The antecedent factors of ambiguity role and workers’ welfare in Semarang City: role theory approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Values of loading factor, average of variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR).

Variables & indicators	Loading factor
Dual Role (AVE= 0.546; CR = 0.781)
Time Conflict	0.652
Stain Based Conflict	0.843
Behavior-Based Conflict	0.709
Family Commitment (AVE= 0.572; CR = 0.800)
Residence	0.776
Education	0.741
Occupation	0.752
Role Ambiguity (AVE= 0.604; CR = 0.753)
Hope	0.777
Interpersonal Relationship	0.777
Welfare of Female Workers (AVE= 0.630; CR = 0.773)
Security	0.794
Welfare/prosperity	0.794

Table 2. Discriminant validity.

	Family role	Family commitment	Role ambiguity	The welfare of female workers
Dual Roles	(0.739)	−0.061	0.341	−0.194
Family Commitment	−0.061	(0.756)	−0.067	0.078
Role Ambiguity	0.341	−0.067	(0.777)	−0.113
The welfare of female workers	−0.194	0.078	−0.113	(0.794)

Figure 1. Hypothesis test SEM-PLS.

Table 3. Hypothesis testing.

	Effect	Description
H1: Dual Role Conflict→ Role Ambiguity	β = 0.341; p < 0.001	H1 was accepted
H2: Family Commitment → Role Ambiguity	β= −0.131; p < 0.001	H2 was accepted
H3: Role Ambiguity → Welfare of female workers	β= −0.140; p = 0.003	H3 was accepted
H4: Dual Role Conflict Welfare of female workers	β= −0.175; p < 0.001	H4 was accepted
H5: Family Commitment → Welfare of female workers	β = 0.233; p < 0.001	H5 was accepted