Edited and reviewed by: Stefinee Pinnegar, Brigham Young University, United States
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
In the published article, there were minor mistakes in the main text. The statement for factor extraction criteria was displayed as “Upon the factor extraction, the author removed the items with factor loading less than ±0.40 (Hair et al., 2019), cross-loading items with less than 0.15 difference from its highest factor loading, and items having communalities less than 40 (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006).” There were errors related to authorship reference, pronoun agreement, and expression of the item communality threshold value.
A correction has been made to the section
“Principal axis factoring was performed as this study focused on scale validation (Hair et al., 2019), and promax oblique rotation was employed because the factors were expected to be correlated (Hair et al., 2019). The number of plausible factors was determined as seven based upon the theoretical foundation (Watkins, 2018). Upon the factor extraction, the authors removed the items with factor loading less than ±0.40 (Hair et al., 2019), cross-loading items with less than 0.15 difference from their highest factor loading, and items having communalities less than 0.40 (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006). Factor extraction and rotation were rerun after the removal of each item, and a total of 21 items were removed along the process. The rerun seven-factor solution revealed that two factors obtaining less than two items, which would not yield a meaningful interpretation (Williams et al., 2010). These factors and their items were thus deleted (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006), and a five-factor solution was administrated. Three more items were also then removed based on the theoretical relevance.”
The original version of this article has been updated.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.