KMO test indicates the proportion of variance in our variable that might

be caused by the underlining factors values close to 1.0 indicates factor

analysis maybe useful for your data
factor analysis of the independent variables, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure
of Sampling Adequacy (KMO-MSA) was 0.778;
barlett’s test is testing hypothesis and small values lessthan0.05 of
significance level indicates the factor analysis may be useful with your
data
here the Barlett’s Test of
Sphericity was significant at p-value < 0.01.
For dependant variable The KMO-MSA produced was 0.842 and the Barlett’s
Test of Sphericity was significant
at p-value < 0.01.

This table shows factor loading that is correlation coefficient of factor and independent variable. We
have 3 variables here and wanna examine the factor loading of IEo

when eigen value is greatere than one we consider it as factor if it was less than we
not consider it according to variance extraction rule it should be more than 0.7 it
can be a factor and if less not consider as variance
as you see in the table each item is morethan 0.7 than we can say

The
analysis successfully produced three components with Eigen-value-more-than-one.
Items were successfully loaded into their respective factors. The first component
was
innovativeness (Eigen-value = 4.188) which consisted of four items. The second
component
was risk-taking (Eigen-value = 1.670) and the third component was proactiveness
(Eigen-value = 1.074). Both components comprised of three items each. All of the
items
were retained because they recorded factor loading values higher than 0.50.
we can say they are these three are factors of IEO
next slide
factor analysis results of the dependent variable, i.e.: entrepreneurial
intention. The analysis successfully produced one factor. The factor loadings of all
the six items were above 0.50 and thus they were retained. The Eigen-value was
4.30.

Next slide
Reliability is crucial in ensuring the consistency or stability of items used in the
study so we are doing test of reliability by calculationg cronbach’s Alpha which is
a tool for measuring the internal consistency that is how closely related to a set of
items or a group
When the reliability is 0.7 or high it considered acceptable means items have high
internal consistency
This study performed an inter-item consistency analysis and the results
were summarized in Table 4. The Cronbach’s alpha (α) values of variables
were well above the 0.70 threshold and the results indicated that they were
considered as preferable (Pallant, 2011).
As you can see in the table, the risk taking variable with 3 items is having
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.766 which is greater than 0.7 and shows acceptable
consistency. In the same manner if we study innovativeness, it shows good
internal consistency as it is higher than 0.8.
Now the proactiveness with 3 items shows acceptable consistency and
intention variable with 6 items shows good internal consistency.
Next slide
 As shown in Table, in terms of IEO, respondents of this study rated
themselves highest for innovativeness (mean = 4.610; SD = 0.696),
followed by proactiveness (mean = 4.433; SD = 0.608) and risk-
taking (mean = 3.883; SD = 0.786). As for their entrepreneurial
intention, the mean score was 4.088 (SD = 0.677).
 The results indicated that all pairs of variables recorded a positive
and significant correlation, except between risk taking and
entrepreneurial intention.
 Specifically, entrepreneurial intention recorded strongest significant
association with proactiveness (r = 0.672; sig. = < 0.01) followed by
innovativeness (r = 0.467; sig. = < 0.01).
 In addition, the results also showed that the correlation coefficient (r)
between proactiveness and innovativeness (r = 0.627; sig. = < 0.01),
risk-taking and innovativeness (r = 0.283; sig. = < 0.05) and risk-
taking and proactiveness (r = 0.263; sig. = < 0.05) were positive and
significance.
 Since all the r-values obtained were less than 0.70 (highest r = 0.627);
the issue of multicollinearity did not exist and multivariate analysis
was deemed appropriate (Pallant, 2011).