References in periodicals archive ?
Relationship was measured in one-tail Table 6 Indirect path Analysis Paths Beta S.E t-statistics BEm a EBE 0.045 0.051 0.883 BEm a EBU a EBE 0.496 0.038 13.167 BEm a BPO a EBE 0.470 0.041 11.542 Paths LLCI ULCI Decision (5%) (95%) BEm a EBE -0.057 0.143 No Mediation BEm a EBU a EBE 0.418 0.565 Full Mediation BEm a BPO a EBE 0.403 0.560 Full Mediation Note.
As shown in Figure 4, the conditional indirect effect of atypical exemplar exposure on hostile racial attitudes was mediated by universal orientation (-.16, LLCI = -.43, ULCI = -.02), as the indirect effect was only significant among light crime news viewers who selected a White actor in the casting activity.
In the older group, the path from social anxiety to susceptibility and substance use at T1 to substance use at T2 (see Figure 2) was significant: effect = .10, LLCI = .04, and ULCI = .20.
RX-Mart Pharmacy, RX-Mart Pharmacy LLCI Kamalpreet S.
He further added that the business community being backbone of the economy, must be given due facilitation and for this purpose LLCI is committed to play its due role.
The seller is Trapnall Place LLCI led by Jennifer Skowronski.
The instrument which is termed the Lower Limb Comfort Index, LLCI (Kinchington et al., 2010) provides quantitative data on the physical preparedness of an individual pertaining to the lower limb.
"Unilateral Administrative Order for Water Replacement, Shell Oil Company, Shell Oil Products Company, Equilon Enterprises LLCI." U.S.
The second way to check the significance is to see either the zero lies between the values of lower level of confidence interval (LLCI) or upper level of confidence interval (ULCI).
Table 6: Moderation Results Employee Commitment to Change [beta] SE LLCI ULCI Constant 3.81*** .05 3.69 3.93 CR 0.29*** .06 0.16 0.42 PL 0.23*** .04 0.14 .31 CRxPL 0.24** .05 0.13 0.34 [DELTA][R.sup.2] due to Interaction 0.04*** F 20 78 Conditional Effects of Moderator between Participative Leadership and Employee Commitment to Change (Slope Test) Moderator Change Readiness Employee Commitment to Change -.90 01*** .06 -0.11 .14 .00 23*** .04 0.14 .31 +.90 45*** .06 0.32 .58 N= 352 Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported PL = Participative Leadership; CR: Change Readiness; EC2C = Employee Commitment to Change; IWB = Innovative Work Behavior Bootstrap sample size = 5,000.
As hypothesized, a test of the indirect effect with a 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval that excluded zero suggests that consumption norms mediates this relationship (b = .24, LLCI = .0181, ULCI = .5488).
Predictor Variables b SE LLCI ULCI Z p Problem Recognition .066 .018 .035 .108 4.44 < .001 Involvement Recognition .023 .011 .004 .046 2.22 < .05 Constraint Recognition -.016 .011 -.038 .005 -1.39 n.s.
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?
- LLD factor
- LLD factor