線性結(jié)合可靠性-中英版

結(jié)果顯示：信任、相關(guān)控制、關(guān)系滿意度以及關(guān)系承諾運(yùn)用在組織公共關(guān)系評(píng)價(jià)（OPRs）上是可行的。 信任度、關(guān)系滿意度、承諾關(guān)系的指數(shù)α數(shù)值，以及相互控制關(guān)系的系數(shù)分別為71- , . 79 , . 73，和，58，。 這4個(gè)可靠性構(gòu)建的數(shù)值分別為：74 , . 80 , . 72 , 和 62，。 在這4個(gè)數(shù)值中，相關(guān)控制的內(nèi)在一致性和可靠性最低。其它3個(gè)構(gòu)建數(shù)值的內(nèi)在一致性和可靠性要高得多，達(dá)到了驗(yàn)收標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 
α數(shù)值可靠性和載荷指數(shù)的構(gòu)建見表格1 第14項(xiàng)�？煽啃缘南嚓P(guān)數(shù)值表明項(xiàng)目之間良好的內(nèi)在一致性，然而，結(jié)合第14項(xiàng)目可靠性的數(shù)值，使用公式對(duì)內(nèi)部結(jié)合的可靠性計(jì)算出的數(shù)值很高(89) (1978，Nunnally)。因此，可以考慮對(duì)第14項(xiàng)目使用新樣品進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步的數(shù)據(jù)測(cè)試。
-規(guī)模純化，第一階段：CFA，第2步驟： -使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)計(jì)算機(jī)程序EQS(Bentler，1992)重新引導(dǎo)-CFA。 這個(gè)步驟的目的是評(píng)價(jià)假設(shè)指數(shù)的適應(yīng)性（Gentler和Newcomb，1986）。
CFA邏輯測(cè)試能成功分析探索性指數(shù)的兩個(gè)原因是：首先,根據(jù)霍伊爾和史密斯(1994)的理論, CFA適合結(jié)構(gòu)合理性得出來的假設(shè)，如指數(shù)的數(shù)量問題(即,潛在變量)，強(qiáng)調(diào)項(xiàng)目對(duì)測(cè)試的反映，以及因素之間的關(guān)系。其次，CFA使用的共差結(jié)構(gòu)分析，能夠提供試驗(yàn)統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)，建議采用適合模型的（觀測(cè)數(shù)據(jù)霍伊爾，1991）。
在CFA中，觀測(cè)數(shù)據(jù)模型的范圍(變化和共差項(xiàng)目)通過不同的擬合度指數(shù)顯示。 根據(jù)Bentler和Bonett(1980)的理論，引進(jìn)數(shù)個(gè)指數(shù)并且進(jìn)行推廣，擬合指數(shù)用于模型的評(píng)估，可以避免一些樣品數(shù)量和分配不符合規(guī)格的問題。
他們已經(jīng)在考慮實(shí)際應(yīng)用意義(Hair et al.,1995). 因?yàn)樵谶@項(xiàng)研究的過程中，項(xiàng)目可能受到交叉文化因素的影響，我在變量因數(shù)選擇的過程中采用較高的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。按照Galassi，Schanbcrg和韋爾Ware (1992)使用45變量共性作為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。(注意：最小二乘法通常用作對(duì)Galassi et al研究的估算),我決定使用可比較價(jià)值數(shù)值(即,載荷因數(shù)；65)作為標(biāo)度，確定一個(gè)規(guī)定的因素過程中，選擇的一個(gè)變量。
74 huang
表1 第一階段凈化標(biāo)度結(jié)果摘要
標(biāo)度 標(biāo)記 項(xiàng)目序號(hào) 可靠性指數(shù) 構(gòu)造可靠性 項(xiàng)目 載荷指數(shù)
信任 YTR1 3 0.71 0.74 R1
R6
R13 0.79
0.80
0.79
關(guān)系承諾 YCM 4 0.73 0.72 R4
R9
516
R17 0.66
0.77
0.84
0.69
關(guān)系滿意度 YST 4 0.79 0.80 R2
R7
R8
R12 0.74
0.71
0.84
0.85
相關(guān)控制 YMT 3 0.58 0.62 R3
R5
R10 0.82
0.65
0.75
線性結(jié)合可靠性   0.89   
*R表示數(shù)據(jù)收集的第一階段項(xiàng)目。**為項(xiàng)目的尺寸。
提議中合適的指數(shù)和評(píng)論,( 例如,Bentler，(990，1992； Gerbing &安德森，1993； Hu & Bentler，1995，1998，1999； McDonald& Marsh，1990； Tanaka，1993)，目前的評(píng)論和EQS提供材料屬于CFI(Bentler，1990； Hu & Bentler，1995，1998； Sideridis，Kaissidis和Padeliadu，1998； Whang &漢考克，1997)。按照 Bentler(1990)和Hu *Bentler的建議(1995)， CFE是一個(gè)非常強(qiáng)大而且合適的指數(shù)，考慮了所有相關(guān)的問題(例如樣品量，估計(jì)方法影響，正常狀態(tài)破壞的影響，以及獨(dú)立性)。通常，CFI數(shù)值的范圍從90到1.00；一般認(rèn)為反映出給良好適合度。
對(duì)起確定作用的分析來說，我采用摩根和亨特的(1994)建議，將建議的模型與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者模型比較。本質(zhì)上來看，兩個(gè)其它模型的傾斜模型適合的數(shù)據(jù)比較，決定測(cè)試項(xiàng)目反映出來的潛變量，
在這3 個(gè)模型之間的比較必須遵循下列問題。 OPRs 可以有目的就假設(shè)的尺寸數(shù)量進(jìn)行描述嗎？ OPRs數(shù)值是相互聯(lián)系還是分開的(分量)？ 如果是他們之間的相互聯(lián)系，他們的相互聯(lián)系使用同一尺寸，而不是多重互相依存的尺寸？ 與模型比較，Akaike信息標(biāo)準(zhǔn)(AIC)用來選擇最適合的模型(Naniwa和Ishiguro，ECato。1996; 波爾森，Juhl，克里斯滕森，貝克和Engelund，1996；Vinck，Vlietinck和Fagard，1999)。

A linear combination of reliability

Result shows: trust, relevant control, relationship satisfaction and relationship commitment (OPRs) as well as the use of public relations of the organization evaluation shall be feasible. Trust, relationship satisfaction, commitment relationship index of alpha values, as well as the mutual relationship between control coefficient, respectively, 71 -, 79, 73, 58, these four building reliability values are: 74, 80, 72, and 62. In the four values, related to control the internal consistency and reliability of the lowest. Other three build internal consistency and reliability of the numerical much higher, up to the acceptance criteria.

Alpha numeric reliability and load index construction item 14 see table 1. The reliability of the related numerical show that good internal consistency between projects, however, according to the reliability of the numerical 14 project, using the formula of internal combined with the reliability of the calculated value is very high (89) (1978, Nunnally). As a result, it can consider to 14 projects using the new samples for further test data.

- the size of the purification, the first stage: the CFA, step 2: - use the standard computer program EQS reboot - the CFA (Bentler, 1992). The adaptability of the purpose of this step is to evaluate hypothesis index (Gentler and Newcomb, 1986).

CFA logical test can successfully analysis exploratory index is two reasons: first, according to hoyle and Smith (1994) theory, the CFA out suitable structure rationality hypothesis, such as index of the problem of the number of potential variables (i.e.,), emphasizes the project, responding to the test, and the relationship between the factors. Second, the CFA using total differential structure analysis, can provide the test statistics, recommend suitable model (observation data hoyle, 1991).

In CFA, the range of observed data model (change and poor project) through different fitting degree index. According to Bentler and Bonett (1980) theory, the introduction of several index and promotion, fitting the evaluation index is used to model, can avoid some sample quantity and distribution does not conform to the specifications of the problem.

They have in consideration of practical application significance (Hair et al., 1995). Because in the process of the study, project may be influenced by cross-cultural factors, I used in the process of variable factor to choose the higher standard. According to Galassi, Schanbcrg and weir Ware (1992) 45 variables in common use as standard; (note: least squares method is usually used for estimating of the Galassi et al research), I decided to use a comparable numerical value (that is, load factor; 65) as the scale, determine a regulation factors in the process of selection of a variable.

Huang, 74

The results in this paper is as follows, the first stage purification scale in table 1

Scale mark project serial number reliability index of structural reliability project load index

Related control YMT 3 0.58 0.62 R3

A linear combination of reliability (0.89)

The first phase of the project * R data collection. The size of the * * for the project.

Proposed proper index and commentary, (for example, Bentler, (2; 990199 Gerbing & Anderson, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1995199, 8199, 9; McDonald & Marsh, 1990; Tanaka, 1993), current comments and EQS provide material belongs to CFI (Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler, 1995199 8; Sideridis, Kaissidis and Padeliadu, 1998; Whang & Hancock, 1997). According to the Bentler (1990) and Hu * Bentler suggestion (1995), CFE is a very powerful and appropriate index, considering all the relevant issues (such as sample weight, estimation method, the influence of the normal damage, and independence). Usually, the range of CFI from 90 to 1.00; is thought to reflect to the good fitness.

To determine the role of analysis, I use of Morgan and hunt (1994) suggested that the suggested model model to compare with the competitors. In essence, two other models of slope model is suitable for data comparison, decided to test project of latent variables,

In the comparison between the three models must follow the following questions. OPRs can have purpose is assumed to describe the size of the amount? OPRs values are interrelated or separate (weight)? If is a connection between them, they connect with each other using the same size, rather than the size of the multiple interdependent? Compared with the model, the Akaike information criterion (AIC) used to select the most appropriate model (Naniwa and Ishiguro, ECato. 1996; paulson, Juhl, christensen, baker and Engelund, 1996; Vinck, Vlietinck and Fagard, 1999).

2014.6.6