This chapter presents the finding of this study, descriptive statistics about the sample, and the psychometric characteristics of the measures. It then proceeds to present statistical methods for confirmatory factor analysis to increase the accuracy of the analysis presented. The third part illustrates the statistical analysis of the data collected, specifically bivariate correlation analysis, linear and multiple regression analysis. Finally, the chapter presents a summary of the research findings and discussions of the results.
Descriptive Statistics Sample Characteristics
After modifying the instrument through reliability and validity procedures in the research methods part, the formal study was conducted by distributing 300 questionnaires with in The Gambia Revenue Authority. Out of the number of questionnaires received, 257 are valid and 6 invalid. This led to a response rate of 85.6%. The sampling characteristics of the variable are given in Table 4.1. The 257 data collected, 132 respondents were completed by male (51.4%) and female 116(45.1%). As indicated, most respondents are between the ages of 20 to 30 years (42%) and have at least diploma / advance diploma (42%). This indicates that GRA have a young population compare to older population. Almost all the respondent received some type of informal training and formal training, at least 117 (45.5%) of respondent receive training once or twice, while 145 (56.4%) received some formal training. from the Authority at least once. Though there are some percentages that do not receive training (7.4%), there is an indication that the Authority does organized formal training to employees.
The percentages in the sample do not add up to 100%, because there are some invalid responses in the demographic questions. This could simply be because respondents missed the question, did not give a valid response or choose not to answer the question. Table 4.1 indicated the demographics variables of the sample and the valid and invalid responses for each category.
54 Table 4.1
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Variable Category Frequency Percentage%
D1-Gender Male D4-Work Experience Less than 1 year
1year to 5years D6- Formal Training no formal training -0
1-2 times
55
Psychometric Characteristics of the Measures
This section describes the mean scores and standard deviation of the each dimension in the study. During the data inputting there are some reversed coded items which have been positively coded and interpreted before the analyses were conducted. Most researchers generally accepted that the higher the mean value, the more likely employees viewed the related attribute important in affecting the constructs. While a high standard deviation means that there was a lot of variation in the answers (Bland & Altman, 1996).
In addition, this study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to examine and confirm the appropriateness of the factor loadings for the questionnaire items and the factorial validity of the measures. The CFA was conducted base on covariance structure analyses, where the first observed variable of a latent variable was fixed at 1 and a simple structure maintained. The factorial validity was confirmed by showing that the goodness-of fit indexes fell within an acceptable range. The analysis of the mean scores, standard deviations and confirmatory factor analysis of variables were illustrated as follows.
Descriptive Statistics of Training and Development
Training and development was measured using 18 item of 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Table 4.2 gives the descriptive analysis of training and development. From the table, the highest mean score was found to be ‗‗TD-PMT13: I am willing to invest effort to improve skills and competencies in order to have career progression (M= 4.05).
This means that on average participants agree that they are willing to improve their skills. The lowest mean score was found with ‗‗TD-BT17: training will result in more opportunities to pursue different career paths (3.29). This indicates that on average participants were fairly ‗‗neutral‘‘ on this items. The items for perception of training and development ranged from neutral (3)‘‘to agree (4). Respondents were more consistent in answering items ‗‗TD-PMT10: I try to learn as much as I can from training programs‘‘, since it had the lowest standard deviation (SD=0.638). Employees were also least consistent in answering item ‗‗TD-BT17: training will result in more opportunities to pursue different career paths (SD=1.066).
Finally, motivation of training had the highest mean score (M=3.96) indicating that personal motivation of training had the highest rating among the four dimensions of training and development.
56 Table 4.2
Descriptive Statistics for Training and Development
Construct Code Questionnaire Items Mean Std. Dev Training support from colleagues 3.65 .926
TD-TSC1 I can count on my co-workers to provide me with help and
services needed to complete my job assignments. 3.69 .920 TD-TSC2* My co-workers tend to resist my efforts to apply new
knowledge or skills on the job 3.56 .887
TD-TSC3* More experienced co-workers are usually reluctant to give
me guidance 3.72 .968
Management Training Support 3.59 .868 TD-TSS4 I feel comfortable discussing my skill weaknesses with my
manager. 3.46 .925
TD-TSS5 My manager is supportive of my efforts to acquire new
knowledge and skills 3.53 .717
TD-TSS6 My employer values development of new skills or
acquisition of new knowledge. 3.92 .774
TD-TSS7 When I make a mistake, my manager usually treats it as a learning experience that can prevent failure and improve performance in the future.
3.54 .956
TD-TSS8 My manager shares information with me about problems or
trends in the company that can influence my career plans. 3.63 .918 TD-TSS9 My manager makes sure I get the training needed to remain
in the organization and be effective in my job. 3.51 .919 Motivation of Training 3.96 .764 TD-PMT10 I try to learn as much as I can from training programs. 3.89 .638 TD-PMT11 I am usually motivated to learn the skills emphasized in
training programs. 3.90 .669
TD-PMT12 I am willing to invest effort to improve skills and competencies related to my current job.
4.02
1.04
Continued
57 Table 4.4 (Continued)
Construct Code Questionnaire Items Mean Std. Dev TD-PMT13 I am willing to invest effort to improve skills and
competencies in order to have career progression 4.05 .708 Training Benefits 3.58 .872 TD-BT14 Participating in training programs help my personal
developing 3.44 .864
TD-BT15 increase my chances of performing better 3.57 .778 TD-BT16 result in having to do extra work that would add value 3.97 .681 TD-BT17 Result in more opportunities to pursue different career path 3.29 1.066 TD-BT18 Help me stay up-to-date on new processes and products or
procedures related to my job.
3.65 .974
Note: 1. N=257
2. TSC= Training Support from Colleague; MTS= Management Training Support; PMT=
Personal Motivation of Training; TB=Training Benefits
3. The 5-pont Likert-type scale is used (lowest scores indicate strongly disagree (1) and high scores means strongly agree (5) to each statement)
4.*represent training and development reverse coded items
Descriptive Statistics for Organisational Commitment Scale
Table 4.3 illustrated for the organisational commitment measure, most of the respondents showed a high agreement with affective and normative commitment than continuance commitment.
However the respondents agree with item OC-N20 (Mean 4.04), implying that they feel one of the major reasons they continue to work in this organization imply they believe loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain. The lowest mean score was found to be a continuance commitment item ‗‗OC-C 13: Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire‘‘ (M=3.39). This indicates that on average participants were fairly
‗‗neutral‘‘ on this items. All responses to organisational commitment items therefore ranged from neutral (3) to agree (4)
The respondents were more consistent in answering item ‗‗OC-A8: I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization‘‘ since it had the lowest standard deviation (SD= 0.726). Persons
58
were also the least consistent in answering items ‗‗OC-13: Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire‘ (SD=1.204 follow by ‗‗OC-C11: Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided to leave my organization now‘‘ (SD=1.148
Finally, normative commitment had a higher mean score (M=3.78) indicating that it could possibility be the more dominant reason for organisational commitment of employees.
Table 4.3
Descriptive Statistics for Organisational Commitment
Construct Code Questionnaire Items Mean Std. Dev Affective Commitment (OC-A) 3.69 .898
OC-A1 I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this
organization 3.43 .977
OC-A2 I enjoy discussing about my organization with people outside it 3.81 .838 OC-A3 I really feel as if this organization‘s problems are my own 3.48 .866 OC-A4* I think that that I could easily become as attached to another
organisation as I am to this one 3.67 .904
OC-A5* I do not feel like ―part of the family‖ at my organization 3.86 .962 OC-A6 I do not feel ―emotionally attached‖ to this organization. 3.71 1.064 OC-A7 This organization has a great deal meaning for me.5 3.87 .854 OC-A8* I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. 3.73 .726 Continuance Commitment 3.53 1.038 OC-C9* I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having
another one lined up. 3.61 1.040
OC-C10 It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now,
even if I wanted 3.80 .950
OC-C11 Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided to leave my
organization now 3.45 1.148
OCC12* It wouldn‘t be too costly for me to leave my organization now. 3.56 1.110 OC-C13 Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as
much as desire. 3.19 1.204
OC-C14 I feel that I have very few options to consider leaving this
organization. 3.51 .932
59
continued Table 4.3(Continued)
Construct Code Questionnaire Items Mean Std. Dev OC-C15 One of the few serious consequences of leaving this organization
would be the scarcity of available alternatives 3.65 1.005 OC-C16 One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is
that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice—another organization may not match the overall benefits I have here.
3.54 .915
Normative Commitment 3.78 .884 OC-N17 I think that people these days move from company to company
too often 3.95 .905
OCN18* I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her
organization 3.84 .927
OCN19* Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all
unethical to me 4.05 .813
OC-N20 One of the major reasons I continue to work in this organization is that I believe loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain
3.79 .802
OC-N21 If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was
right to leave my organization 3.59 1.067
OC-N22 I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one
organization. 3.67 .891
OC-N23 Things were better in the days when people stayed in one
organization for most of their careers 3.61 .783
Note: 1. N=257
2. TOC-A= Affective Commitment; TOC-C= continuance commitment; TOC-N= normative Commitment
3. The 5-pont Likert-type scale is used (lowest scores indicate strongly disagree (1) and high scores means strongly agree (5) to each statement))
4 *represent organisational commitment reverse coded items
60
Descriptive Statistics for Employee Job Satisfaction
Regarding employee job satisfaction measure indicated in Table 4.4, that most of the respondents showed a high agreement to ‗‗JS-TI 4 :I feel satisfied with my job as it allows me with the opportunity to complete the work I start‘‘ indicates that employees feel a sense of pride as they are allow to complete task they started. The Lowest score ‗‗JS-TS7: The work is arranged so that I have a chance to do things for other people (M=3.38).
The respondents were more consistent in answering item ‗‗JS-FR14: My job provides me with the opportunity to find out how well I am doing (job evaluation)‘‘ since it had the lowest standard deviation (SD= 0.734). Employees were also the least consistent in answering items ‗‗JS-FR13: I am Satisfy with feedback provided on how well I am performing at work‘‘ (SD=1.007), follow by
‗‗JS-TI5: My job is arranged so that I have a chance to do the job from one stage to the other‘‘
(SD=0.964) Table 4.4
Descriptive Statistics for Employee Job Satisfaction
Code Question Items Mean S.D
JS-SV1 I am satisfy with my job as it provide me with opportunity that
improve my skills 3.68 .866
JS-SV2 It provide me with a variety of work 3.79 .818
JS-SV3 Give me an opportunity to do different tasks 3.63 .862 JS-TI 4 I feel satisfied with my job as it allows me with the opportunity to
complete the work I start 3.93 . 800
JS-TI 5 My job is arranged so that I have a chance to do the job from one
stage to the other 3.57 .964
JS-TI6 The task is arranged so that I may see work assignment through to
their final completion 3.74 .839
JS-TS 7 The work is arranged so that I have a chance to do things for other
people. 3.38 .907
JS-TS 8 The task is relatively significant in the organization 3.83 .806 JS-TS9 The task is very significant in the broader scheme of things 3.47 .817 JS-A 10 I am Satisfied with the autonomy to do my own work 3.65 .889 Continued
61 Table 4.4(continued)
Code Question Items Mean SD
JS-A 11 Provides the opportunity for independent thought and action 3.56 .827 JS-A12 My job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and
freedom in how I do my work 3.61 .908
JS-FR13 I am Satisfy with feedback provided on how well I am performing
as I am working 3.66 1.007
JS-FR14 My job provides me with the opportunity to find out how well I am
doing (job evaluation) 3.78 .734
JS-FR 15 Provides me with feeling that I know whether I am performing
well or poorly (performance appraisal 3.60 .905
Note: 1. N=257
2. Employees Job Satisfaction (JS-SV= Skill Variety; JS-TI=Task Identity; JS-TS=Task Significant; JS-A= Autonomy; JS-FR= Feedback of Results
3. The 5-pont Likert-type scale is used (low scores indicate strongly dissatisfy (1) and high scores means very satisfied (5) to each statement)
Descriptive Statistic for Psychological Capital
In relation to psychological capital, ‗‗PC-SE1, I feel confident analysing a long-term problem to find a solution (M=3.89‘‘ and ‗‗PC-SE 5: I feel confident contributing to discussions about the company's strategy‘‘ (M=3.89). These showed GRA employees agree that they have confident in contributing to the organization and will participate to find a solution to long-term problem of the authority. However, PC-R 17 ‗‗I feel that I can handle many things at a time at this job‘‘ gathered the lowest mean (M=3.28). This suggests that employees are rather neutral towards handling many tasks at the same time. All response to PsyCap ranged from neutral (3) to agree (4)
From the table 4.5, employees were more consistent in answering items ‗‗PC-SE1: I feel confident analysing a long-term problem to find a solution‘‘ since it had the lowest standard Deviation (SD=O.691). The respondents were also the least consistent in answering ‗
‗‗PC-O23: In this job, things never work out the way I want them to‘‘ (SD=1.047. Overall self-efficacy had highest average mean score (M=3.815) indicating that it could possibly be the more dominant factor in psychological capital.
62 Table 4.5
Descriptive Statistics for Psychological Capital
Code Question Items Mean SD
PC-SE1 I feel confident analysing a long-term problem to find a solution 3.89 .691 PC-SE2 I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with
management. 3.75 .804
PC-SE3 I feel confident helping to set targets / goals in my work area 3.83 .800 PC-SE4 I feel confident contacting people outside the organisation (e.g
suppliers, customers) to discuss problems 3.74 .883 PC-SE5 I feel confident contributing to discussions about the company's
strategy 3.89 .810
PC-SE6 I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues 3.77 .817 PC-H7 If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many
ways to get out of it. 3.67 .899
PC-H8 At present time, I am energetically pursuing my work goals. 3.78 .843
PC-H9 There is a lots of ways around any problem 3.85 .803
PC-H10 Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work. 3.76 .816 PC-H11 I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals 3.51 1.020 PC-H12 At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for
myself. 3.68 .923
PC-R13* When I have set back at work, I have trouble recovering from it ,
moving on 3.66 .905
PC-R14 I usually take stressful things at work in stride. 3.61 1.002 PC-R15 I can be ―on my own‖ so to speak at work if I have to. 3.76 .941 PC-R16 I can get through difficult times at work because I've experienced
difficulty before. 3.68 .932
PC-R17 I feel that I can handle many things at a time at this job 3.48 .985 PC-R18 I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work 3.74 .927 PC-O19 When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the
best 3.74 .860
Continued
63 Table 4.5 (continued)
Code Questionnaire Items Mean Std. Dev PC-020* If something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will 3.70 .892 PC-O21 I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job. 3.76 .832 PC-O22 I‘m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it
pertains to work. 3.61 .916
PC-O23* In this job, things never work out the way I want them to 3.62 1.047 PC-O24 I approach this job as if ‗‗ every cloud has a silver lining‘‘ 3.69 .941 Note: 1. N=257
2. Psychological Capital (PC-SE= Self efficacy; PC-H= Hope; PC-R= Resilience; PC-Optimism 3. The 5-pont Likert-type scale is used (lowest scores indicate strongly disagree (1) and
high scores means strongly agree (5) to each statement) 4. *represent Psychological capital reverse coded items
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
The Method of SPSS Amos was used to compute the confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in order to test the factorial validity of the constructs. Generally, models with lower Chi/DF, RMSEA (Root mean square error of appropriation) and χ 2are better values while higher IFI (Incremental Fix index), CFI (Comparative fix index), NFI (normed fit index), and TLI (Tucker Lewis Index-Non normed fit index) values are better models. χ 2/df values between 0 <2 or 3 and GFI (Goodness Fit Index) 90 and above are said to be the best fitting models for a given data. In addition, good models have an RMSEA of 0.5 or less (Kenny, 2010). IFI, CFI and TLI greater than 90, in some instances 80 are acceptable and are indicated as a good fit. However, the closer they are to 1 the better the variables fit. This study base the analysis on the criteria shown in table 4.6. There after the CFA for the different variables are presented:
64 Table 4.6
Criteria for Evaluating CFA Results
Evaluating Results: Which Fit indices & What Values
Decision Goodness of Fit
χ 2/df CFI
Badness of fit
RMSEA SRMR
Good >.5 >. 95 < .05 <.06
Acceptable >.5 >.90 <.08 <.08
Marginal >.01 .85-89 <.10
Reject <.01 <.85 >.10 >.08
Source: Good fit criteria Adapted from Fan, and Sivo, (2007). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(3), 509-529. Copyright 2007 by Taylor & Francis.
Training and Development
The analysis results of sampling adequacy for training and development data (n=257) results showed the suitability of the data for analysis. The table 4.7 presents the CFA results for the training and developments scale. The factor loading χ 2/ /dfvalues were explained and reported. The training and development factor loadings for the four variables range between .34 and .87 (p <.001).
Although, the reliability of individuals subscales should be further enhanced, such as MTS =0. 34.
Overall, the quality of the factor loading was acceptable (R2 > .5) (Tabachnick &Fidell, 2007). The chi-squared value (χ 2/df = 2.4), goodness-fit indices (NFI=.823, IFI=889, GFI= 882, RMSEA=073) indicated that the variables items need to be further enhanced but it can be acceptable in the criteria of Hu & Bentler (1999). The Cronbach‘s coefficient alpha of the 4 sub scale were 0 .85(TSC), .768 (MTS), 0 .796 (PMT), 0 .845(TB), and that overall Training and development scale was 0.81, indicating acceptable internal consistency.
Table 4.7
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Training and Development
Factor Item noa. λ
α
χ 2/df RMSEA CFI NFI IFI TLI GFITSCb 3 .87 .851
MTSc 6 .34 768 2.4 .073 .887 .823 .889 .866 .889
PMTd 4 .57 796
TBe 5 .65 845
Note. a = number of question items on the scale; b =Training Support from Colleagues; c
=Management Training Support; d = Motivation of Training; e = Training Benefit; λ=Standardized Factor Loadings; n=257; α=Cronbach‘s Alpha
65
Organizational Commitment
This variables (affective, continuance, normative), aims to access the extent of employees commitment in GRA. As shown in the table 4.8, the results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the organizational commitment scales indicated that all parameter of the dimension estimates of the factor loadings ranging between .61 and 82 were significant (P< .001). The χ 2/df=1.21 and the goodness-of –fit indices and alternative indices (GFI= 0.91, NFI= 0.90, RMSEA
= 0.037) indicated that the data was acceptable
The Cronbach‘s Alpha as for the 3 subscales was 0.829 (Affective), 0.713 (Continuance), 0.89 (Normative) and that for an overall OC scale was 0.80, Indicating satisfactory internal consistency.
Table 4.8
Confirmatory factor Analysis for Organisational Commitment Scale
Factor Item noa. λ α χ 2/df RMSEA CFI NFI IFI TLI GFI
ACb 8 .78 0.829
CCc 8 .61 0.713 1.21 .037 .917 .891 .917 .901 .91
NCd 7 .82 0.89
Note. a = number of question items on the scale; b =Affective Commitment; c =continuance
Note. a = number of question items on the scale; b =Affective Commitment; c =continuance