of cultural similarity which they are supposed to measure.

The composite construct

reliability for this measure was .79 which is well above the acceptable level as
indicated in the literature (Hair et al., 1995).

5.2.2.4 Supplier’s Competencies: Initial Findings

Supplier’s competencies were measured by seven items. The initial verification of the
inter-item correlation matrix revealed that competencies items 4, 5, 6 and 7 are
relatively poorly correlated with other items in the scale (correlation coefficient as
low of .12 and high of .45). Despite the concerns about these items, all seven items
were subjected to a CFA, the results of which are exhibited in Table 5.9. The CFA
results of these items indicated that the model was a poor fit to the data with a large χ2
value of 32.855 (df =10, p = .003) and with unreasonable CMIN/DF and RMSEA
scores. Examination of the standardised regression weights in initial analysis revealed
that ‘item 4’, ‘item 5’, and ‘item 6’ had relatively low loadings. The three error
covariances in the MIs with expected changes revealed misspecifications affiliated
with ‘item 3’, ‘item 4’, ‘item 5’ and ‘item 7’. Further, looking at the mean scores of
the items it was evidentMd._Abu_Saleh_Thesis 2006low scored.
that items 4, 5, 6 and 7 were relatively

The two least correlated as well as least loading items (item 4 = .38 and 6 = .47) and
their indicated misspecification need an explanation. Supplier’s competency ‘item 4’
(our major supplier offers more extended payment terms than other suppliers) was
found not to be a relevant item in the country context because importers normally
guarantee payment on delivery of documents by letter of credit.4 ‘Item 6’ (our major
supplier has more knowledgeable salespeople than other suppliers) is likely to be out
of context for Bangladeshi importers who are mostly served by agents and rarely
meet suppliers’ salespeople.5 ‘Item 7’ (our major supplier offers frequent and timely
delivery services) on the other hand, exhibited misspecifications associated with
items 3, 4, and 5. Such misspecification could mean that ‘item 7’ shares the sense of
‘item 5’ which measures importer perception of supplier’s knowledge of the supply
chain. Although ‘item 7’ showed a reasonable initial standardized loading of .60 and
4
During the period of pre-testing of the questionnaire, most of the respondent indicated (on item 4)
that they were importing under specification and providing advance L/C, so that there is no way to get
extended payment terms or such any facilities from the supplier.
5
Further, some of the respondents argued that they have no idea about whether their major suppliers
have knowledgeable salespeople or not, and even that they did not visit their supplier’s place of
business at all.

114