000

CS5 .558 .491 .700 1.000

CS6 .437 .588 .625 .645 1.000

Note; CS1-CS3-CS4-CS5-CS6-CS7= Customer Satisfaction

The above Table: 4.6 shows the inter-item correlation of the customer satisfaction falls between
the accepted value i.e., 0.3 to 0.9.

Table 4.7 Inter-item correlation of Repurchase Intention Items

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

RI1 RI2 RI3 RI4

RI1 1.000

RI2 .459 1.000

RI3 .556 .771 1.000

RI4 .665 .600 .514 1.000

Note; RI1-RI4= Repurchase Intention

The inter-item correlation of the repurchase intention items displayed in the above Table(4.7) shows
that all lie within the acceptable range of 0.3 to 0.9.

13
 Table 4.8 Inter-item correlation of Perceived Value Items

PV1 PV2 PV3

PV1 1.000

PV2 .549 1.000

PV3 .665 .621 1.000

Note; PV1-PV3= Perceived Value

The inter-item correlation of the perceived value items displayed in the above Table (4.8) shows
that all lie within the acceptable range of 0.3 to 0.9.

4.2.3 Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach alpha is a reliability coefficient that evaluates the overall scale's consistency. Cronbach
alpha has a commonly accepted value of 0.70, while in exploratory studies the value of 0.60 is also
acceptable (Hair et al. 2007). According to Garson (2002) the higher α -score is, the more reliable
the measured construct is. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) is used to assess the
data for validity and reliability. The Cronbach alpha of the constructs for the independent variable
and their dimensions, moderating variable, and dependent variables are provided in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9 Cronbach’s alpha

Cronbach’s Alpha
S. No. Construct
(>0.6 or 0.7)
Efficiency 0.943
System
0.888
Availability
Dimensions

Fulfillment 0.973
E-service
1. Privacy 0.806 0.987
Quality
Responsiveness 0.928
Compensation 0.835
Contact 0.911

2. Customer Satisfaction 0.810

3. Repurchase Intention 0.760

4. Perceived Value 0.789

14
 4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis
Factor analysis reduces or summarizes a huge number of variables to depict them as separate
factors or components. It's a technique for determining a set of variables of interest which are
linked to a smaller set of unobservable variables. This is accomplished by categorizing variables
based on their inter-correlations. When little is known about the structure and number of
components, EFA can be used (Green et al., 2016).

4.3.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of Product quality Scale

For the e-service quality construct, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the principal
component analysis method (PCA) was carried out to determine scale dimensionality. To analyze
the underlying variables of 30 items scale of e-service quality, Principal Component Analysis
(PCA) was performed using the statistical software program SPSS (20 Version). The construct
validity was tested by applying Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and The Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin
Measure of sampling adequacy to analyze the strength of association among variables. The
findings of KMO test are 0.810, which exceeds satisfactory value of 0.50 (Kaiser, 1974).
The results also show the value of Bartlett ‘s test of Sphericity is 0.00, which meets the criteria of
value lower than 0.05. The significant value of Bartlett‘s test of sphericity stipulates that the
sampled data is normally multivariate and relevant for factor analysis and revealed a Chi-Square at
8216.317 (P≤0.000) which verified that correlation matrix was not an identity matrix, thus validating
the suitability of factor analysis (Table 4.8).

Table 4.10 KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .810

Approx. Chi-Square 8216.317

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 533

Sig. .000

After these preliminary steps, factor analysis with Principal Component Analysis as an extraction
method has been performed on 610 questionnaires. According to the Comrey and Lee (1992), for
conducting EFA a sample size of 50 is extremely poor, 100 is poor, 200 is acceptable, 300 is
good, 500 is very good, and a sample size of 1000 or more is exceptional. To explore the
dimensionality of the thirty-four (30) item scale, the study used R-mode Principle Component-

15
Analysis (PCA) with a Varimax Rotation and Eigen value equal to or more than 1, which extracted
thirty items (30) grouped into seven factors with explained variance of 71.333 percent in the data
(Table 4.9).

According to Hooper (2012) that in social sciences, if the total variance explained by the sample
data is more than 60%, then sample can be considered as good and can be used for further analysis.
However, most of the factor loadings were greater than 0.50 implying a reasonably high
correlation between extracted factors and the individual items. The communalities of thirty-two
(30) items ranged from 0.526 to 0.808 indicating that a large amount of variance has been
extracted by the factor solution.

The seven factors were labelled as F1- Efficiency F2- System Availability F3 -Fulfilment F4 –
Privacy F5 – Responsiveness F6 – Compensation F7 – Contact. The first (efficiency) factor
contained most of the elements(7 respectively) followed by third factor (fulfilment) and fifth
factor (responsiveness) containing (5 elements each) and the remaining fourth factor (privacy),
sixth factor (compensation) and seventh factor (Contact) contained (3 elements each).

Thus, from the results of factor analysis, it is clear that these seven factors can be used to evaluate
the quality of e-service as done in earlier studies by Parasuraman et al.(2005), Madu and Madu,
(2014) and Surjadaja et al., (2019).

Table 4.11 Summary of Results from Scale Purification: Factors, Communalities, Eigen
Value and Explained Variance
Explained Variance
Factor/Dimensions

Communalities

Eigen Value

Item
Elements
No

Website information related to online

EFF1 shopping of E-commerce company is well 0.703
organized.

Website of the company is easy to go

F
1

EFF2 0.746
anywhere. 8.782 16.623
Website enables me to complete the
EFF3 0.729
transaction/s quickly.

16
 Company website makes me easy to find what
EFF4 0.734
I need.

17
 Website of this E-commerce company is
EFF5 0.689
simple to use.

EFF6 Website enables me to get on to it quickly. 0.657

Website of this E-commerce company loads

EFF7 0.631
its pages quickly.

Website of this E-commerce company is

SYS1 0.512
always available for shopping.

Website of this E-commerce company does

Availability

SYS2 0.712
not crash.
System
F2

3.584 28.238
Pages at this website do not freeze after I enter
SYS3 0.769
my order information.

Website of this E-commerce company

SYS4 0.686
launches and runs right away.

FUL1 Company has the items in-stock it claims. 0.694

E-Commerce company delivers orders as

FUL2 0.741
promised.
Fulfilmen

Company delivers ordered items within a

FUL3 0.750 2.429 39.659
F3

reasonable time frame.

The delivery of ordered products of this e-

FUL4 0.656
commerce company is very quick.

FUL5 Company is truthful about its offerings. 0.656

The company doesn’t share my personal

PRI1 0.771
information.
Privacy

Company protects information about my

PRI2 0.851 2.256 48.691
F4

credit/debit card/s.

Company protects information related to my

PRI3 0.767
web-shopping behaviour.

Company has a comprehensive product return

RES1 0.745
Responsiveness

policy.

RES2 Company offers a meaningful guarantee. 0.772 1.838 56.960

F5

mpany provides convenient options for

RES3 0.737
returning items.

18
 RES4 Company takes care of problems promptly. 0.700

Company guides me in case any transaction in

RES5 0.777
not processed.

Company compensates me for problems it

COM1 0.799
creates.
Compensation

I am compensated by the company for the

COM2 0.790 1.579 64.913
F6

delay in delivery of ordered items.

This E commerce company picks up items I

COM3 0.794
want to return from my home or business.

Company provides a telephone number to

CON1 0.851
reach the company.
Contact

Company has customer service

CON2 0.753 1.356 72.749
F7

representatives/available online.

Company offers the option to speak to a live

CON3 0.679
person in case there is a problem.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotated Component Matrix of E-service Quality Scale

The rotated component matrix provides simple structure of factors; it is also referred as the
loadings. This matrix is the main output of principle component analysis because it shows the
estimates of correlation among each of the variable and the estimated components. The value of
factor loading lies between 0 to 1; a value which is near to 1 show the high factor loading
while value near to 0 shows low factor loading and negative sign would be ignored when
determining factor membership. Seven factors were extracted from rotated component matrix. The
minimum cut off point as suggested by Hair et.al.,(2006) is above 0.5.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

EFF1 0.801

EFF2 0.823

EFF3 .811

EFF4 .813

EFF5 .798

19
EFF6 .753

EFF7 .748

SYS1 .677

SYS2 .813

SYS3 .856

SYS4 .768

FUL1 .768

FUL2 .817

FUL3 .825

FUL4 .767

FUL5 .707

PRI1 .805

PRI2 .883

PRI3 .815

RES1 .667

RES2 .802

RES3 .825

RES4 .819

RES5 .756

20
 COM1 .831

COM2 .879

COM3 .854

CON1 .818

CON2 .869

CON3 .797

ExtractionMethod:PrincipalComponentAnalysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

4.3.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of Customer Satisfaction Scale

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a principal component method was again conducted on
customer satisfaction construct in order to detect the scale’s dimensionality. In other words,
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was carried out to explore the underlying factors of 7 items.
The construct validity was tested by applying Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and The Kaiser–Mayer–
Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy to analyze the strength of association among variables. The
result of the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is 0.000, which is lower than 0.05 (or 5%) (Bartlett,
1950), which meets the criteria of value lower than 0.05 in order for the factor analysis to be
considered appropriate. Furthermore, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure Sampling
Adequacy is 0.875 which is between 0.5 and 1.0 (Cerny & Kaiser, 1977) revealed a Chi-Square at
2828.205, (P≤0.000) which verified that correlation matrix was not an identity matrix, thus
validating the suitability of factor analysis (Table 4.12).

Table 4.12 KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .875

Approx. Chi-Square 2828.205

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 12

Sig. .000

21
The study applied R-mode Principle Component Analysis (PCA) with a Varimax Rotation
and Eigen value equal to or more than 1, which extracted seven items (7) with an explained
variance of 65.220 percent.(Table 4.13) Communalities of seven (7) items values above 0.50
ranged from 0.594 to 0.725, indicating a moderately good correlation between the individual
items. No factor was extracted from the analysis

Table 4.13 Summary of Results from Scale Purification: Communalities, Eigen

Value and Explained Variance

Communalitie

Eigen Value

Explained
Construct

Variance
Item
Elements

s
No

I am satisfied with the quality of products

CS1 0.594 4.565
offered by this E-commerce company.

Online shopping is a satisfying experience as

CS2 it offers customized product at my 0.683 0.864
convenience.

I am satisfied with cash-on-delivery mode of

Customer CS3 payment offered by this company. 0.699 0.478
65.220
Satisfaction
My choice to purchase from this E-commerce
CS4 company was right. 0.725 0.385

I have truly enjoyed purchasing from this E-

CS5 0.642 0.254
commerce company.

I am satisfied with my most recent decision to

CS6 0.620 0.250
purchase from this E-commerce company.

22
 I think I did the right thing by buying the
CS7 0.601 0.204
products from this E-commerce company.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

4.3.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of Repurchase Intention Scale

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a principal component method was again conducted on
Repurchase Intention to detect the scale’s dimensionality using the Principal Component Analysis
(PCA). The construct validity was tested by applying Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and The
Kaiser– Mayer–Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy to analyze the strength of association among
items. The Bartlett's Test of Sphercity yielded a result of 0.000, which is less than 0.05 (Bartlett,
1950), which satisfies the requirement of a value less than 0.05 for the factor analysis to be
accepted as adequate. The measure of Sampling Adequacy by Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin (KMO) is
0.807 which is above the minimum value of 0.6 (Hoque et al., 2016).

Table 4.14 KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .807

Approx. Chi-Square 1428.227

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 6

Sig. .000
The study applied R-mode Principle Component Analysis (PCA) with a Varimax Rotation and
Eigen value equal to or more than 1, which extracted four items (4) with an explained variance of
74.994 percent. (Table 4.15) Communalities of four (4) item were above 0.50 ranged from 0.680
to 0.807, indicating a moderately good correlation between the individual items. No factor was
extracted from the analysis.

Table 4.15 Summary of Results from Scale Purification: Communalities, Eigen Value
and Explained Variance
Communalities

Eigen Value

Explained
Construct

Variance

Item
Elements
No

I intend to continue to purchase more products

RI1 from this E-commerce company. 0.680 3.000

23
 I am very likely to buy products online
RI2 0.807 0.481
recommended by my friends.

I intend to recommend this E-commerce

RI3 0.798 0.300
company to other people. 74.994

Except for any unanticipated reason, I intend

RI4 to purchase products from this E-commerce 0.714 0.220
company.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

4.3.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of Perceived Value Scale

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a principal component method was again conducted on
Perceived value in order to detect the scale’s dimensionality using the Principal Component
Analysis (PCA). The construct validity was tested by applying Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and
The Kaiser– Mayer–Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy to analyze the strength of association
among items. The Bartlett's Test of Sphercity yielded a result of 0.000, which is less than 0.05
(Bartlett, 1950), which satisfies the requirement of a value less than 0.05 for the factor analysis to
be accepted as adequate. The measure of Sampling Adequacy by Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin (KMO) is
0.737 is above the minimum value of 0.6 (Hoque et al., 2016).

Table 4.16 KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .737

Approx. Chi-Square 1096.854

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 3

Sig. .000

The study applied R-mode Principle Component Analysis (PCA) with a Varimax Rotation and
Eigen value equal to or more than 1, which extracted three items (3) with an explained variance of
82.461 percent.(Table 4.17)Communalities of three (3) items were above 0.50 ranged from 0.802
to 0.863, indicating a moderately good correlation between the individual items. No factor was
extracted from the analysis.

24
 Table 4.17 Summary of Results from Scale Purification: Communalities, Eigen Value
and Explained Variance

Communalities

Eigen Value

Explained
Construct

Variance
Item
Elements
No

Products that I have purchased from this E-

Perceived Value

PV1 commerce company are considered of good

0.809 2.474
quality.
Products that I have purchased from this E-
PV2 0.863 0.316 82.461
commerce company are value for money.

Products that I have purchased from this E-

PV3 0.802 0.210
commerce are worth the money paid.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

4.4 Measurement Model Assessment (Confirmatory Factor Analysis)

The measurement model is evaluated to determine the quality of the constructs in the study. The
evaluation of the quality criteria begins with the factor loadings, and then moves on to construct
reliability and construct validity.

4.4.1 Approaches of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in PLS-SEM

Two most prominent approaches are recommended for specifying and estimating Higher Order
Constructs (HOC) in reflective-formative type higher order constructs (Ringle, et. al., 2012) and
are discussed below: -

4.4.1.1 Extended Repeated Indicator Approach

In the repeated indicators approach, all indicators of the lower-order components are assigned to
the higher-order component (Lohmöller, 1989; Wold, 1982). When a higher-order construct
consists of lower-order components (dimensions), each measured with the indicators (items), the
higher-order component would be measured with the same indicators as the lower order
components. Becker, et. al., (2012) have evaluated (extended) repeated indicators for higher-order
reflective-formative constructs. The findings suggest that using (extended) repeated indicators
produces smaller biases in estimating the measurement model for higher- order constructs (i.e., the
relations between lower- and higher-order components).

4.4.1.1 Two Stage Approach

25
 The two-stage approach shows a better parameter recovery of paths pointing
(1) exogenous constructs to the higher-order construct, and (2) the higher-order
construct to an endogenous construct in the path model (Hair et. al., 2019).

1. Embedded two stage approach: The first stage of the embedded two-stage approach
corresponds to the standard repeated indicators approach, which has an antecedent
construct in the structural model and produces a non-significant path coefficient estimate
from the antecedent construct to the higher-order component. Instead of interpreting the
model estimates, scores of all constructs are saved in the model and add these as new
variables to the dataset. In stage two, the construct scores are used as indicators in the
higher-order construct’s measurement model (Hair et. al., 2019).

2. Disjoint two stage approach: In stage one of the path model, the disjoint method uses
only the lower-order components of the higher-order construct (i.e., without the higher-
order component). All other constructs to which the higher-order construct is theoretically
related are directly linked to these. Researchers must then save the construct scores, but
just those of the lower-order components, to carry out the disjoint two-stage procedure.
These scores are then utilized to measure the higher-order construct in stage two (Hair et.
al., 2019).There is no compelling reason to choose one over the other (Cheah et al., 2019), because
both produce similar results. The current study used a two-stage disjoint strategy, in which latent
variable scores are preserved and used as formative indicators for higher order variables.

4.4.2 Stage one of the Path Model (For lower order constructs)

In stage one of the path model measurement model assessment is done through evaluating
Internal consistency (Factor loadings, VIF, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability),
Convergent validity (indicator reliability, average variance extracted) and Discriminant
validity (Hair et, al., 2019).
4.4.2.1 Factor Loadings

The extent to which each of the items in the correlation matrix correlates with the specified
principal component is referred to as factor loadings. Factor loadings vary from -1.0 to +1.0, with
larger absolute values suggesting a stronger relationship between the item and the underlying
factor (Pett et al., 2003). The factor loadings on all of the items in the study were greater than the
acceptable value.

26
 Factor Loadings

EFF SYS FUL PRI RES COM CON CS RI PV

EFF1 0.820

EFF2 0.854

EFF3 0.853

EFF4 0.863

EFF5 0.830

EFF6 0.812

EFF7 0.781

SYS1 0.644

SYS2 0.830

SYS3 0.882

SYS4 0.847

FUL1 0.818

FUL2 0.851

FUL3 0.868

FUL4 0.796

27
 FUL5 0.774

PRI1 0.876

PRI2 0.927

PRI3 0.884

RES1 0.783

RES2 0.856

RES3 0.880

RES4 0.840

RES5 0.795

COM 1
0.874

COM 2
0.878

COM 3
0.893

CON1 0.875

CON2 0.917

CON3 0.881

CS1

CS2 0.759

CS3

28
 0.809

CS4 0.821

CS5 0.846

CS6 0.808

CS7 0.807

RI1 0.827

RI2 0.895

RI3 0.891

RI4 0.849

PV1 0.904

PV2 0.930

PV3 0.889

Table 4.18 shows the factor loadings consisting of three sections. EFF1 to CON3 represents E-
service Quality items, CS1 to CS7 represents Customer Satisfaction items, the third section RI1 to
RI4 represents Repurchase Intention items and the fourth section PV1 to PV3 represents Perceived
Value. The values of the factor loadings are also commonly called indicator reliability. The factor
loadings of all indicators should be statistically significant. Common rule of thumb is that the
standardized loadings should be above 0.7.As it is evident from the above Table (4.18) that all the
items have loadings above the minimum threshold value. Blindly eliminating indicators when their
factor loading is below 0.70, researchers should carefully examine the effects of item removal on
the composite reliability, as well as on the content validity of the construct. Generally,
indicators with factor loadings below 0.70 should be considered for removal from the scale only

29
when deleting the indicator leads to an increase in the composite reliability or the average variance
extracted (Hair et al., 2011). The validity of the discriminant and convergent measures were
examined in the current study to ensure that the removal of these indicators with low factor
loadings did not affect them. Hence these items were retained.
4.4.1.1 Indicator Multicollinearity

Multi-collinearity is a statistical phenomenon where two or more variables in a regression model are
strongly correlated (Daoud 2017). To assess multicollinearity in indicators, the Variance Inflation
Factor (VIF) statistic is used (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982). According to Heir et al., (2016),
multicollinearity should be less than 3.

Table 4.19 Multicollinearity Statistics (VIF) for indicators

LOC VIF SCORES LOC VIF SCORES
EFF1 1. 445 COM3 1.342
EFF2 1.205 CON1 1.229
EFF3 1.422 CON2 1.997
EFF4 1.432 CON3 1.859
EFF5 1.612 CS1 1.897
EFF6 1.275 CS2 1.159
EFF7 1.666 CS3 2.650
SYS1 1.986 CS4 2.362
SYS2 1.730 CS5 2.289
SYS3 1.235 CS6 2.813
SYS4 1.905 CS7 2.326
FUL1 1.673 RI1 1.751
FUL2 1.803 RI2 1.434
FUL3 1.768 RI3 1.306
FUL4 2.834 RI4 1.787
FUL5 2.935 PV1 1.127
PRI1 2.432 PV2 1.249

30
 PRI2 2.510 PV3 1.971
PRI3 1.742
COM1 1.206
COM2 1.533
As shown in the table the VIF values for the study's indicators are below the
required threshold below 3. So, there are no issues of multicollinearity in these indicators.
4.4.2.2 Reliability Analysis

"Reliability is defined as the extent to which a measuring instrument is stable and

consistent," (Mark, 1996). Cronbach's Alpha and Composite Reliability are the two most
often used measures for determining reliability. The rule of thumb for both reliability criteria
is that they need to be above 0.70. Because indicators are not equally reliable, composite
reliability (CR), which is weighted, is more accurate than Cronbach alpha (unweighted),
and therefore CR should be assessed and reported (Hair et al., 2019). The next Table
(4.20) solely illustrates composite reliability because Cronbach's Alpha is presented in table
(4.9).
Composite Reliability

Composite Reliability
Construct Dimensions
(>0.6 or 0.7)

0.940
Efficiency
0.880
System Availability

Fulfilment 0.912
E-service quality Privacy 0.924
Responsiveness 0.918

Compensation 0.913
Contact 0.920

Customer Satisfaction 0.929

Repurchase Intention 0.923

Perceived Value 0.934
As it is evident from the Table(4.20) above all lower order constructs i.e. dimensions of e-
service quality, customer satisfaction, repurchase intention and perceived value have

31
composite reliability above the required threshold. As a result, construct reliability is
established.

4.4.1.1 Construct Validity

Construct validity is determined by convergent validity and discriminant validity by using

PLS-SEM and are discussed below: -

4.4.1.2 Convergent Validity

The degree to which multiple attempts to measure the same idea is known as convergent
validity. The metrics used for evaluating constructs convergent validity is the average
variance extracted (AVE) for all indicators of each construct. when the AVE value is greater
than or equal to the recommended value of 0.50, It indicates that items converge to assess the
underlying construct and therefore convergent validity is demonstrated (Fornell and Larcker,
1981).
Convergent Validity of E-service quality, Customer
Satisfaction, Repurchase Intention and Perceived Value

Average variance
Construct Dimensions
Extracted (>0.5)

Efficiency 0.690
System Availability 0.649
Fulfilment 0.676
E-service Quality Privacy 0.802
Responsiveness 0.692
Compensation 0.777
Contact 0.794

Customer Satisfaction 0.651

Repurchase Intention 0.750

Perceived Value 0.894

The AVE is the mean value of the squared loadings of the indicators associated with the
construct (i.e., the sum of the squared loadings divided by the number of indicators).
Therefore, the AVE is equivalent to the communality of a construct. AVE indicates that
construct explains 50 percent or more of the indicators’ variance that make up the construct
32
(Hair et al., 2022). It is evident from the Table 4.21 above that the study's convergent validity
results based on the AVE statistics demonstrate that the AVE values are greater than 0.50. As
a result, convergent validity is established.
4.4.1.1 Discriminant Validity

The degree to which measures of different ideas are distinct is known as discriminant
validity. The idea is that if two or more concepts are distinct, appropriate assessments of each
should not correlate highly (Bagozzi et al., 1991). Discriminant validity is established
through the following statistical techniques.

a) Fornell and Larcker Criterion.

b) HTMT Ratio
Fornell and Larcker Criterion

Fornell and Larcker (1981) proposed the traditional metric and suggested that each
construct’s AVE (squared variance within) should be compared to the squared inter-construct
correlation (as a measure of shared variance between constructs) of that same construct and
all other reflectively measured constructs in the structural model – the shared variance
between all model constructs should not be larger than their AVEs. The square root of AVE
(in bold) for all the constructs was found to be stronger than its connection with all other
constructs in this study. As a result, there is substantial evidence that discriminant validity is
established.
Fornell and Larcker Criterion of e-service quality dimensions, customer satisfaction, repurchase intention and perceived
value

COM CON CS EFF FUL PRI PV

COM 0.882

CON 0.227 0.891

CS 0.259 0.33 0.807

EFF 0.115 0.367 0.284 0.831

FUL 0.084 0.415 0.27 0.414 0.822

PRI 0.322 0.23 0.419 0.22 0.243 0.896

PV 0.262 0.24 0.479 0.213 0.138 0.315 0.908

33
 RES 0.149 0.386 0.259 0.504 0.384 0.209 0.168

RI 0.159 0.438 0.302 0.353 0.378 0.177 0.376

SYS 0.276 0.063 0.328 0.179 0.184 0.405 0.296

Note; COM: Compensation; CON: Contact; CS: Customer Satisfaction; EFF: Efficiency;
FUL: Fulfillment; PRI: Privacy; PV: perceived value; RES: Responsiveness; RI:
Repurchase intention; SYS: System Availability.

Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

The HTMT is defined as the mean value of the indicator correlations across constructs (i.e., the
heterotrait–heteromethod correlations) relative to the (geometric) mean of the average
correlations for the indicators measuring the same construct. Discriminant validity problems
are there when HTMT values are high. Henseler et al. (2015) propose a threshold value of
0.90 for structural models with constructs that are conceptually very similar. In such a setting,
an HTMT value above 0.90 would suggest that discriminant validity is not present. But when
constructs are conceptually more distinct, a lower, more conservative, threshold value is
suggested, such as 0.85 (Henseler et al., 2015). The below Table(4.23) represents the
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) data of lower order constructs of the study. The results
displayed in Table indicate that the HTMT criterion was met as all the values of the lower
order constructs in the table are less than 0.85. All model evaluation criteria for the reflectively
measured constructs have been met, providing support for their discriminant validity.

Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) of Lower Order Constructs

COM CON CS EFF FUL PRI PV

COM

CON 0.262

CS 0.292 0.372

EFF 0.127 0.408 0.307

FUL 0.098 0.472 0.299 0.458

PRI 0.37 0.263 0.47 0.243 0.282

PV 0.298 0.271 0.526 0.232 0.153 0.355

34
 RES 0.171 0.439 0.286 0.555 0.435 0.236 0.187

RI 0.181 0.498 0.326 0.387 0.425 0.201 0.419

SYS 0.328 0.09 0.374 0.215 0.218 0.475 0.334

Fig 4.1 Measurement Model of Lower Order construct

As in the fig 4.1 the ellipses are the lower order constructs of reflective model and the indicator
variables are measured by the rectangles reflect factors. The ellipses of factor and their arrow
are called the structural or inner form. The values on the arrows between lower order constructs
(ellipses) and items (rectangles) are the factor loadings. The values in the ellipses of customer
satisfaction, repurchase intention and perceived value are the coefficient of determination (R2).
In the present study reflective measurement model is appropriate for further PLS-SEM analyses
as it met all the requirements.
Stage Two of the Path Model (For Higher Order Construct)

4.4.3.1 Validating Higher Order Construct

E-service Quality is a higher-order construct in the present study, based on seven lower-order

35
constructs as: Efficiency, System Availability, Fulfillment, Privacy, Responsiveness,
Compensation, and Contact. Collinearity and outer weights are tested in PLS-SEM to measure
higher order construct validity.

4.4.3.1(a) Collinearity
High correlations between indicators in formative measurement models are unlikely since the
indicators are not essentially interchangeable. Collinearity is defined as a high correlation
between two formative indicators (Hair et al. 2014). The variance inflation factor (VIF) is used
to determine the level of collinearity in PLS-SEM..VIF ≥ 3 suggests the possibility of a
collinearity problem (Hair et al., 2011).

24 Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) of Higher Order Construct (Formative)

Construct Dimensions VIF Scores

Efficiency 1.118

System Availability 1.042

Fulfilment 1.257

E-service Quality Privacy 1.400

Responsiveness 1.269

Compensation 1.247
Contact 1.425
The above Table 4.24 demonstrates the variance inflation factor VIF values of e- service quality
which is the higher order construct in the present study. As it is evident that all the VIF values
are below the value of 3 so there are no collinearity issues in the higher order construct of the
study.
It's a crucial factor for assessing a formative indicator's impact. Outer weight is the result of
multiple regression with the latent variable scores as the dependent variable and the formative
indicators as the independent variables (Hair et al., 2017). Weights should be significant (as
demonstrated by p values less than 0.05). When the outer weight of an indicator is insignificant
but the outer loading is greater than 0.50, the indicator is generally retained. (Hair et al., 2017).

Outer Weights of Higher Order Construct (HOC)

36
 Original Sample Standard
T Statistics
Sample Mean Deviation P Values
(|O/STDEV|)
(O) (M) (STDEV)

Compensation -> E-service

0.099 0.098 0.066 1.509 0.132
Quality

Contact -> E-service Quality 0.397 0.392 0.074 5.353 0.000

Efficiency -> E-service

0.214 0.215 0.078 2.748 0.006
Quality

Fulfilment -> E-service

0.252 0.248 0.079 3.188 0.001
Quality

Privacy -> E-service Quality 0.239 0.240 0.069 3.461 0.001

Responsiveness -> E-service

0.161 0.155 0.080 2.007 0.045
Quality

System Availability -> E-

0.235 0.229 0.067 3.500 0.000
service Quality

The data on Table (4.25) shows all the dimensions of e-service quality have p values less than
0.05 except the outer weight of compensation dimension. The next step is to check outer
loadings of the compensation indicator. When the outer loadings of this indicator have
significant p value, the indicator is retained (Hair et al., 2017).

Outer Loadings

When an indicator weight is not significant, it is not always assumed that the measurement
model is of poor quality. Here, the researcher is advised to take into account a formative
indicator's absolute contribution to the construct, which is determined by its outer loading
(Cenfetelli & Bassellier, 2009). A formative indicator's loading should, at the very least, be
statistically significant. Even if an indicator doesn't provide a large relative contribution to the
construct, loadings of 0.5 and higher indicate that the indicator makes a sufficient absolute
contribution to the construct (Hair et al., 2021).
37
 Table 4.26 Outer Loadings of Higher Order Construct (HOC)

Original Sample Standard

T Statistics
Sample Mean Deviation P Values
(|O/STDEV)
(O) (M) (STDEV)

Compensation ->E-service
0.510 0.502 0.067 6.046 0.000
Quality

Contact -> E-service Quality 0.735 0.727 0.047 15.548 0.000

Efficiency -> E-service

0.654 0.649 0.051 12.896 0.000
Quality

Fulfilment -> E-service

0.680 0.670 0.054 12.612 0.000
Quality

Privacy -> E-service Quality 0.600 0.594 0.054 11.015 0.000

Responsiveness -> E-service

0.608 0.598 0.059 10.269 0.000
Quality

System Availability -> E-

0.694 0.586 0.062 7.958 0.000
service Quality

As it is evident from the above Table (4.26) that the compensation dimension has loadings
above 0.50 and has a significant p value which is the required criteria for the validity of the
formative construct. Hence, all the criteria were met, the validity Higher Order Construct (e-
service quality) was established.

Fig 4.2 Measurement Model for Higher Order Construct

As in the fig 4.2 the circles (blue) represent the constructs of present study i.e., e- service
38
quality, customer satisfaction, repurchase intention and perceived value model and the
indicator variables are measured by the rectangles reflect factors. The indicators of the e-
service quality i.e., dimensions are combined to form it without any assumptions about the
intercorrelation patterns among them (Garson, 2016). The direction of causality is from the
indicators to the construct, and the weights of formative indicators represent the importance of
each indicator in explaining the variance of the higher order construct (Hreats et al., 2013). The
values in the circles of customer satisfaction and repurchase intention are the coefficient of
determination (R2). The R2 represents the variance explained in each of the endogenous
constructs and is a measure of the model’s explanatory power (Shmueli & Koppius, 2011), also
referred to as in-sample predictive power (Rigdon, 2012).
Summary

Assuring the validity and reliability of the construct measures is the aim of reflective
measurement model assessment, which supports their acceptability for inclusion in the path
model. The important requirements include discriminant validity, convergent validity, internal
consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha, reliability, and composite reliability), and indicator
reliability. A construct is said to be convergently valid if it explains for more than half of the
variance of the indicator under evaluation. Establishing discriminant validity, ensures that each
construct is empirically distinct and captures a phenomenon not reflected by other constructs in a
statistical model and is a crucial component of validity assessment. Recent study has shown that
the HTMT criterion should be the preferred option, even though the Fornell-Larcker criterion has
long been the main criterion for discriminant validity assessment. When generating confidence
intervals for the HTMT, researchers should use bootstrapping to determine whether the data
significantly vary from a given threshold. If they satisfy all of these criteria, reflective
measurement models are acceptable for additional PLS-SEM studies.

39
40
.

41
42
43