Exploring the antecedents of institutional effectiveness: a case study of higher education universities in India

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for Institutional Effectiveness. Source: Author’s own contribution.

Table 1. Measurement model evaluation.

Constructs	Indicators	Outer loading	Composite reliability	AVE	Cronbach’s alpha	Outer weight	VIF
Academic leadership	AL1	0.792***	0.913	0.679	0.889	0.222***	1.982
	AL2	0.772***				0.203***	2.006
	AL3	0.828***				0.268***	2.453
	AL4	0.870***				0.261***	3.019
	AL5	0.853***				0.257***	2.473
Faculty involvement in decision making	FI1	0.892***	0.883	0.715	0.821	0.456***	1.929
	FI2	0.837***				0.378***	1.715
	FI3	0.806***				0.344***	1.619
Campus culture	CC1	0.939***	0.926	0.806	0.897	0.375***	3.697
	CC2	0.840***				0.317***	2.087
	CC3	0.911***				0.418***	2.808
Institutional effectiveness	IP1	0.719***	0.931	0.694	0.919	0.185***	2.404
	IP2	0.875***				0.218***	3.006
	IP3	0.745***				0.157***	1.944
	IP4	0.849***				0.202***	2.941
	IP5	0.852***				0.209***	2.738
	IP6	0.878***				0.225***	3.273

Note: ***p<.01, **p<.05 and *p<.10.

Source: Author’s own contribution.

Table 2. Hypothesis testing and f² and q² effects.

Relationships	Path coefficient	t – value	Bias corrected 95% confidence interval	f^2	q^2
Academic leadership-Faculty involvement in decision making	0.743***	26.475	(0.682, 0.791)	Not Defined	Not Defined
Academic leadership-Campus culture	0.744***	30.842	(0.692, 0.786)	Not Defined	Not Defined
Academic leadership-Institutional effectiveness	0.358***	10.360	(0.286, 0.422)	0.341	0.438
Campus culture-Institutional effectiveness	0.626***	16.743	(0.553, 0.701)	0.913	0.189
Faculty involvement in decision making-Institutional effectiveness	0.006	0.129	(−0.080, 0.090)	0.000	0.000

Note: ***p<.01, **p<.05 and, *p<.10.

Source: Author’s own contribution.

Figure 2. Structural model of Institutional Effectiveness. Source: Author’s own contribution.

Table 3. Effect of mediation construct.

	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Total effect	VAF	Mediation
Figure 3	0.361***	0.468***	0.829***	56.4%	Partial
Figure 4	0.590***	0.240***	0.830***	28.9%	Partial
Figure 5	0.358***	0.470***	0.828***	57.5%	Partial

Note: ***p<.01, **p<.05 and *p<.10 (two-sided test).

Source: Author’s own contribution.

Figure 3. Effect of mediating construct campus culture. Source: Author’s own contribution.

Figure 4. Mediating effect of faculty in decision making. Source: Author’s own contribution.

Figure 5. Mediating effect of the full model. Source: Author’s own contribution.

Figure 6. Importance performance matrix analysis. Source: Author’s own contribution.

Table 4. Importance performance matrix analysis of Institutional Effectiveness.

	Institutional effectiveness
Latent constructs	Importance (Total effects)	Performance (Index values)
Academic leadership	0.828	32.484
Campus culture	0.626	27.552
Faculty involvement in decision making	0.006	26.624

Source: Author’s own contribution.

Table 5. FIMIX-PLS solutions for segmentation.

Relative segment size						Number of pre-specified segments
	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	Quality criteria	S = 2	S = 3	S = 4	S = 5
S = 2	57%	43%				AIC	1,498.647	1,391.001	1,299.836	1,249.815
S = 3	62%	28%	10%			AIC3	1,515.647	1,417.001	1,334.836	1,293.815
S = 4	57%	31%	8%	4%		AIC4	1,532.647	1,443.001	1,369.836	1,337.815
S = 5	59%	23%	9%	5%	4%	BIC	1,563.180	1,489.698	1,432.698	1,416.842
						CAIC	1,580.180	1,515.698	1,467.698	1,460.842
						HQ	1,524.391	1,430.374	1,352.839	1,316.447
						MDL5	1,957.312	2,092.488	2,244.147	2,436.948
						LnL	−732.323	−669.500	−614.918	−580.908
						EN	0.594	0.758	0.811	0.846
						NFI	0.637	0.744	0.779	0.798
						NEC	133.620	79.610	62.063	50.749

Source: Author’s own contribution.

Table 6. Uncovering unobserved heterogeneity through FIMIX-PLS.

	Relations	1^st segment	2^nd segment	|Δ12|	t-value Students[MGA]	t-value Faculty[MGA]
Relative segment size		0.57	0.43
Path coefficient	AL-CC	0.447***	0.923***	0.476	28.594***	17.656***
	AL-FI	0.453***	0.945***	0.492	27.660***	8.026***
	AL-IP	0.448***	−0.026***	0.422	10.278***	4.164***
	CC-IP	0.496***	0.890***	0.394	16.660***	12.229***
	FI-IP	−0.019	0.138	0.119	0.447	0.086
R^2	CC	0.200	0.853
	FI	0.205	0.894
	IP	0.626	0.988
Total effects	AL-CC	0.447	0.923	0.476	28.594***	17.656***
	AL-FI	0.453	0.945	0.492	27.660***	8.026***
	AL-IP	0.661	0.927	0.431	53.475***	21.297***
	CC-IP	0.496	0.890	0.394	16.660***	12.229***
	FI-IP	−0.019	0.138	0.119	0.447	0.086

Note: ***p<.01, **p<.05, *p<.10.

Source: Author’s own contribution.

Table 7. Multi-group analysis.

	Path	Students	Faculty	|Δ|
N		0.566	0.434
Path relation	AL-CC	0.786	0.703	0.83
	AL-FI	0.786**	0.625**	0.161**
	AL-IP	0.395**	0.211**	0.184**
	CC-IP	0.624	0.757	0.133
	FI-IP	−0.023	−0.006	0.029
R^2	CC	0.618	0.495	0.123
	FI	0.618**	0.391**	0.227**
	IP	0.895*	0.835*	0.060*
AVE/CR	AL	0.934/0.739	0.840/0.522
	CC	0.946/0.854	0.845/0.660
	FI	0.899/0.747	0.818/0.604
	IP	0.935/0.706	0.932/0.698
Total effects	AL-CC	0.786	0.703	0.083
	AL-FI	0.786**	0.625**	0.161**
	AL-IP	0.867***	0.740***	0.127***
	CC-IP	0.624	0.757	0.133
	FI-IP	−0.023	−0.006	0.017

Note: ***p<.01, **p<.05 and *p<.10.

Source: Author’s own contribution.