3.3.1.5. Reward Policy Scale
According to employee evaluation, the salary policy for employees and welfare regimes are not really good. These factors do not really satisfy employees. However, the treatment regime is considered quite attractive by employees (KT4) with an average score of 3.49 (belonging to the good level).
Table 3.17. Reward Policy Scale
Variable name
Number of officials close | Value medium | Deviation standard | Value smallest | Great value best | |
KT1 | 344 | 3.311 | 1.01 | 1 | 5 |
KT2 | 344 | 3,515 | 1,138 | 1 | 5 |
KT3 | 344 | 3,349 | 1,234 | 1 | 5 |
KT4 | 344 | 3,497 | 1,133 | 1 | 5 |
KT5 | 344 | 3,346 | 1,238 | 1 | 5 |
Maybe you are interested!
-
Preliminary Test of Reliability of Scale in Research Model -
Developing human resources for Ho Chi Minh City's tourism industry in the period 2013-2020 - 2 -
Exploiting human tourism resources to develop tourism in Ho Chi Minh City - 29 -
Research on some solutions to improve the quality of human resources at Khanh An Preschool Education Equipment Production and Trading Company Limited - 1 -
Solutions to Mobilize Investment Resources for Tourism Human Resource Development
Source: Based on author's calculations
3.3.1.6. Relationship with Management Scale
Relationship with management is always a big problem for employees. According to the results of employee assessment, they still have many difficulties in communicating with management (QHQL1), this factor is only rated at average level. Meanwhile, the capacity of managers is rated quite highly by employees (QHQL6). This shows that the company's management training has been very effective.
Table 3.18. Relationship with Management Scale
Variable name
Number of officials close | Value medium | Deviation standard | Value smallest | Value biggest | |
QHQL1 | 344 | 3,392 | 1,019 | 1 | 5 |
QHQL2 | 344 | 3,852 | 0.703 | 2 | 5 |
QHQL3 | 344 | 3,640 | 0.983 | 1 | 5 |
QHQL4 | 344 | 3,648 | 0.987 | 1 | 5 |
QHQL5 | 344 | 3,703 | 0.962 | 1 | 5 |
QHQL6 | 344 | 3,747 | 0.784 | 2 | 5 |
QHQL7 | 344 | 3,561 | 0.746 | 2 | 5 |
Source: Based on author's calculations
3.3.1.7. Relationship with Colleagues Scale
Relationships with colleagues are not highly rated by employees. Most factors have average scores. This shows the limitation in connecting departments as well as employees in the company.
Table 3.19. Relationship with Colleagues Scale
Variable name
Number of officials close | Value medium | Deviation standard | Small value best | Great value best | |
QQHN1 | 344 | 3,250 | 0.871 | 1 | 5 |
QQHN2 | 344 | 3.343 | 0.849 | 1 | 5 |
QQHN3 | 344 | 3.375 | 0.933 | 1 | 5 |
QHĐN4 | 344 | 3,282 | 0.977 | 1 | 5 |
Source: Based on author's calculations
3.3.1.8. Job Satisfaction Scale
Job satisfaction is highly rated by employees. Most of them rated as satisfied with the factors of training, rewards, management and working conditions at the company. Employees expressed high satisfaction with the company's training and appointment policy (TM2).
Table 3.20. Job Satisfaction Scale
Variable name
Number of officials close | Value medium | Deviation standard | Small value best | Great value best | |
TM1 | 344 | 3,541 | 0.759 | 1 | 5 |
TM2 | 344 | 3,637 | 0.673 | 2 | 5 |
TM3 | 344 | 3,590 | 0.707 | 1 | 5 |
TM4 | 344 | 3,610 | 0.67 | 1 | 5 |
TM5 | 344 | 3,442 | 0.777 | 1 | 5 |
Source: Based on author's calculations
3.3.1.9. Work Motivation Scale
According to the results in Table 3.21, the work activities and policies that the company has put forth have created good motivation for employees during the working process. All scales are rated from level 1 to 5, most employees rated at level 4 and 5.
Table 3.21. Work Motivation Scale
Variable name
Number of officials close | Value medium | Deviation standard | Small value best | Great value best | |
DL1 | 344 | 3,756 | 0.743 | 1 | 5 |
DL2 | 344 | 3,814 | 0.662 | 1 | 5 |
DL3 | 344 | 3,695 | 0.777 | 1 | 5 |
DL4 | 344 | 3,730 | 0.752 | 1 | 5 |
DL5 | 344 | 3,596 | 0.754 | 1 | 5 |
DL6 | 344 | 3,593 | 0.742 | 1 | 5 |
Source: Based on author's calculations
3.3.2. Scale verification
In the study of the impact of factors on the quality of human resources of Apatit Vietnam Company, the author uses ten research concepts including: Quality of human resources; Motivation at work; Labor recruitment; Relationship with colleagues; Reward policy; Education and legal training; Working environment conditions; Job satisfaction; Training and development of human resources; Quality of human resources; Relationship with management. In order to confirm that the results of the study are reasonable and applicable. First, the study analyzes the results of Cronbach Alpha test, conducts theoretical and data evaluation using CFA method, and uses SEM structural model to estimate the impact of factors on the quality of human resources.
3.3.2.1. Cronbach Alpha Test
The scales were preliminarily evaluated using the Cronbach Alpha index with a sample of 344 employees in the study. The results of the main variables are presented in Table 3.22.
Table 3.22: Cronbach alpha results of the scales
Observation variable
Cronbach's Alpha | Cronbach's Alpha based on standardized variables | Number of variables | |
Labor recruitment | 0.861 | 0.862 | 4 |
Relationship with colleagues | 0.903 | 0.905 | 4 |
Reward policy | 0.879 | 0.878 | 5 |
Legal education and training | 0.943 | 0.944 | 3 |
Working environment conditions | 0.909 | 0.909 | 5 |
Motivation at work | 0.927 | 0.928 | 6 |
Job satisfaction | 0.917 | 0.919 | 5 |
Human resource development training | 0.816 | 0.815 | 3 |
Quality of human resources | 0.886 | 0.890 | 4 |
Relationship with management | 0.928 | 0.927 | 7 |
Source: Based on author's calculations
According to the data in Table 3.22, it can be seen that all scales meet the requirements of Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient. In which, the lowest is 0.816 (Human resource development training), the highest is 0.944 (Legal education and training).
3.3.2.2. Critical measurement model
The critical measurement model (total measurement model) was created by linking the scales of the unidimensional concepts into the CFA model of the human resource quality concept. The CFA results are shown in Table 3.16.
Table 3.23: CFA test results
Index
Value | |
Value) | 1781.042 |
| 0.000 |
df | 903 |
CFI | 0.934 |
GFI | 0.829 |
RMSEA | 0.053 |
Source: Based on author's calculations
The critical measurement model has 903 degrees of freedom. The CFA results show that the model and data are compatible. The results of the GFI and RMSEA tests are satisfactory but not high. With these numbers, we can conclude that the model's fit is acceptable but not high.
Table 3.24: Correlation coefficients between concepts
Estimated value quantity | Deviation standard | Value due | p-value | |||
CL | <-> | DL | 0.671 | 0.028 | 8,147 | 0.000 |
CL | <-> | DKMT | 0.642 | 0.028 | 7.102 | 0.000 |
CL | <-> | KT | -0.064 | 0.013 | -1.141 | 0.254 |
CL | <-> | QQHN | -0.131 | 0.026 | -2.193 | 0.028 |
CL | <-> | TM | 0.769 | 0.032 | 8,871 | 0.000 |
CL | <-> | GDPL | -0.004 | 0.042 | -0.069 | 0.945 |
CL | <-> | TD | 0.054 | 0.017 | 0.857 | 0.392 |
CL | <-> | QHQL | 0.237 | 0.027 | 3,829 | 0.000 |
DKMT | <-> | KT | -0.086 | 0.011 | -1.573 | 0.116 |
DKMT | <-> | QQHN | -0.240 | 0.024 | -3.945 | 0.000 |
DKMT | <-> | TM | 0.494 | 0.026 | 6.366 | 0.000 |
DKMT | <-> | GDPL | -0.009 | 0.036 | -0.167 | 0.867 |
DKMT | <-> | TD | 0.051 | 0.015 | 0.859 | 0.390 |
DL | <-> | DKMT | 0.448 | 0.022 | 6.112 | 0.000 |
DL | <-> | KT | -0.079 | 0.013 | -1.363 | 0.173 |
DL
<-> | QQHN | -0.073 | 0.025 | -1.271 | 0.204 | |
DL | <-> | TM | 0.673 | 0.028 | 8,711 | 0.000 |
DL | <-> | GDPL | -0.019 | 0.040 | -0.327 | 0.744 |
DL | <-> | TD | 0.099 | 0.017 | 1.611 | 0.107 |
Phone | <-> | QHQL | 0.073 | 0.020 | 1,219 | 0.223 |
Phone | <-> | DL | 0.494 | 0.021 | 6.102 | 0.000 |
Phone | <-> | DKMT | 0.482 | 0.020 | 5,839 | 0.000 |
Phone | <-> | KT | -0.110 | 0.011 | -1.874 | 0.061 |
Phone | <-> | QQHN | -0.108 | 0.021 | -1.787 | 0.074 |
Phone | <-> | TM | 0.601 | 0.024 | 7,057 | 0.000 |
Phone | <-> | GDPL | -0.082 | 0.033 | -1.380 | 0.167 |
Phone | <-> | TD | -0.077 | 0.014 | -1.190 | 0.234 |
Phone | <-> | CL | 0.740 | 0.027 | 7,399 | 0.000 |
GDPL | <-> | TD | 0.056 | 0.035 | 0.927 | 0.354 |
KT | <-> | QQHN | 0.139 | 0.017 | 2,347 | 0.019 |
KT | <-> | TM | -0.139 | 0.015 | -2.278 | 0.023 |
KT | <-> | GDPL | 0.101 | 0.027 | 1,820 | 0.069 |
KT | <-> | TD | 0.010 | 0.011 | 0.172 | 0.864 |
QDN | <-> | TM | -0.141 | 0.027 | -2.414 | 0.016 |
QDN | <-> | GDPL | 0.105 | 0.053 | 1,794 | 0.073 |
QDN | <-> | TD | 0.362 | 0.025 | 5,030 | 0.000 |
QHQL | <-> | DL | 0.240 | 0.026 | 4.001 | 0.000 |
QHQL | <-> | DKMT | 0.244 | 0.024 | 3,994 | 0.000 |
QHQL | <-> | KT | 0.051 | 0.016 | 0.975 | 0.330 |
QHQL | <-> | QQHN | -0.214 | 0.033 | -3.614 | 0.000 |
QHQL | <-> | TM | 0.157 | 0.027 | 2,694 | 0.007 |
QHQL | <-> | GDPL | -0.051 | 0.051 | -0.914 | 0.361 |
QHQL | <-> | TD | -0.086 | 0.021 | -1.415 | 0.157 |
TM | <-> | GDPL | 0.003 | 0.044 | 0.049 | 0.961 |
TM | <-> | TD | -0.019 | 0.018 | -0.305 | 0.760 |
Source: Based on author's calculations
The correlation coefficients between variables and standard deviations in Table 3.16 are all different from 1. This shows that the concepts used in this study all achieved discriminant validity.
3.3.2.3. Testing composite reliability and extracted variance
The CFA estimation results of each scale and extracted variance are described in Table 3.25:
In this result, all factors have high statistical significance, showing the agreement between theory and data. In addition, the extracted variance of the variables is >0.5. In which, the extracted variance of the KT variable has the smallest acceptable value of 0.502 (>0.5). The extracted variance of GDPL has the highest value of 0.909.
Table 3.25: CFA weights of observed variables
Estimate | Deviation standard | Value due | p-value | |||
CL : extracted variance ρ vc = 0.668 | ||||||
CL | -> | CL1 | 1,000* | |||
CL | -> | CL2 | 1.141 | 0.074 | 15,501 | 0.000 |
CL | -> | CL3 | 1,076 | 0.072 | 15,018 | 0.000 |
CL | -> | CL4 | 0.935 | 0.066 | 14,058 | 0.000 |
DKMT : extracted variance ρ vc = 0.637 | ||||||
DKMT | -> | DKMT1 | 1,000* | |||
DKMT | -> | DKMT2 | 1,676 | 0.123 | 13,586 | 0.000 |
DKMT | -> | DKMT3 | 1,700 | 0.123 | 13,833 | 0.000 |
DKMT | -> | DKMT4 | 0.987 | 0.095 | 10,408 | 0.000 |
DKMT | -> | DKMT5 | 0.998 | 0.094 | 10,589 | 0.000 |
DL : extracted variance ρ vc = 0.657 | ||||||
DL | -> | DL1 | 1,000* | |||
DL | -> | DL2 | 0.949 | 0.055 | 17,195 | 0.000 |
DL | -> | DL3 | 1,196 | 0.064 | 18,666 | 0.000 |
DL | -> | DL4 | 1,126 | 0.062 | 18,081 | 0.000 |
DL | -> | DL5 | 0.980 | 0.065 | 15,117 | 0.000 |
DL | -> | DL6 | 0.952 | 0.064 | 14,832 | 0.000 |
DT : extracted variance ρ vc = 0.604
Phone | -> | DT1 | 1,000* | |||
Phone | -> | DT2 | 1,413 | 0.122 | 11.55 | 0.000 |
Phone | -> | DT3 | 1,579 | 0.135 | 11,658 | 0.000 |
GDPL : extracted variance ρ vc = 0.909 | ||||||
GDPL | -> | GDPL1 | 1,000* | |||
GDPL | -> | GDPL2 | 0.948 | 0.022 | 43,238 | 0.000 |
GDPL | -> | GDPL3 | 0.951 | 0.025 | 38,001 | 0.000 |
KT : extracted variance ρ vc = 0.502 | ||||||
KT | -> | KT1 | 1,000* | |||
KT | -> | KT2 | 1,557 | 0.222 | 7.007 | 0.000 |
KT | -> | KT3 | 1,034 | 0.231 | 4,476 | 0.000 |
KT | -> | KT4 | 3,195 | 0.416 | 7,687 | 0.000 |
KT | -> | KT5 | 2,898 | 0.346 | 8,384 | 0.000 |
QHĐN : extracted variance ρ vc = 0.721 | ||||||
QQHN | -> | QQHN1 | 1,000* | |||
QQHN | -> | QQHN2 | 1,012 | 0.074 | 13,722 | 0.000 |
QQHN | -> | QQHN3 | 1,139 | 0.08 | 14.31 | 0.000 |
QQHN | -> | QHĐN4 | 0.940 | 0.061 | 15.28 | 0.000 |
QHQL : extracted variance ρ vc = 0.669 | ||||||
QHQL | -> | QHQL1 | 1,000* | |||
QHQL | -> | QHQL2 | 0.561 | 0.05 | 11,275 | 0.000 |
QHQL | -> | QHQL3 | 1,219 | 0.066 | 18,351 | 0.000 |
QHQL | -> | QHQL4 | 0.537 | 0.052 | 10,226 | 0.000 |
QHQL | -> | QHQL5 | 1,230 | 0.065 | 18,989 | 0.000 |
QHQL | -> | QHQL6 | 1,239 | 0.067 | 18,614 | 0.000 |
QHQL | -> | QHQL7 | 0.933 | 0.053 | 17,469 | 0.000 |
TD : extracted variance ρ vc = 0.577 | ||||||
TD | -> | TD1 | 1,000* | |||
TD | -> | TD2 | 1,594 | 0.159 | 10,013 | 0.000 |
TD | -> | TD3 | 1,190 | 0.106 | 11,258 | 0.000 |
TD | -> | TD4 | 1,361 | 0.121 | 11,235 | 0.000 |
TM : extracted variance ρ vc = 0.613 | ||||||
TM | -> | TM1 | 1,000* | |||
TM | -> | TM2 | 0.924 | 0.046 | 19,898 | 0.000 |
TM | -> | TM3 | 0.981 | 0.049 | 19,938 | 0.000 |
TM | -> | TM4 | 0.925 | 0.047 | 19,848 | 0.000 |
TM | -> | TM5 | 0.910 | 0.058 | 15,607 | 0.000 |
* Predefined value
Source: Based on author's calculations