Population, Sample, and Research Respondent Types, Sources and Method of Collecting Data

19 3 Composite Reliability The composite reliability was used to examine the values of the reliability among the indicator blocks of the Structural Empowerment variable X1, the Psychological Empowerment variable X2, the Creativity variable Y1, the Innovation variable Y2, and the Asta Brata Leadership variable X3 which form it. The values of the Composite Reliability are presented in Table 2 as follows. Table 2 The Values of the Composite Reliability Variables Composite Reliability Innovation Y2 0.943286 Creativity Y1 0.968081 Structural Empowerment X1 0.976200 Psychological Empowerment X2 0.926646 Asta Brata Leadership X3 0.960010 Based on the values of the Composite reliability as presented in Table 4.9, it can be identified that the values of all the research variables are higher than 0.70, meaning that the indicator blocks are reliable for measuring the variables. Based on the results of the evaluation of the convergent and discriminant validity of the indicators and the composite reliability of the indicator blocks, it can be inferred that the indicators used to measure the Structural Empowerment variable X1, the Psychological Empowerment variable X2, the Creativity variable Y1, and the Innovation variable Y2 are valid and reliable, meaning that the goodness of fit model can be identified by evaluating the inner model. 2 Result of the Structural Model Inner Model The structural model is evaluated by referring to Q 2 predictive relevance model, and is based on the coefficient of the determination of all the dependent variables. The value of Q 2 ranges 0 Q 2 1, meaning that the closer to the value 1 the better the model will be. The determination coefficients R 2 of the dependent variables are presented in Table 3. Based on the value of R 2 , Q 2 can be identified based on the following calculation: Q 2 = 1 – 1-R 1 2 1 – R 2 2 = 1 – 1-08325111-0.79488 = 0.9656 = 0.97 20 Table 3 The Value of R-Square R 2 Variable R Square Innovation 0.832511 Creativity 0.79488 The fact that the value of Q 2 is 0.97 proves that the goodness of fit of the structural model is very good. This result reflects that 97 of the information which the data contain can be explained by the model, and that the rest, 3, can be explained by the error and the other variables which are not included in the model. 3 Result of the Examination of Hypothesis The hypothesis was examined using t-test in every lane of the partial impact of the variables. The result of the path coefficient test in every lane is presented in Table 4 as follows. Table 4 The Result of Hypothesis Examination Relationship among Variables Original Sample O T Statistics │OSTERR│ Remarks The Structural Empowerment X1  Creativity Y1 0.494168 4.287788 Significant Psychological Empowerment X2  Creativity Y1 0.110215 1.281721 Insignificant Asta Brata Leadership X3  Creativity Y1 0.347938 3.302404 Significant Creativity Y1 Innovation Y2 0.261187 2.418521 Significant Structural Empowerment X1  Innovation Y2 0.024062 0.256907 Insignificant Psychological Empowerment X2  Innovation Y2 0.334554 3.492114 Significant Asta Brata Leadership X3  Innovation Y2 0.374291 3.458552 Significant Based on what is presented in Table 4, the result of the hypothesis examination can be described as follows. The Structural Empowerment X1 turns out to positively and significantly contribute to Creativity Y1, as shown by the value of lane coefficient, that is, 0.494168; the T-statistical value is 4.287788, which is higher than the T-critical value, that is, 1.96, meaning that the better the structural empowerment, the better the employee creativity will be, and that hypothesis 1 in which it was stated that the structural empowerment positively and significantly contributed to the creativity of human resources can be proved.