Affect scale

Composite Reliability = 0.880; Average Variance Extracted = 0.522 Fit indices: χ ²= 259.775, df = 14, χ ² /df = 18.555, p = < 0.001,

GFI = 0.908, TLI = 0.875, CFI = 0.917, RMSEA = 0.147 R² represents squares of factor loadings, C.R. represents critical ratios

*Critical C.R values = 1.96 (p = <0.05)

6.5.6 Affect scale

Only five of the factor loadings on the Affect construct reached a level of 0.7. As well as the EMOTION5 item identified as problematic from the inter-item

correlation matrix, items relating to sleepy/awake (EMOTION1) and bold/timid (EMOTION2) also demonstrated factor loadings of below 0.7, at 0.54 and 0.53 respectively. The item measuring energetic/ lethargic (EMOTION6) at 0.64 also loaded below 0.7, although as this was well above the lower level of 0.5, it provided less cause for concern. In addition, the AVE for Affect only reached 0.489, indicating that over half of the variance in the Affect item scale was

accounted for by other constructs in the model. However, composite reliability was satisfactory at 0.893.

Goodness of fit indices also highlighted problems with the Affect scale. The χ ² /df ratio at 16.797 substantially exceeded the recommended level of 2, GFI at 0.871 was below its recommended value of 0.90. The remaining fit indices were poor, with neither TLI at 0.848 nor CFI at 0.886 reaching the recommended value of 0.95, and RMSEA at 0.139 considerably exceeding the level for even mediocre fit of 0.10. On the basis of satisfactory composite reliability, all items proceeded to the full measurement model, although potential problems with the Affect construct were noted for modification during CFA.

183 Figure ‎6.6 CFA measurement model for Affect construct

Note: Numbers against arrows represent item factor loadings Numbers against item boxes represent loadings squared

Table ‎6.6 Factor loadings, reliability and fit statistics for Affect scale

Item Description Factor

loading R² C.R.*

How do you feel while shopping in this town centre? …

EMOTION1 Sleepy/awake 0.542 0.294 16.412

EMOTION2 Bold/timid 0.531 0.282 15.440

EMOTION3 Happy/unhappy 0.768 0.590 24.602

EMOTION4 Satisfied/dissatisfied 0.743 0.552 23.429

EMOTION5 Excited/calm 0.490 0.240 14.055

EMOTION6 Energetic/lethargic 0.641 0.411 19.351

EMOTION7 Disgusted/delighted 0.806 0.650 27.729

EMOTION8 Bored/stimulated 0.819 0.671 28.467

EMOTION9 Annoyed/pleased 0.841 0.707 24.602

Composite Reliability = 0.893; Average Variance Extracted = 0.489 Fit indices: χ ²= 453.517, df = 27, χ ² /df = 16.797, p = < 0.001,

GFI = 0.871, TLI = 0.848, CFI = 0.886, RMSEA = 0.139 R² represents squares of factor loadings, C.R. represents critical ratios

*Critical C.R values = 1.96 (p = <0.05)

184 6.5.7 Self Image scale

All the factor loadings on the Self Image construct exceeded the recommended value of 0.7. Average variance extracted was 0.573 and composite reliability was calculated as 0.870. Hence Self Image demonstrated good reliability and

convergent validity at this stage of the analysis. Apart from the χ ² /dfratio which was significantly higher than 2, the other fit indices showed good to mediocre fit.

GFI at 0.978 exceeded the recommended value of 0.90, TLI at 0.957 and CFI at 0.979 were both above the recommended value of 0.95, and RMSEA at 0.098 demonstrated acceptable although mediocre fit. All Self Image items therefore progressed to the CFA of the full measurement model.

Figure ‎6.7 CFA measurement model for Self Image construct

Note: Numbers against arrows represent item factor loadings Numbers against item boxes represent loadings squared

Table ‎6.7 Factor loadings, reliability and fit statistics for Self Image scale

Item Description Factor

loading R² C.R.*

SELFIMAGE1 This town centre is consistent with how I see myself 0.781 0.610 22.443 SELFIMAGE2 This town centre reflects who I am 0.769 0.591 22.085 SELFIMAGE3 People similar to me shop here 0.705 0.497 22.062 SELFIMAGE4 The kind of person who typically shops here is very much like me 0.744 0.554 21.296 SELFIMAGE5 I can identify with the typical person who shops here 0.783 0.613 22.443

Composite Reliability = 0.870; Average Variance Extracted = 0.573 Fit indices: χ ²= 44.238, df = 5, χ ² /df = 8.848, p = < 0.001,

GFI = 0.978, TLI = 0.957, CFI = 0.979, RMSEA = 0.098 R² represents squares of factor loadings, C.R. represents critical ratios

*Critical C.R values = 1.96 (p = <0.05)

185 6.5.8 Place Attachment scale

No fit indices were returned by AMOS since the construct is measured by only three items, making the model just identified. The Place Attachment items did not appear to measure this construct satisfactorily, with none of the three items

reaching the preferred factor loading level of 0.7. The AVE was well below the cut-off point of 0.5, at 0.297, and CR similarly failed to reach its minimum value of 0.7, at 0.554. Therefore it was noted that Place Attachment as measured by its

indicators did not demonstrate reliability or validity and was therefore eliminated from the testing of the full measurement model. The poor CFA results for Place Attachment support the findings from the correlation matrix which showed a similarly problematic pattern of low inter-item correlations.

Figure ‎6.8 CFA measurement model for Place Attachment construct

Note: Numbers against arrows represent item factor loadings Numbers against item boxes represent loadings squared

Table ‎6.8 Factor loadings, reliability and fit statistics for Place Attachment scale

Item Description Factor

loading R² C.R.*

PLACEATT1 I do not feel emotionally attached to the town centre 0.634 0.402 6.350 PLACEATT2 The town centre has personal meaning for me 0.434 0.188 7.029 PLACEATT3 I do not feel a sense of belonging to the town centre 0.549 0.301 6.350

Composite Reliability = 0.554; Average Variance Extracted = 0.297

No fit indices available as model just identified R² represents squares of factor loadings, C.R. represents critical ratios

*Critical C.R values = 1.96 (p = <0.05)

186 6.5.9 Loyalty scale

The Loyalty construct was to be included in the Town Centre Image structural model as the dependent variable. Its role was to confirm nomological validity. Only three items in the Loyalty scale exceeded the preferred cut off level of 0.7, with LOYALTY4 only reaching a factor loading of 0.522. However, the AVE reached 0.641 and CR was 0.873. With the exception of the χ ² /dfratio at 3.392, which was above the preferred level of 2, all fit indices showed good fit. GFI at 0.996 was well above the recommended value of 0.90, TLI at 0.992 and CFI at 0.997 were above 0.95, while RMSEA at 0.054 demonstrated that the Loyalty scale was a

reasonable fit. Therefore the Loyalty construct demonstrated good reliability and validity, and all Loyalty items were retained for further analysis in the full structural model.

Figure ‎6.9 CFA measurement model for Loyalty construct (DV)

Note: Numbers against arrows represent item factor loadings Numbers against item boxes represent loadings squared

Table ‎6.9 Factor loadings, reliability and fit statistics for Loyalty scale

Item Description Factor

loading R² C.R.*

LOYALTY1 I would say positive things about this town centre 0.795 0.632 29.198 LOYALTY2 I would recommend this town centre 0.925 0.856 36.527 LOYALTY3 I would encourage friends and relatives to visit 0.896 0.803 29.198 LOYALTY4 I will shop here more frequently in the next few years 0.522 0.272 15.949

Composite Reliability = 0.873; Average Variance Extracted = 0.641 Fit indices: χ ²= 6.783, df = 2, χ ² /df = 3.392, p = < 0.001,

GFI = 0.996, TLI = 0.992, CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.054 R² represents squares of factor loadings, C.R. represents critical ratios

*Critical C.R values = 1.96 (p = <0.05)

187