Findings

At first, we ran a primary analysis with the initial structural equation model that we had. The
findings of the analysis are as follows:

Figure 1: Initial SEM

Factor Loadings
From the above figure, we can check the correlation between the factors and the latent constructs
by comparing their factor loadings with standard values. For our analysis, we have determined
that a factor loading greater than 0.65 is significant for our model and any factor below that will
be eliminated form the model. Salary, Working Hours, CGPA, Free Hours and Stress Levels
have factor loadings below 0.65 and will hence be removed from the model for a better fit.
After eliminating these factors, we found the following correlations for our model:

Figure 2: Final SEM

The factor loadings for this model are above 0.65 indicating a significant correlation between
them and the latent construct.
Reliability of the Model
In order to check the relationship between working conditions and university experience, it is
important to check the reliability of the model.
Table 1: Reliability Values

Column1 Cronbach's Composite Composite

alpha reliability reliability
 (rho_a) (rho_c)
University Experience 0.710 0.738 0.835
Work Condition -1.913 0.940 0.520

From the table we can see that Cronbach’s alpha has values of 0.7 and -1.91 for University
Experience and Work Condition respectively. However, since our latent construct is being
measured using different types of scales, composite reliability (rho_a) is a more robust measure
of reliability. As the composite reliability (rho_a) is above 0.7 (standard), the construct reliability
of the model is ensured.

Validity of the Model

For a proper model, we need to ensure two types of validity: i) Convergent Validity ii)
Discriminant Validity

i) Convergent Validity
Table 2: AVE values

Column1 Average
variance
extracted
(AVE)
University Experience 0.628
Work Condition 0.737

To ensure convergent validity among the factors, a desired AVE is anything above
0.5. AVEs for University Experience and Work Condition are 0.628 and 0.737
respectively. Convergent validity of the model is thereby ensured.

ii) Discriminant Validity

Table 3: HTMT ratios

Constructs Heterotrait-monotrait ratio

(HTMT)

work condition <-> University Experience 0.401

We measured the discriminant validity of the model using the HTMT ratio. The
observed ratio should be less than 0.85 for the model to be valid. The HTMT ratio of
this model is 0.401 – ensuring the discriminant validity of the model.

Significance analysis
The last step before we find out the impact between the two constructs, is to check whether i)
The factors impact the constructs significantly; ii) The constructs have a significant relationship

Figure 3: P-Values

From the above analysis, we can see that all the p-values are less than 0.05 ensuring that: i) The
factors have a significant effect on the constructs; ii) The constructs have a significant
relationship.

Beta (Path) Coefficient and Variance analysis:

The beta coefficient of the model will tell us how strong the impact of Work Condition is on
University Experience. We will also check the adjusted R square which will tell us how much of
the variance in University Experience is caused by Work Condition.

Figure 4: Final SEM

The beta coefficient for the model is 0.369, which is indicates a strong influence of Work
Condition on University Experience as beta coefficients above 0.2 implies a strong relationship.
Work Condition also explains 13.6% of the variance in University Experience as the R-square of
the model is 0.136. A R-square value above 0.1 indicates that the variance explained by a
construct to be adequate (Miller & Frank, 1992).

Limitation
Firstly, the limitation of the study is that we did not incorporate multicollinearity among factors
in our research.
Table 4: VIF values

Factors VIF

Learning opportunity 5.833

benefits satisfaction 1.418

confidence 1.398

networking satisfaction 6.410

popularity 1.376

social acceptance 1.386

According to the VIF table, we can see that Learning opportunity and Networking Satisfaction
have a VIF of 5.8333 and 6,410 respective, which are both above the maximum allowed VIF of 4
showing possibilities of multicollinearity. Further analysis on this must be done for a better fit
model.

Secondly, our research is cross-sectional, meaning it can’t account for long-term changes in the
perceived utility of certain variables. We cannot fully confirm our results to be causal. Moreover,
the way different variables are subjectively assessed by individuals may have an erroneous effect
in our regression model.

Finally, the findings of this research are non-generalizable due to a lack of probabilistic
sampling.