Final Project

Advanced data analytics techniques

Submitted

DR Tasneem Fatima

By
Iram Rehman Phd (mgt )
Project content

 Assumptions of regression

 t- testing

 Frequency distribution

 Demographic description

 Construct validation

 Correlation

 Linear regression

 Multiple regression

 Mediation

 Moderation

 Scale development
Assumptions of regression.

1 - Linearity

Interpretation

There is linear relation exists between social cognitive diversity and unconscious bias , one unit change
in independent variable will bring 0.35 change in dependent variable.

2. Independence of Errors

Interpretation

If we calculate the residual values with predictive values, it will give values of
predictive variable, if we collect all residual error values we will get zero.

(Data available on spss data file )

3. Homoscedasticity
4. Normality

Interpretation

If the p value is < 0.05 then we say that the data is normal distribution.
5. Multicollinearity

Regression

Correlations
Correlations

SCD ID

Pearson Correlation 1 .404**

SCD Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 252 252
**
Pearson Correlation .404 1

ID Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 252 252

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model Variables Variables Method

Entered Removed
b
1 SCD . Enter

a. Dependent Variable: ID
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Square Estimate

1 .404a .163 .160 .45007

a. Predictors: (Constant), SCD

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 9.852 1 9.852 48.637 .000b

1 Residual 50.640 250 .203

Total 60.492 251

a. Dependent Variable: ID
b. Predictors: (Constant), SCD

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig. Collinearity Statistics

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

(Constant) 2.505 .210 11.925 .000

1
SCD .347 .050 .404 6.974 .000 1.000 1.000

a. Dependent Variable: ID

Collinearity Diagnosticsa

Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition Index Variance Proportions

(Constant) SCD

1 1.991 1.000 .00 .00

1
2 .009 14.750 1.00 1.00

a. Dependent Variable: ID

Interpretation

Test 1

Here correlation is average 404** and significant.

Test 2

Value of tolerance is > 0.1, hence no collineaity has been found.

Test 3

VIF is < 10, so no collinearity has been found.

Test 4

Conditional index < 15, hence no colinearity been found.

6. Autocorrelation

Model Summaryb

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the Durbin-Watson

Square Estimate
a
1 .513 .263 .254 .42399 1.537

a. Predictors: (Constant), UB, SCD, ST

b. Dependent Variable: ID

Interpretation
Here values of Durban Watson test is 1.537, so there is negative autocorrelation exists

Second

Independent samples T-Test

Group Statistics

gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

male 177 4.2082 .56165 .04222

SCD
female 75 4.1233 .59186 .06834

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of
Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence

tailed) Difference Difference Interval of the
Difference

Lower Upper

1.217 .271 1.080 250 .281 .08492 .07864 -.06996 .23979

Equal variances
SCD
assumed
 1.057 133.100 .292 .08492 .08033 -.07397 .24380
Equal variances
not assumed

Interpretation

An independent t test has been conducted to test level of cognitive diversity among male and
female, individuals differ significantly or not .the group statistic table is showing the slight
difference between mean values for male ( M= 4.2 082 , SD=.561650) while for female mean
value (M 4.1233, SD =59186).
The Levene's Test of equity of variance indicate that the F-significance value is greater than
0.05, hence we take value of “equal variance assumed “. As it is evident from the table that the
two tailed test significance value is 0.281 which is greater than 0.05 with t (1.080), (CI=-.06996
to .23979). Hence we reject the hypothesis that the difference between male and female social
cognitive diversity in insignificant.

Construct Reliability

Psy cap
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's N of Items
Alpha

.878 24

Table 1 Correlations

SCD ST UB

Pearson Correlation 1 .409** .397**

SCD Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 252 252 252

**
Pearson Correlation .409 1 .424**
ST Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 252 252 252
** **
Pearson Correlation .397 .424 1

UB Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 252 252 252

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation
Cronbach alpha is for Psy Cap is .878.

Correlation
Table 4.1 shows the correlation among variables in present study. Correlation between social cognitive
diversity and stereotype threats is moderate and significant with (r=.409), Correlation among social
cognitive diversity and unconscious bias is moderate and significant with(r=.404), correlation between
unconscious bias and stereotype is low positive and significant (r=.3.97**).

Frequencies

Interpretation

gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

male 177 70.2 70.2 70.2

Valid female 75 29.8 29.8 100.0

Total 252 100.0 100.0

age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

18-25 56 22.2 22.2 22.2

26-33 141 56.0 56.0 78.2

34-41 34 13.5 13.5 91.7

Valid
42-49 15 6.0 6.0 97.6

50 and above 6 2.4 2.4 100.0

Total 252 100.0 100.0

qualificaion

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

4.00 46 18.3 18.3 18.3

5.00 149 59.1 59.1 77.4

Valid
6.00 57 22.6 22.6 100.0

Total 252 100.0 100.0

 experience

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

1-5 128 50.8 50.8 50.8

6-10 73 29.0 29.0 79.8

11-15 26 10.3 10.3 90.1

Valid
16-20 16 6.3 6.3 96.4

20 AND Above 9 3.6 3.6 100.0

Total 252 100.0 100.0

Interpretation ( demographic)
It has been reported from gender wise frequency analysis of the data that 70.2% of the sample
comprises of male employees of universities while 29.8% respondent were female which is
comparatively low. Hence the majority of the respondents were male in this data. As per the
frequency of age 141 person of the sample i.e 56.0% belongs to the age group of 26 years to 33
years while in the age bracket of 18 years to 25 years there were 56 respondents that becomes
22.2%. In the age brackets of 34 years to 41 years the number of respondents was 34 which are
13.5% of the total sample. Whereas 15 respondents were from the age group of 42 years to 49
years i.e 6.0% and 6 respondents belongs to the age bracket which is greater than 50 i.e 2.4%
which is the lowest one. Another demographic aspect catered in this study is the qualification of
the respondents and indicates that a total of 149 respondents that work out to be 59.1% are of MS
qualification which is the highest percentage in qualification frequency then PhD qualification
which is 57 respondents i-e 22.6% and then BS which is 46 i-e 18.3%. The survey also collects
data about the work experience of the respondents. Here 50.8 percentages has been observed as
respondents with 1 year to 5 years of work experience. Thereare 73 of the respondents who have
work experience of 6 years to 10 years i.e. 29.0% .However in other experience categories 26
respondents (10.3%) are found in 11 years to 15 years of work experience, 16 respondents has
worked for the period which falls in 16 years to 20 years of total work experience. While 9 of the
respondents, that make 3.6% of the total sample size are having work experience 21 years.

Descriptive

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

age 252 1.00 5.00 29.45 8.27
Valid N (listwise) 252

Interpretation
The average age of service employees is 29.45 (SD=8.27).

Descriptive

Authentic Leadership

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

AL1 252 1.00 5.00 3.9484 1.25658

AL2 252 1.00 5.00 4.2976 .84372
AL3 252 1.00 5.00 3.9960 1.22555
AL4 252 1.00 5.00 4.1905 .95487
AL5 252 1.00 5.00 4.2302 1.06493
AL6 252 1.00 5.00 4.3175 .82925
AL7 252 1.00 5.00 3.9484 1.26291
AL8 252 1.00 5.00 4.0556 1.18628
AL 252 1.63 5.00 4.1830 .57094
Valid N (listwise) 252

Interpretation

The descriptive statistic of AL reveal an overall mean score of 4.18(SD=.57). This shows a
positive relation to authentic followership AL2 has highest mean.

Linear regression
Regression

Model Summary ( Table 1 )

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Square Estimate

1 .404a .163 .160 .45007

a. Predictors: (Constant), SCD

 ANOVAa Table 2

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 9.852 1 9.852 48.637 .000b

1 Residual 50.640 250 .203

Total 60.492 251

a. Dependent Variable: ID
b. Predictors: (Constant), SCD

Coefficientsa Table 3

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 2.505 .210 11.925 .000

1
SCD .347 .050 .404 6.974 .000

a. Dependent Variable: ID

Interpretation
As indicated in table n# 1. R-square value is .0 163 which means that our independent variable
i.e. SCD causes 16.3% change, which is very low, caused in dependent variable i.e. ID. The
table # 2, ANOVA result shows that p value which is 0.000 less than 0.05, hence we can say that
there is significant relationship between independent variable i.e. SCD and dependent variable
i.e. ID. The table n# 3 shows the coefficient results. As indicated that the beta value is .404,
which means that the change in independent variable i.e. SCD by one unit will bring about the
change in dependent variable i.e. IC is 0.404.

Multiple regression

Table 1 Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Square Estimate
a
1 .308 .095 .084 .54637

a. Predictors: (Constant), qualificaion, age, gender

 Table 2 ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 7.787 3 2.596 8.695 .000b

1 Residual 74.033 248 .299

Total 81.820 251

a. Dependent Variable: SCD

b. Predictors: (Constant), qualificaion, age, gender

Table 3 Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 5.479 .294 18.625 .000

gender -.033 .076 -.027 -.440 .661

1
age .038 .039 .059 .982 .327

qualificaion -.264 .055 -.296 -4.839 .000

a. Dependent Variable: SCD

Interpretation
As indicated in table n# 1. R-square value is .095 which means that our independent variables
i.e. gender , age and qualification causing 9.5% change , which is very low, caused in
dependent variable i.e. ID. The table # 2, ANOVA result shows that p value which is 0.000 less
than 0.05, hence we can say that there is significant relationship between independent variables
i.e. gender, age and qualification and dependent variable i.e. SCD. The table n# 3 shows the
coefficient results. As indicated that the beta values is -.033, 0.38 and -.264 which means that the
change in independent variable i.e. age , gender and qualification by one unit will bring about
the change in dependent variable i.e. SCD is -.033, 0.38 and -.264 and p value for gender is .661,
not significant , p value for age is .327 , not significant and p value for qualification is 0.000
which is sign cant.

Mediation by Hyes

Run MATRIX procedure:

***************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Version 4.2 *****************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2022). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

**************************************************************************
Model : 4
Y : TE
X : SCD
M : IC

Sample
Size: 252

**************************************************************************
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
IC

Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.4036 .1629 .2026 48.6372 1.0000 250.0000 .0000

Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2.5048 .2101 11.9249 .0000 2.0912 2.9185
SCD .3470 .0498 6.9740 .0000 .2490 .4450

**************************************************************************
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
TE

Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.4967 .2467 .2989 40.7648 2.0000 249.0000 .0000

Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 1.1449 .3196 3.5825 .0004 .5155 1.7743
SCD .3133 .0661 4.7438 .0000 .1833 .4434
IC .3929 .0768 5.1150 .0000 .2416 .5442

************************** TOTAL EFFECT MODEL ****************************

OUTCOME VARIABLE:
TE

Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.4093 .1675 .3289 50.3033 1.0000 250.0000 .0000

Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2.1291 .2677 7.9542 .0000 1.6019 2.6563
SCD .4497 .0634 7.0925 .0000 .3248 .5746

************** TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y **************

Total effect of X on Y
Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
.4497 .0634 7.0925 .0000 .3248 .5746

Direct effect of X on Y
Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
.3133 .0661 4.7438 .0000 .1833 .4434

Indirect effect(s) of X on Y:
Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
IC .1364 .0386 .0684 .2184

*********************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND ERRORS ************************

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

95.0000

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals:

5000

------ END MATRIX -----

Table Mediation

IC between SCD and TE

Effect Effect size S.E T p LL95%CI UL95%CI

Total effect .44 .06 7.09 .00 .32 .57

Direct effect .31 .06 4.74 .00 .18 .44

Indirect .13 .038 .06 .21

effect
S.E = standard error, LL = lower limit, UL = upper limit, CI= confidence interval IC=
Interpersonal conflicts SCD= Social cognitive diversity TE = Team effectiveness

Interpretation

Mediation analysis was run through SPSS using the plug-in of PROCESS software by
Preacher and Hayes. The current study has used mediation between the social cognitive diversity
and team effectiveness, interpersonal conflicts has been used as the mediator. Table describes the
findings of the mediation analysis that includes collective figure of direct & indirect effects.
According to Preacher and Hayes (2008) mediation analysis was run by using the method of boot
strapping. With 5000 bootstrap resamples were used for this analysis, have 95% confidence
intervals. The social cognitive diversity and interpersonal conflicts relation explained by the total
effect turning out to be (0.44) and there exists no zero value between LLCI (.35) and ULCI (.56).
The impact of social cognitive diversity and interpersonal conflicts on teamed effectiveness
represented by direct effect which turned out to be .29 and there exists no zero value between
LLCI (.11) and ULCI (.31). The effect size in the presence of mediation variable i.e.
interpersonal conflicts turned out to be .13 with no zero value lying between LLCI (.08) and
ULCI (.23). A significant relationship is determined through non-existence of zero value
between both upper as well as lower boot limits, consistent with Preacher and Hayes
(2008).Based on these results, it is concluded that social cognitive diversity is positively
associated with team effectiveness so hypothesis is accepted; moreover, interpersonal conflicts
mediates the said relationship, leading to the acceptance of hypotheses .

Serial mediation

Run MATRIX procedure:

***************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Version 4.2 *****************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2022). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

**************************************************************************
Model : 6
Y : TE
X : SCD
M1 : UB
M2 : ID

Sample
Size: 252

**************************************************************************
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
UB

Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.3969 .1575 .2185 46.7432 1.0000 250.0000 .0000

Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2.4688 .2182 11.3170 .0000 2.0392 2.8985
SCD .3533 .0517 6.8369 .0000 .2515 .4551

**************************************************************************
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
ID

Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.4617 .2131 .1912 33.7224 2.0000 249.0000 .0000

Model
 coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 1.9223 .2509 7.6606 .0000 1.4281 2.4166
SCD .2636 .0527 5.0064 .0000 .1599 .3674
UB .2359 .0592 3.9884 .0001 .1194 .3525

**************************************************************************
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
TE

Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.5443 .2963 .2803 34.8000 3.0000 248.0000 .0000

Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant .5792 .3378 1.7146 .0877 -.0861 1.2445
SCD .2315 .0669 3.4603 .0006 .0997 .3633
UB .3089 .0739 4.1804 .0000 .1634 .4544
ID .3143 .0767 4.0961 .0001 .1632 .4655

************************** TOTAL EFFECT MODEL ****************************

OUTCOME VARIABLE:
TE

Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.4093 .1675 .3289 50.3033 1.0000 250.0000 .0000

Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 2.1291 .2677 7.9542 .0000 1.6019 2.6563
SCD .4497 .0634 7.0925 .0000 .3248 .5746

************** TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y **************

Total effect of X on Y
Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
.4497 .0634 7.0925 .0000 .3248 .5746

Direct effect of X on Y
Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
.2315 .0669 3.4603 .0006 .0997 .3633

Indirect effect(s) of X on Y:
Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
TOTAL .2182 .0472 .1309 .3159
Ind1 .1091 .0323 .0504 .1761
Ind2 .0829 .0255 .0398 .1393
Ind3 .0262 .0121 .0075 .0546

Indirect effect key:

Ind1 SCD -> UB -> TE
Ind2 SCD -> ID -> TE
Ind3 SCD -> UB -> ID -> TE

*********************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND ERRORS ************************

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:
95.0000

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals:

5000

------ END MATRIX -----

Table Serial Mediation

IC between SCD and TE

Effect Effect size S.E T p LL95%CI UL95%CI

Total effect .44 .06 7.09 .00 .32 .57

Direct effect .23 .07 3.56 .00 .09 .36

Indirect .21 .05 .13 .31

effect
S.E = standard error, LL = lower limit, UL = upper limit, CI= confidence interval
UC=unconscious bias IC= Interpersonal conflicts SCD= Social cognitive diversity TE = Team
effectiveness
Interpretation
Mediation analysis was run through SPSS using the plug-in of PROCESS software by Preacher
and Hayes. The current study has used mediation between the social cognitive diversity and team
effectiveness, interpersonal conflicts has been used as the mediator. Table describes the findings
of the mediation analysis that includes collective figure of direct & indirect effects. According to
Preacher and Hayes (2008) mediation analysis was run by using the method of boot strapping
and using model 6. With 5000 bootstrap resamples were used for this analysis, have 95%
confidence intervals. The social cognitive diversity, unconcious bias and interpersonal conflicts
relation explained by the total effect turning out to be (0.44) and there exists no zero value
between LLCI (.35) and ULCI (.57). The impact of social cognitive diversity, unconscious bias
and interpersonal conflicts on teamed effectiveness represented by direct effect which turned out
to be( .23) and there exists no zero value between LLCI (.09) and ULCI (.36). The effect size in
the presence of mediation variable i.e. interpersonal conflicts turned out to be (.21) with no zero
value lying between LLCI (.13) and ULCI (.31). A significant relationship is determined through
non-existence of zero value between both upper as well as lower boot limits, consistent with
Preacher and Hayes (2008).Based on these results, it is concluded that social cognitive diversity
is positively associated with team effectiveness so hypothesis is accepted; moreover,
interpersonal conflicts mediates the said relationship, leading to the acceptance of hypotheses,
and shows partial mediation .
Moderation

Run MATRIX procedure:

***************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Version 4.2 *****************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2022). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

**************************************************************************
Model : 1
Y : TE
X : SCD
W : ST

Sample
Size: 252

**************************************************************************
OUTCOME VARIABLE:
TE

Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.4976 .2476 .2997 27.1976 3.0000 248.0000 .0000

Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant .3927 1.4231 .2760 .7828 -2.4101 3.1955
SCD .5047 .3589 1.4061 .1609 -.2023 1.2117
ST .5942 .3789 1.5682 .1181 -.1521 1.3404
Int_1 -.0507 .0934 -.5424 .5880 -.2347 .1334

Product terms key:

Int_1 : SCD x ST

Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s):

R2-chng F df1 df2 p
X*W .0009 .2942 1.0000 248.0000 .5880
----------
Focal predict: SCD (X)
Mod var: IC (W)

Data for visualizing the conditional effect of the focal predictor:

Paste text below into a SPSS syntax window and execute to produce plot.

DATA LIST FREE/

SCD ST TE .
BEGIN DATA.
3.6250 3.5000 3.6589
4.2500 3.5000 3.8634
4.6250 3.5000 3.9862
3.6250 4.0208 3.8726
4.2500 4.0208 4.0607
 4.6250 4.0208 4.1736
3.6250 4.3550 4.0098
4.2500 4.3550 4.1873
4.6250 4.3550 4.2938
END DATA.
GRAPH/SCATTERPLOT=
SCD WITH TE BY IC .

*********************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND ERRORS ************************

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

95.0000

------ END MATRIX -----

Moderation analysis

Moderation analysis (2)

Variables B S.E t p LL95%CI UL95%CI

Constant .39 1.42 .28 .78 -2.41 3.19

SCD*ST -.05 .09 -.54 -.59 -.23 .13

→IC

Table 4.4 reports the results of moderation analysis taking value as a moderator between socil
cognitive diversity and unconscious bias. The resulting values carry zero value between LLCI
(-.23) and ULCI (.13) with insignificant P value, therefore an insignificant relationship is
determined through existence of zero value between both upper as well as lower boot limits,
consistent with Preacher and Hayes (2008). On the basis of above result the hypothesis five has
been rejected as stereotype threats does not moderates positive relationship between social
cognitive diversity and interpersonal conflicts and zero lies between upper and lower limits of
confidence intervals.

EFA in SPSS

Factor Analysis
 KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .694

Approx. Chi-Square 2323.269

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity df 231

Sig. .000

Total Variance Explained

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared

Loadings Loadings

Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative

Variance % Variance % Variance %

1 4.370 19.863 19.863 4.370 19.863 19.863 2.939 13.357 13.357

2 3.165 14.388 34.251 3.165 14.388 34.251 2.568 11.675 25.032
3 1.993 9.061 43.312 1.993 9.061 43.312 2.492 11.329 36.361
4 1.489 6.770 50.082 1.489 6.770 50.082 2.024 9.199 45.560
5 1.232 5.598 55.680 1.232 5.598 55.680 1.955 8.884 54.444
6 1.137 5.169 60.849 1.137 5.169 60.849 1.265 5.751 60.196
7 1.069 4.858 65.707 1.069 4.858 65.707 1.123 5.104 65.299
8 1.016 4.616 70.323 1.016 4.616 70.323 1.105 5.024 70.323
9 .911 4.143 74.466
10 .878 3.989 78.455
11 .811 3.685 82.139
12 .701 3.187 85.326
13 .627 2.849 88.175
14 .526 2.391 90.565
15 .411 1.866 92.432
16 .384 1.748 94.179
17 .348 1.581 95.761
18 .280 1.272 97.033
19 .253 1.149 98.182
20 .174 .789 98.971
21 .155 .703 99.674
22 .072 .326 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

AL2 .839

AL3 .764

AL4 .864

AL5 .795

AL6 .803

AL7 .554

AL8 .758

M2 .735

AL1 .683

M3 .819

M4 .929
M5 .671

M6 .908

M7 .844

M8 .510 .549

M9

M10 .610 .572

M11 .878

M12 .860

M13 .658

M14 .807

M15

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Interpretation
KMO is .694 and Bartlett’s test is significant the data is mediocre suitable for factor analysis.
On the base of eigenvalue eight factors have been generated.