Exploratory Factor Analysis

4.2.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis

In this stage, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is carried out to extract the factor dimension and test the constructive validity of each dimension, with the application of Varimax rotation, value of Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin (KMO) is in range of 0.5 to 1 as suggested by Hair et al. (2006) and Barlett’s Test = .000. The data of Quality of Training, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment is analyzed.

(1) Exploratory Factor Analysis of Quality of Training

Quality of Training is measured by Questionnaire for Quality of Training developed by Candice (2001) that includes of 22 items. After Pilot Study, there were 18 items kept to this stage. As a result, the value of KMO = .898 and Barlett = .000. By using Principal component analysis and Varimax rotation method, the total variance which can be explained is 67.596%, this rate passes the allowance of 50% (Hair et al., 2006). The Exploratory Factor Analysis of Quality of Training is presented in Table 4.4.

35 

Table 4.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis of Quality of Training Construct

Training was based upon my needs .824

Trainer was confident .804

Training directly related to my job .784

Trainer was knowledgeable regarding content .758 I was told “why” the training was important .746 Training included a test to evaluate what I learned .573 I expect some follow-up to the training after I return to work .506

Interaction 4.351 24.175 50.629

I felt safe (e.g. free from criticism) during training .820

I learned from the other trainees .774

I felt relaxed during training .721

Trainer expressed appreciation for my previous work

experience .700

Training environment was informal .621

Trainer expressed a personal interest in me and the other

trainees .563

Training included small group work .536

Convenience 3.054 16.967 67.596

Training was conducted in a quality facility .836 Training room was geared to the physical comfort of trainees .759 Training segments were divided by frequent short break .700

Mood during training was supportive .561

Note: (1) Total variance explained = 67.596%, (2) Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.898, (3) Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, (4) Rotation Method:

Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

36 

According to this result, Quality of Training is divided into 3 factors respectively: (1) Relevance, (2) Interaction and (3) Convenience. This classification is developed based on the study of Candice (2001) about quality of training. Relevance (Factor 1) has Eigenvalues = 4.762, percentage of explained Variance = 26.454 and includes of 7 items. Interaction (Factor 2) has Eigenvalues = 4.351, percentage of explained Variance = 24.175, includes of 7 items. And Convenience (Factor 3) has Eigenvalues = 3.054, percentage of explained Variance = 16.967 includes of 4 items.

(2) Exploratory Factor Analysis of Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction is measured by 20 items from questionnaire developed by Arvey, Abraham, Bouchard and Segal (1989). After the stage of Pilot Study, there were 15 items kept to this stage. As a result, the value of KMO = .897 and Barlett = .000. By using Principal component analysis and Varimax rotation method, the total variance which can be explained is 65.090%, this rate passes the allowance of 50% (Hair et al., 2006). Exploratory Factor Analysis of Job Satisfaction is presented in Table 4.5.

According to this result, Job Satisfaction is divided into 2 factors respectively: (1) Intrinsic Satisfaction and (2) Extrinsic Satisfaction, these two factors were claimed by Arvey, Abraham, Bouchard and Segal (1989). Intrinsic Satisfaction (Factor 1) has Eigenvalues = 5.382, percentage of explained Variance = 35.878, includes of 9 items. And Extrinsic Satisfaction (Factor 2) has Eigenvalues = 5.382, percentage of explained Variance = 35.878, includes of 6 items.

37 

Table 4.5. Exploratory Factor Analysis of Job Satisfaction Construct

Intrinsic Satisfaction 5.382 35.878 35.878

I have freedom to use my own judgment .806

I am satisfied with my pay and the amount of work I do .790 I am able to do things that don’t go against my conscience .751 I have chance to do something that makes use of my

abilities .733

I am satisfied with the praise I get for doing a good job .696 I have chance for advancement on this job .691 I have chance to try my own methods of doing the job .637 I am satisfied with the way my job provides for steady

employment .570

I am satisfied with the feeling of accomplishment I get from

the job .532

Extrinsic Satisfaction 4.382 29.212 65.090

I am satisfied with working conditions .818 I am satisfied with the way my boss handles people .765 I have chance to tell people what to do .755 I am satisfied with the way coworkers get along with each

other .732

I am satisfied with competence of my supervisor in making

decisions .692

I am satisfied with the way company policies are put into

practice .621

Note: (1) Total variance explained = 65.090%, (2) Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.897, (3) Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, (4) Rotation Method:

Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

38 

(3) Exploratory Factor Analysis of Organizational Commitment

Organizational Commitment is measured by 12 items from questionnaire developed by Allen and Meyer (1996). As a result, the value of KMO = .919 and Barlett = .000. By using Principal component analysis and Varimax rotation method, the total variance which can be explained is 66.332%, this rate passes over the allowance of 50% (Hair et al., 2006). The Exploratory Factor Analysis of Organizational Commitment is presented in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6. Exploratory Factor Analysis of Organizational Commitment Construct

Organizational Commitment 7.960 66.332 66.332

I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with

this organization .852

I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own .885 I feel like "part of the family" at my organization .830 I feel "emotionally attached" to this organization .831 Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of

necessity as much as desire .857

It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right

now, even if I wanted to .851

Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I

wanted to leave my organization .718

One of the few negative consequences of leaving this

organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives .758 Even it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right

to leave my organization now .825

I would not leave my organization right now because I have

a sense of obligation to the people in it .639

I owe a great deal to my organization .828

I would feel guilty if I left my organization now .865

Note: (1) Total variance explained = 66.332%, (2) Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0.919, (3) Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, (4) Rotation Method:

Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

39 

There is only one component extracted from this variable, hence, organizational commitment is a factor for next analysis, it includes 12 items.