(Luận văn) the impact of social media on consumers do age and gender moderate the effect of social media on trust

ISB-MBUS INFORMATION FORM t to ng hi ep Name: Nguyễn Thị Đoan Thanh Date of Birth: 30-Aug-1988 (Picture) w n Course year: MBUS 7.1 lo 0908700476 ad Mobile: y th ju Email: thanhntd3008@gmail.com _ yi Home address: 276/105/23 Thong Nhat, Ward 16, Go Vap, Ho Chi Minh pl Position: Office name: UPM Raflatac n ua al Occupation: Sales Manager va n Office location: Lot 1Pa4, Binh An Textile & Garment Industrial Zone, Binh Thang Ward, fu ll Di An District, Binh Duong Province m How have I changed after two years studying at ISB? oi 10 nh at ISB provides me chance to study relevant issues and intelligent insight on business trends, issues and the economy from a larger perspective Programs are designed to utilize case studies from a variety of sectors: human resource, supply chain, finance from Vietnam to some well-known multinational companies to solidify business knowledge More than that, I have very good friendship with my teammates Our group of people looks like a family, we support and share the good and bad times in life z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm 11 What I want to share with the juniors is: Don’t try to meet traditional expectations of what your career and lives ought to look like an Lu after graduation You shouldn’t think that your MBA like an obligation but you should consider this is wonderful opportunity to develop yourself and expand your network va Moreover, you should seize chances to study how people resolve their problems as well as th WISHING YOU EVERY SUCCESS IN YOUR CHOSEN PATH! ey and seniors because connection and network are powerful, essential and far-yielding t re Last but certainly not least, remember to expand and connect your instructors, classmates n what you learn from every subject then apply these valuable lessons to your daily work CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM t to Độc lập – Tự – Hạnh phúc ng hi -o0o - ep BẢN CAM ĐOAN w Họ tên học viên: Nguyễn Thị Đoan Thanh n Nơi sinh : Vĩnh Long lo Ngày sinh : 30/08/1988 ad y th Ngày trúng tuyển đầu vào năm : 2016 ju Là tác giả đề tài luận văn : The impact of social media on consumers Do age and yi gender moderate the effect of social media on trust? pl Mã số : 22160043 n Ngành : ua al Giáo viên hướng dẫn : Đoàn Anh Tuấn ll fu Điểm bảo vệ luận văn : n va Bảo vệ luận văn ngày : 12/11/2018 nh Hội đồng chấm luận văn thạc sĩ oi m Tôi cam đoan chỉnh sửa nội dung luận văn thạc sĩ kinh tế với đề tài trên, theo góp ý at TP Hồ Chí Minh, ngày tháng năm z Chủ tịch Hội đồng chấm luận văn z (Ký ghi rõ họ tên) k jm ht (Ký ghi rõ họ tên) vb Người cam đoan om l.c an Lu Hội đồng chấm luận văn 05 (năm) thành viên gồm : gm Nguyễn Thị Đoan Thanh Ủy Viên : …………………………………………………………………… th Thư ký : ……………………………………………………………………… ey Phản biện 2: ………………………………………………………………… t re Phản biện 1:………………………………………………………………… n va Chủ tịch :…………………………………………………………………… to t n g hi e CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM Độc lập – Tự – Hạnh phúc p -o0o - n w BẢNG TỔNG HỢP NỘI DUNG CHỈNH SỬA LUẬN VĂN SAU BẢO VỆ lo ad THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON CONSUMERS DO AGE AND GENDER MODERATE THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON TRUST t h y j uy i Nhận xét Hội đồng Nội dung điều chỉnh Check the grammar of the title of the thesis The impact of social media on consumers Do age and gender moderate the effect of social media on trust? In the introduction session, the Add more sentences to support the reason and research objectives author should discuss how could the research objectives/goals had been set The research objectives (on page 12) were given but not strongly link to the previous paragraphs Why does the author investigate Add more sentences to explain why the author investigate the the moderating effect of age and moderating effect of age and gender gender? Does the investigation fill a research gap? This should be more in the introduction section H2a and H2b need to be argued Separated H2a and then H2b At the same time, I also revised the separately H2a should show the hypotheses as below: direction of the moderating H2a: Relationship between social media and trust will be affected effect, negative or positive H2b should be stated more clearly Số trang luận văn and an u l a l p STT v an f ul l a t z h oi n m 12 z v b h t 12 k jm gm l c o m u a n L 22&23 v a n t re ey th to t n g by age p hi e I’m not sure what does “moderated by gender” mean H2b: Relationship between social media and trust will be affected w n by gender lo ad t The author uses social network Add more sentences to support how to check legitimacy of the to invite informants to sample (9 rows) participate in the survey using a convenient approach How can we check the legitimacy of the sample? The sample and results of Remove office staff, students, household and manager During qualitative pilot study is a bit interview in person with respondents, the author also upload the link vague It should be stated clearer in Facebook Within short time (12 hours) more respondents in the opinions of 30 respondents Facebook answered questions than interview directly (office staff, students, household, manager) The author should discuss the Add sentence to predict the implication withdraw from the sample sample characteristics What is characteristics the potential implication withdrawn from the sample characteristics The unsupported moderating Add more sentence to discuss hypotheses are not wellexplained The author should add more discussion on this result Why age and gender not Add more sentences to discuss moderate the effect of social media on trust? 33 h y j uy i p u l a l an 31 v an f ul l m 40 a t z h oi n z v b h t 49 k jm gm l c o m 52&53 L u a n v a n t re ey th to 10 p social media is for people connection social media are for people connection “activities, practices, and behaviors among communities of people who gather online to share information, knowledge, and opinions using conversational media”incorrect citationremove “ ” social media is defined as a internet-based applicationssocial media are defined Constantinides and Fountain (2008) recommend classifying social media into five categories “(i) blogs, (ii) social network sites (for instance, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter and Google+), (iii) content communities (for example, YouTube and Wikipedia), (iv) e-forums, and (v) content aggregators”incorrect citationremove “ ” Whilst social media is offer pull marketing Whilst social media are offering pull marketing Moreover, trust is consider as the source Moreover, trust is considering as the source “higher means for group-in-self and entertainment Negative collective self-esteem links with social compensation, propound that those who felt negatively about their social group used SNS as an alternative to communicating with other group members Males are more possibly than females to commentate negative collective self-esteem and use SNSs for social compensation” incorrect citationremove “ ” “has been socialized to believe we live in a materialistic orientation society”incorrect citationremove “ ” “N>50+8m (where N is the number of sample size and m is number of independent variables)” incorrect citation remove “ ” 10 “Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Cronbach’s Alpha and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)”, “significant impact on the influence of the dependent variables towards the independent variable”, “ranging from 0.70 to 0.95 A low value of alpha could be due to a low number of questions, low inter-relation between items or heterogeneous t n g Some typos and incorrect citations still exist in the thesis hi e 10 16 w n lo ad 16 t h y j 16 uy i p u l a l an an v 17 f ul l 19 m a t z h oi n 21 z v b h t k jm 23 c o m l gm 32 u a n L 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 52 v a n t re ey th to t n g p hi e constructs”, “if this correlation was equal 0.40 or above the item would be probably correlated with most of the other items and make a good element of this summated rating scale If the item – total correlation was negative or too low (less than 0.30)”, it was compulsory to pay more attention on “the item for wording problems and conceptual fit by modifying or deleting such items”, “in terms of its fit to the hypothesized population model”; its indices could be created to “help with model interpretation” , “insight into the relationships among independent variables in their prediction of the dependent measurement”, “linear relationship between each of the predictor variables”, the “suggested cutoff for the tolerance value was 10 (or equivalent to VIF of 10.0), which corresponds to a multiple correlation of 95 with the other independent variables”, “correlation of each specific item with total of the other items in the scale (Corrected ItemTotal correlation)”, “better recovery of factor structure than shorter tests, and when the correlation between the factors was very great”, “the items and factor loading for rotated factors with loading”, according to (McCloskey, 2006) age effects the initial decision with regard to “whether to purchase on the internet, but not the subsequent behavior of e-shoppers, such as the number of transactions or the amount spent”, “status of experienced e-shoppers, their behavior is indistinguishable, independently of their age, gender or income level” (Hernández et al, 2011) incorrect citation remove “ ” w n lo ad t h y j uy i p u l a l an v an f ul l m h oi n a t z z v b h t k jm gm l c o m HỌC VIÊN (Ký, ghi rõ họ tên) L u a n v a n t re ey th t to ng hi UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY ep International School of Business w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al va n Nguyen Thi Doan Thanh ll fu m oi THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON CONSUMERS DO AGE AND GENDER MODERATE THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON TRUST? at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm MASTER OF BUSINESS (HONOURS) an Lu n va ey t re th Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2018 t to ng hi UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY ep International School of Business w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al Nguyen Thi Doan Thanh n va THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON CONSUMERS DO AGE AND GENDER MODERATE THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON TRUST? ll fu oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb MASTER OF BUSINESS (HONOURS) om l.c gm SUPERVISOR: DR DOAN ANH TUAN an Lu n va th ey t re Ho Chi Minh City – Year 2018 t to ng Contents hi ep List of figure List of table ACKNOWLEDGEMENT w n ABSTRACT lo ad Introduction y th Literature review and hypothesis 14 2.1 Technology acceptance model (TAM) and theory of planned behavior (TPB) 15 ju yi 2.2 Social media and trust 16 pl 2.3 Age and gender 20 ua al 2.4 Effect of trust on intention to buy and perceived usefulness 23 2.5 Perceived usefulness and intention to buy 26 n va 2.6 Hypotheses 27 n Research methodology 28 fu ll 3.1 Research procedure 29 oi m 3.2 Measurement of the constructs 34 3.3 Data analysis and method 36 nh at Measure validation 36 z Cronbach’s alpha 36 z Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 37 vb ht Multiple regression analysis 38 jm Data analysis and results 39 k 4.1 Sample characteristic 40 gm 4.2 The reliability test 41 l.c 4.3 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 41 om 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) result 44 4.5 Research hypotheses test 45 an Lu 4.6 Results of Multi-group analysis 47 Discussion and implications, limitations and directions for future research 51 5.3 Limitations and directions for future research 57 5.4 Conclusion 58 th Result contributions to management practices 55 ey Result contributions to theory 53 t re 5.2 The main results 53 n va 5.1 Discussion 51 t to Reference 58 ng Appendix 1: Primarily questionnaire 72 hi Appendix 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability 77 ep Appendix 3: CFA results and regression 79 Appendix 4: SEM result 83 w Appendix 5: Moderating role of gender 87 n lo Appendix 6: Moderating role of age 89 ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th t to 11 ng hi ep Dựa kinh nghiệm với trang mạng xã hội u thích tơi, tơi biết trung thực Based on my experience with my favorite social networking site, I know they care about 12 Based on my experience with my favorite social networking site, I know it is honest w n Dựa kinh nghiệm tơi với trang mạng xã hội u thích tôi, biết họ quan tâm đến khách hàng lo ad ju y th IV INTENTION TO BUY Ý ĐỊNH MUA HÀNG 13 I am very likely to provide the online vendor with the information it needs to better serve my needs through my favorite social networking site yi pl n ua al Tôi có khả cung cấp cho nhà cung cấp trực tuyến thông tin cần thiết để phục vụ tốt nhu cầu thông qua trang web mạng xã hội ưa thích tơi va 14 n I am happy to use my credit card to purchase from an online vendor through my favorite social networking site fu ll Tơi vui sử dụng thẻ tín dụng để mua từ nhà cung cấp trực tuyến thơng qua trang web mạng xã hội ưa thích tơi oi m nh 15 at I am likely to pay for the membership if SNSs start charging fees z Tôi trả phí thành viên trang mạng xã hội yêu thích bắt đầu tính phí z k jm ht vb om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th 76 t to Appendix 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability ng hi Social media ep Reliability Statistics w Cronbach's Alpha N of Items n 846 lo ad ju y th Item-Total Statistics yi Scale Variance Scale Mean if if Item Item Deleted Deleted pl ua al 9.7907 9.7767 9.9256 9.9256 7.363 7.146 7.667 7.508 n n va Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 650 699 681 707 820 799 806 795 ll fu SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 Corrected Item-Total Correlation m oi Trust nh N of Items z jm ht vb 893 z Cronbach's Alpha at Reliability Statistics 868 870 836 872 n va 748 742 829 736 an Lu 6.415 6.275 5.823 6.387 om 8.7814 9.0744 8.9070 8.6791 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted l.c T1 T2 T3 T4 Corrected Item-Total Correlation gm Scale Variance Scale Mean if if Item Item Deleted Deleted k Item-Total Statistics t re ey Perceived usefulness Cronbach's Alpha 857 th Reliability Statistics N of Items 77 t to ng hi Item-Total Statistics ep w n lo 6.8093 6.8140 6.6837 Corrected Item-Total Correlation 3.333 2.909 3.236 ad Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted 681 818 698 845 715 831 ju y th PU1 PU2 PU3 Scale Variance Scale Mean if if Item Item Deleted Deleted yi n va 776 n N of Items ua al Cronbach's Alpha pl Reliability Statistics ll fu 707 655 731 z k jm ht vb 605 651 584 z 3.069 2.763 2.891 Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted at 6.1209 6.1628 6.4326 Corrected Item-Total Correlation nh I1 I2 I3 oi Scale Variance Scale Mean if if Item Item Deleted Deleted m Item-Total Statistics om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th 78 t to Appendix 3: CFA results and regression ng hi Notes for Model (Default model) ep Computation of degrees of freedom (Default model) 05 Number of distinct sample moments: w n Number of distinct parameters to be estimated: lo ad Degrees of freedom (105 - 34): y th ju Result (Default model) Minimum was achieved Chi-square = 120.797 Degrees of freedom = 71 Probability level = 000 yi pl n ua al n va Estimates (Group number - Default model) Scalar Estimates (Group number - Default model) ll fu oi m Maximum Likelihood Estimates at nh Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) I2 < - Intention I3 < - Intention 12.432 14.519 13.007 *** *** *** 10.268 10.33 10.656 0.091 0.087 13.405 11.949 *** *** 1.109 0.115 9.616 *** 0.994 0.113 8.821 *** *** *** *** om l.c 0.1 0.091 0.093 Label an Lu n va P gm Intention C.R k < - jm I1 0.083 0.084 0.08 ht Trust Trust Trust Trust SM SM SM SM PU PU PU vb < < < < < < < < < < < - S.E z T1 T2 T3 T4 SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 PU1 PU2 PU3 z Estimate 1.03 1.213 1.044 1.024 0.943 0.987 1.214 1.041 ey t re th 79 t to Covariances: (Group number - Default model) ng hi ep Trust Trust w n S.E 0.05 0.052 C.R 3.724 6.098 P *** *** < > < > SM PU < > < > Intention PU 0.287 0.301 0.05 0.058 5.715 5.187 *** *** Intention 0.257 0.055 4.645 *** 0.325 0.054 5.975 *** lo Trust SM Estimate 0.187 0.318 Label ad < > Intention yi PU ju < > y th SM pl Variances: (Group number - Default model) ua al n n va S.E 0.077 0.115 0.085 C.R 6.765 5.898 6.427 P *** *** *** 5.743 8.486 8.59 5.917 8.176 8.188 7.906 7.825 7.31 8.389 4.357 8.111 7.27 6.723 8.223 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Label ll fu Trust SM PU Estimate 0.519 0.678 0.545 at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm an Lu 0.082 0.036 0.04 0.032 0.035 0.069 0.066 0.055 0.054 0.044 0.038 0.044 0.052 0.058 0.065 oi 0.473 0.304 0.34 0.186 0.286 0.564 0.525 0.431 0.392 0.369 0.164 0.356 0.377 0.393 0.532 m Intention e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 e13 e14 n va ey t re th 80 t to Model Fit Summary ng hi CMIN ep DF 71 P CMIN/ DF 1.701 14 CMIN 120.797 1667.44 91 18.324 RMR GFI AGFI PGFI 0.929 0.317 0.895 0.628 0.212 0.275 IFI Delta2 0.969 TLI rho2 0.96 NPAR 34 105 w Model Default model Saturated model n lo ad ua al 0.053 0.367 n n va Default model Saturated model Independence model pl Model yi RMR, GFI ju y th Independence model ll fu oi m Baseline Comparisons at z RFI rho1 0.907 nh vb jm k an Lu th 81 HI 90 84.186 1712.6 68 ey LO 90 23.284 1447.60 t re NCP 49.797 1576.44 n va Independence model om PCFI 0.756 0 l.c PNFI 0.724 0 gm PRATIO 0.78 NCP Model Default model Saturated model ht Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model Default model Saturated model Independence model CFI 0.968 z Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NFI Delta1 0.928 t to FMIN ng hi ep FMIN 0.564 7.792 F0 0.233 7.367 LO 90 0.109 6.765 HI 90 0.393 8.003 RMSEA 0.057 0.285 LO 90 0.039 0.273 HI 90 0.074 0.297 PCLOSE 0.237 Model Default model Saturated model Independence model w n lo ad ju y th RMSEA yi pl n ua al Model Default model Independence model n va Execution time summary ll oi m at nh 0.013 0.461 0.474 fu Minimization: Miscellaneous: Bootstrap: Total: z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th 82 t to Appendix 4: SEM result ng hi Notes for Model (Default model) ep Result (Default model) Minimum was achieved Chi-square = 150.587 Degrees of freedom = 73 Probability level = 000 w n lo ad ju y th pl n ua n va ll fu S.E 0.071 0.082 0.089 0.088 C.R 4.353 7.634 4.592 3.538 0.083 0.084 0.08 12.367 14.395 13.077 *** *** *** 0.104 0.096 0.097 10.034 10.134 10.417 *** *** *** 13.338 11.855 *** *** oi m at nh z *** *** om l.c gm 9.539 8.766 k n va ey t re th Estimate 0.348 0.607 0.439 0.325 0.794 0.784 0.89 0.819 an Lu 83 SM Trust PU Trust Trust Trust Trust Trust jm 0.117 0.113 ht < < < < < < < < - Label *** *** *** *** vb 0.092 0.087 Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number - Default model) Trust PU Intention Intention T1 T2 T3 T4 P z SM Trust PU Trust Trust Trust Trust Trust SM SM SM SM PU PU PU Intention Intention Intention al < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < - yi Trust PU Intention Intention T1 T2 T3 T4 SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 PU1 PU2 PU3 I1 I2 I3 Estimate 0.31 0.623 0.409 0.31 1.028 1.205 1.051 1.048 0.97 1.014 1.225 1.034 1.113 0.994 t to ng hi < < < < < < < < < < - ep SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 PU1 PU2 PU3 I1 I2 I3 w n lo ad 0.724 0.761 0.77 0.797 0.771 0.918 0.784 0.745 0.774 0.684 ju y th SM SM SM SM PU PU PU Intention Intention Intention yi Variances: (Group number - Default model) pl ua al Label n n va ll fu oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm an Lu SM e15 e17 e16 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 e13 e14 Estimate S.E C.R P 0.651 0.114 5.723 *** 0.455 0.069 6.638 *** 0.343 0.056 6.082 *** 0.249 0.05 5.005 *** 0.304 0.036 8.489 *** 0.343 0.04 8.614 *** 0.198 0.032 6.198 *** 0.28 0.035 8.096 *** 0.59 0.071 8.302 *** 0.521 0.067 7.784 *** 0.421 0.055 7.629 *** 0.383 0.054 7.076 *** 0.37 0.044 8.365 *** 0.153 0.039 3.948 *** 0.365 0.045 8.165 *** 0.379 0.052 7.227 *** 0.391 0.059 6.619 *** 0.532 0.065 8.189 *** n va ey t re th 84 t to Squared Multiple Correlations: ng hi ep Estimate 0.121 0.369 0.472 0.467 0.599 0.555 0.614 0.842 0.595 0.636 0.592 0.578 0.525 0.671 0.792 0.614 0.63 Trust PU Intention I3 I2 I1 PU3 PU2 PU1 SM4 SM3 SM2 SM1 T4 T3 T2 T1 w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z Model Fit Summary z P CMIN/DF 2.063 k 18.324 RMR, GFI PGFI 0.635 0.275 n va GFI AGFI 0.914 0.876 0.367 0.317 0.212 an Lu RMR 0.099 om Model Default model Saturated model Independence model l.c 91 gm 14 DF 73 jm Independence model CMIN 150.587 1667.44 ht NPAR 32 105 vb Model Default model Saturated model ey t re th 85 t to Baseline Comparisons ng NFI RFI IFI TLI Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2 CFI 0.91 0.887 0.951 0.939 0.951 1 0 0 Model hi ep Default model Saturated model Independence model w n Parsimony-Adjusted Measures lo ad ju y th Model Default model Saturated model Independence model NCP yi PRATIO 0.802 PNFI PCFI 0.73 0.763 0 0 pl ua al NCP LO 90 HI 90 77.587 46.27 116.672 0 1576.443 1447.605 1712.668 n n va ll fu Model Default model Saturated model Independence model m HI 90 116.672 1712.668 z z ht vb LO 90 46.27 1447.605 at NCP 77.587 1576.443 nh Model Default model Saturated model Independence model oi NCP FMIN n ey t re PCLO HI 90 SE 0.086 0.02 0.297 va LO 90 0.054 0.273 an Lu RMSE A 0.07 0.285 om Model Default model Independence model l.c RMSEA gm FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90 0.704 0.363 0.216 0.545 0 0 7.792 7.367 6.765 8.003 k jm Model Default model Saturated model Independence model th 86 t to Appendix 5: Moderating role of gender ng hi CMIN ep Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model w n lo ad CMIN 255.178 281.749 000 1798.974 NFI Delta1 858 843 1.000 000 RFI rho1 823 836 DF 146 174 182 P 000 000 CMIN/DF 1.748 1.619 000 9.884 y th NPAR 92 64 238 56 Baseline Comparisons ju pl IFI Delta2 934 934 1.000 000 n ua al va Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model yi Model 000 TLI rho2 916 930 CFI 932 933 1.000 000 000 n fu ht vb LO 90 68.659 65.753 000 1484.681 z NCP 109.178 107.749 000 1616.974 z PCFI 748 892 000 000 at PNFI 688 806 000 000 nh PRATIO 802 956 000 1.000 oi m Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model ll Parsimony-Adjusted Measures om l.c an Lu FMIN 87 th HI 90 740 740 000 8.247 ey LO 90 322 309 000 6.970 t re F0 513 506 000 7.591 n FMIN 1.198 1.323 000 8.446 va Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model gm HI 90 157.558 157.659 000 1756.681 k Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model jm NCP t to RMSEA ng hi ep Model Unconstrained Structural weights Independence model RMSEA 059 054 204 LO 90 047 042 196 HI 90 071 065 213 PCLOSE 104 279 000 w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th 88 t to ng Appendix 6: Moderating role of age hi NPAR CMIN Unconstrained 92 256.793 46 64 287.007 74 238 56 000 1825.219 82 ep CMIN Model F w P CMIN/DF 1.759 000 n lo Structural weights ad 000 000 1.649 10.029 ju y th Saturated model Independence model RFI rho1 825 836 IFI Delta2 934 932 1.000 000 TLI rho2 916 928 n ua al CFI 933 931 1.000 000 000 n 000 va Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model NFI Delta1 859 843 1.000 000 pl Model yi Baseline Comparisons ll fu at nh z z PCFI 748 890 000 000 oi PNFI 689 806 000 000 m Parsimony-Adjusted Measures Model PRATIO Unconstrained 802 Structural weights 956 Saturated model 000 Independence model 1.000 RMSEA 060 055 om RMSEA Model Unconstrained Structural weights l.c FMIN 1.206 1.347 000 8.569 HI 90 159.368 163.526 000 1783.966 gm FMIN Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model LO 90 70.075 70.388 000 1509.881 k NCP 110.793 113.007 000 1643.219 jm Model Unconstrained Structural weights Saturated model Independence model ht vb NCP n ey t re HI 90 748 768 000 8.375 va LO 90 329 330 000 7.089 an Lu F0 520 531 000 7.715 HI 90 072 066 PCLOSE 093 220 89 th LO 90 047 044 PCLOSE 000 HI 90 215 LO 90 197 RMSEA 206 t to ng Model Independence model hi ep w n lo ad ju y th yi pl n ua al n va ll fu oi m at nh z z k jm ht vb om l.c gm an Lu n va ey t re th 90