Real, Simbólico, Imaginario

Figure 5.5 shows the results of the pooled measurement model for three constructs, namely perceived behaviour control, intention and propensity to plan.

In total, there are ten items in the model that measured perceived behaviour control (four items), intention (four items) and emergency fund formation behaviour (two items). Although the standardised factor loading for all items was above 0.5, which is the accepted factor loading for new developed items (Awang, 2012b), the Fitness Index for RMSEA was still below the required level (0.138). Thus, redundancy items were inspected through the Modification Indexes (MI).

143

Figure ‎5.5: Pooled CFA Measurement Model for Perceived Behaviour Control, Intention and Emergency Fund Formation Behaviour

Note: The items labelled in the box correspond to those shown in the questionnaire, which represent measured variables. Latent constructs are shown with an oval [Perceived behaviour Control (PBC), Intention (INT), and Emergency Fund Formation Behaviour (EFFB)]. Each measured variable has an error (e) associated with it. Two-headed connections show the covariance between constructs (Cov). One- headed connectors indicate a causal path from a construct to items and main-constructs to sub-construct.

144

Table 5.12 shows the covariance between pair items. Only the highest MI value is presented in the table. The value of MI below 15.0 is still considered acceptable. However, in this case, e4 shows a correlation towards e6 with a high MI value (17.898). Therefore Item PBC1 was deleted.

Table ‎5.12: Modification Indexes Presents the Covariance between Pair Items

Note: (e) indicates the residual in this measurement model. See Figure 5.5 for details.

However, after the adjustment was made, the fitness index in the measurement model still did not achieve the required level, indicating that additional inspection was needed. It is recommended that modification of only one item is done at a time (Awang, 2012b). Table 5.13 shows the covariance between pair items before the second adjustment. From the table, it can be seen that e7 shows a correlation towards e8, representing the highest MI value. Therefore, this research chose to set these two correlated measurement errors of redundant items as a “free parameter” before running the new measurement model.

Table ‎5.13: Modification Indexes Presents the Covariance between Pair Items

Note: (e) indicates the residual in this measurement model. See figure 5.5 for details.

Modification Indexes Par Change

e4 <--> e6 17.898 .568 e3 <--> e8 4.100 .322 e3 <--> e5 7.685 -.367

Modification Indexes Par Change

e7 <--> e10 5.262 -.716

e7 <--> e8 8.099 .448

e5 <--> e6 5.144 .193

e3 <--> e8 4.752 .373

145

Figure ‎5.6: Pooled CFA Measurement Model for Attitude, Subjective Norms and Propensity to Plan after Adjustments

Note: The items labelled in the box correspond to those shown in the questionnaire, which represent measured variables. Latent constructs are shown with an oval [Perceived behaviour Control (PBC), Intention (INT), and Emergency Fund Formation Behaviour (EFFB)]. Each measured variable has an error (e) associated with it. Two-headed connections show the covariance between constructs (Cov). One-headed connectors indicate a causal path from a construct to items and main-constructs to sub- construct.

After adjusting the redundant items, the fitness indexes achieved the required level (see Figure 5.6). The fitness index for the new measurement model is presented in Table 5.14.

146

Table ‎5.14: The Fitness Indexes for Measurement Model

Category Name of Index Index Value Comments

Absolute Fit RMSEA 0.058 Required level is

achieved

Incremental Fit CFI 0.984 Required level is

achieved

Parsimonious Fit Chisq/df 1.282 Required level is

achieved

Note: The required level for Fitness Indexes were: RMSEA <0.08; CFI > 0.90; (X2/df) < 5.0 (see Table 4.9 for details).

Furthermore, the reliability and validity of constructs was measured. Table 5.15 summarises the reliability assessment of the CFA procedure for these constructs.

Table ‎5.15: Reliability Assessment Summaries for All Constructs

Construct Item Factor

Loading Cronbach Alpha Composite Reliability (CR)a Average Variance Extracted (AVE)b PBC PBC1 Item deleted PBC2 0.81 0.870 0.875 0.702 PBC3 0.95 PBC4 0.74 INT INT1 0.79 0.894 0.890 0.673 INT2 0.68 INT3 0.86 INT4 0.93 EFFB EFFB1 0.56 0.577 0.611 0.446 EFFB2 0.76

Note: PBC (Perceived Behaviour Control), INT (Intention), EFFB (Emergency Fund Formation Behaviour).

a _{Calculated by formula: CR = (∑ Ⱪ)}2 _{/ [(∑Ⱪ)}2 _{+ (∑1- Ⱪ}2_{)], which Ⱪ = factor loading of every item,}

n = number of items in a model.

b

AVEcalculated by formula: AVE = ∑ 𝐿𝑖 2 𝑛 𝑖=1

𝑛 , where 𝐿

𝑖 _{represents the standardised factor loading and}

i is the number of items. Then, n is the total of all squared standardised factor loadings divided by the number of items.

147

From evaluating the results, the measurement model for perceived behaviour control, intention and emergency fund formation behaviour all achieved the internal reliability, construct reliability and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). As internal reliability is measured based on the Alpha value ≥ 0.70, EFFB constructs, however, show lower requirement level values. As according to Pallant (2001, p.87), if the Alpha value is less than 0.7 the researcher needs to decide whether to retain the items based on the results from the “Corrected Item-Total Correlation” column. If the values are less than 0.3, then researcher is recommended to delete the item. In this instance, the items in the EFFB constructs show the value to be over 0.3 respectively (see Table 5.16). The construct, then, was considered acceptable.

Table ‎5.16: Reliability Results for the Emergency Fund Formation Behaviour Construct Items Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Saving 4.40 9.489 .420 .177 Investment 6.98 5.576 .420 .177

In addition, the values of Cronbach Alpha for each of the constructs are: perceived behaviour control (0.870) and intention (0.894), which all achieved the minimum 0.70 value. Furthermore, all constructs achieved the minimum requirement value for CR ≥ 0.6: perceived behaviour control (0.875), intention (0.890) and emergency fund formation behaviour (0.611). Moreover, all constructs also achieved the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) when value of AVE ≥ 0.5. This shown by value of AVE for each construct: perceived behaviour control (0.702), intention (0.673) and emergency

148

fund formation behaviour (0.446) respectively. The value for AVE which nearly to 0.5 such emergency fund formation constructs is still acceptable as long as the CR value achieved the minimum requirement (Awang, 2012b).

Consequently, the validity assessment shows that the model achieved both convergent and construct validity. Based on Figure 5.6, Table 5.17 summarises the discriminant validity assessments for all constructs. As all values were below 0.85, the discriminant validity was achieved.

Table ‎5.17: Discriminant Validity Assessment Summaries for All Constructs

Construct Perceived

Behaviour Control

Intention Emergency Fund

Formation Behaviour Perceived Behaviour Control 1.000 Intention 0.508 1.000 Emergency Fund Formation Behaviour 0.237 0.322 1.000