Full Structural Equation Model Analysis

36 Figure 4.2. CFA of Endogenous Construct

4.3.2. Full Structural Equation Model Analysis

4.3.2.1. Model Fit

After passing the CFA for both exogenous and endogenous constructs, the full model must be tested to make sure that the model was fit. Comparing to the same eight criterias and cut-off values used in the previous CFA, the result of model fit test was reported in table 4.7. Unfortunately even had passed the CFA, the full model was found not fit since the score of three criterias were not good as expected, they are the chi-square, the significance probability, and the AGFI. Based on the model evaluation that was not fit, checking the validity of all instruments must be done. Indicators 37 with loading factor that less than 0.5 was not valid and must be cut. The loading factor of all indicators used could be seen in table 4.8 and based on it, there were actually four indicators that were not valid B1, C1, P4, and M4. After cut the four unvalid indicators, the model fit test be done again and the result could be seen in figure 4.4 while the model evaluation could be seen in table 4.8 that by a modification, the model was fit. Table 4.7. Full Model Structural Goodness of Fit Indices before Modification Goodness of Fit Indices Cut Off Value Result Model Evaluation Chi-Square Expected to be low 172.92 Bad Significance Probability ≥ 0.05 0.00 Bad RMSEA ≤ 0.08 0.05 Good CMINDF ≤ 2.00 1.57 Good GFI ≥ 0.90 0.91 Good AGFI ≥ 0.90 0.88 Marginal TLI ≥ 0.90 0.94 Good CFI ≥ 0.95 0.95 Good Source: Primary Data, 2014 Table 4.8. Squarred Multiple Correlations Estimate C1 .178 B4 .781 M4 .009 P4 .013 B3 .703 B2 .638 B1 .013 38 Estimate C4 .631 C3 .651 C2 .615 M1 .536 M2 .655 M3 .657 P1 .825 P2 .644 P3 .745 Figure 4.3. Full Model Structural before Modification 39 Figure 4.4. Full Model Structural after Modification 40 Table 4.9. Full Model Structural Goodness of Fit Indices after Modification Goodness of Fit Indices Cut Off Value Result Model Evaluation Chi-Square Expected to be low 58.88 Good Significance Probability ≥ 0.05 0.37 Good RMSEA ≤ 0.08 0.02 Good CMINDF ≤ 2.00 0.15 Good GFI ≥ 0.90 0.96 Good AGFI ≥ 0.90 0.93 Good TLI ≥ 0.90 0.99 Good CFI ≥ 0.95 0.99 Good Source: Primary Data, 2014

4.3.2.2. Reliability

Before performing the hypotheses testing, it must be checked that all indicators that had passed the validity test also passed the reliability test. This must be done to make sure that all indicators used here, including the borrowing habit indicators were reliable and could be employed in the future. The reliability test here done by calculating and evaluating the construct reliability score. The formula to calculate the construct reliability was: Construct Reliability = standardized loading 2 standardized loading 2 + εj After calculating the construct reliability of each variable, they must be compared to the cut-off valued that should be greater than 0.7. The result 41 of the calculation was reported in table 4.9 that the lowest score was only 0.8, shown by money retention. Therefore all twelve indicators had passed the reliability test and proved as reliable indicators. Table 4.10. Construct Reliability Estimate Construct Reliability P3 --- PEER_ACCEPTANCE .865 0.939 P2 --- PEER_ACCEPTANCE .803 P1 --- PEER_ACCEPTANCE .907 M3 --- MONEY_RETENTION .812 0.896 M2 --- MONEY_RETENTION .810 M1 --- MONEY_RETENTION .732 C4 --- COMPULSIVE_BUYING .805 0.904 C3 --- COMPULSIVE_BUYING .803 C2 --- COMPULSIVE_BUYING .784 B2 --- BORROWING_HABIT .801 0.903 B3 --- BORROWING_HABIT .840 B4 --- BORROWING_HABIT .881 Source: appendix 12 4.4. Statistic Descriptive There were total twelve indicators that proved as valid and reliable indicators. Therefore only the mean and standard deviation of those twelve indicators that reported in table 4.10. Peer acceptance consisted of three indicators, as well as the other constructs. In general, all statements of peer acceptance showed a low tendency of peer acceptance with the total average of 2.45. This score indicated that the students did not try too hard to impress 42 their peers and to get their peers‟ acceptance. The total average of money retention came as the highest score of all with the score 3.54, it was in the interval of 3.41-4.20. The meaning of this score was that the students were capable on managing their pocket money, they saved their extra money, and they did not easily spend their pocket money. In contrast, the total average of CBB was low since it was only 2.31. The meaning of this score was that the students did not have the tendency as compulsive buyers. The last total score reported on table 4.10 was the score of borrowing habit, which was 2.41. Similar to the tendency of peer acceptance and CBB, the students also showed a low tendency of borrowing habit. They did not easily decide to borrow money from their friends even from their closest friends and relatives. Table 4.11. Descriptive Statistic of Peer Acceptance, Money Retention, CBB, and Borrowing Habit Statement Mean Standard Deviation Peer Acceptance I use trendy products. 2.23 0.86 I use high quality products in order to be accepted by my friends. 2.58 0.79 I often follow my friends to buy produts. 2.27 0.85 Total Average 2.45 Money Retention I don‟t spend money easily. 3.51 0.83 I am capable of managing my pocket money 3.51 0.83 43 so that I seldom experience lack of money. In times when I have extra money, I save it. 3.61 0.82 Total Average 3.54 CBB I often have a strong urge and spontaneous desire to go and buy something. 2.31 0.76 I find it isn‟t hard to restrain my self not to shop. 2.31 0.81 For me, shopping is a way of facing the stress 2.32 0.84 Total Average 2.31 Borrowing Habit I try as much as possible not to borrow money. 2.39 0.93 I will think carefully before deciding to borrow money. 2.39 0.92 I am not used to borrow money when I need it. 2.46 0.94 Total Average 2.41 Source: appendix 13 Note: reverse statement The answers’ interval categories: 1.00 -1.80 very low; 1.81- 2.60 low; 2.61-3.40 medium; 3.41-4.20 high; 4.21-5.00 very high.

4.5. Hypothesis Testing