A latent variable analysis of continuing professional development constructs using PLS-SEM modeling

Figures & data

Figure 1. The proposed model of latent variable analysis among CPD components

Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents (Teachers)

		Category	Frequency	Percentage
1	Gender	Male	56	37.1
		Female	95	62.9
2	Age	−20	0	0
		21–30	58	38.4
		31–40	76	50.3
		+40	17	11.3
3	Educational status	Diploma	0	0
		AA	3	2
		BA	47	31.1
		MA	79	52.3
		PhD	22	14.5
4	Language teaching experience	−5 years	64	42.4
		6–10	61	40.4
		+10	26	17.2
5	City	Mashhad	97	64.2
		Tehran	19	12.6
		Others	35	23.2
6	Field of study	TEFL	82	54.3
		English translation	30	19.9
		English literature	23	15.2
		Others	16	10.6

Table 2. Total Effects

	Collaborating	Decision-making	Reflecting	Updating
Collaborating		0.823
Decision-making
Reflecting	0.52	0.425
Updating	0.885	0.73	0.815

Table 3. Criteria for the evaluation of the models (reliability and validity)

	Items	Loadings min–max	Cronbach’s α	Composite reliability score	AVE	R ^2	R ^2 Adjusted
Collaborating	4-6-7-14-15-17-20	0.48–0.91	0.90	0.93	0.75	0.872	0.871
Decision-making	12-13-16	0.82–0.86	0.88	0.88	0.70	0.677	0.675
Reflecting	8-10-11	0.89–0.93	0.89	0.93	0.83	0.665	0.662
Updating	1-2-3-5-9-18-19	0.81–0.88	0.83	0.94	0.71

Notes: Loadings between 0.4 and 0.7 are acceptable. >0.7 is high. Cronbach’s α > 0.7 is acceptable and high. Composite reliability should be 0.7 or higher. AVE should be 0.5 or higher. R ² of 0.75 is substantial, 0.50 is moderate, and 0.25 is weak.

Figure 2. Items loading, path coefficient and R ²

Table 4. Discriminant validity according to Fornell–Larcker criterion

	Collaborating	Decision-making	Reflecting	Updating
Collaborating	0.866
Decision-making	0.823	0.836
Reflecting	0.851	0.686	0.911
Updating	0.811	0.689	0.815	0.842

Notes: Bold values are loadings for each item that are above the recommended value of 0.5; and an item’s loadings on its own variable are higher than all of its cross-loadings with other variable.

Table 5. Bootstrapping results and t-statistics for path coefficients (inner model)

Path coefficient	Standard deviation (SD)	t-statistics	p-value
Collaborating → Decision-making	0.027	30.552*	0.000
Reflecting → Collaborating	0.059	8.707*	0.000
Updating → Collaborating	0.058	8.061*	0.000
Updating → Reflecting	0.033	24.393*	0.000

* The critical t-value is 1.65 for a significance level of 10%, 1.96 for a significance level of 5% and 2.58 for a significance level of 1% (all two-tailed).

Table 6. Effect sizes of the structural model (f ²)

	Collaborating	Decision-making	Reflecting	Updating
Collaborating		2.095
Decision-making
Reflecting	0.701
Updating	0.565		1.982

Notes: Effect size of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 indicates small, medium, and large effect, respectively (Marcoulides & Saunders, 2006).

Marcoulides, G. A. , & Saunders, C. (2006). Editor’s comments – PLS: A silver bullet? MIS Quarterly , 30 , iii–ix.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar