WARNReviewer 1· 85% conf
Statistical tests are named and p-values are reported, but assumptions are not verified, effect sizes lack confidence intervals, and software identification is typo-ridden.
Evidence
absence[Section 3.3 and 4.1]
Assumptions for SEM are not verified.direct quote[Table 3]
“Hypothesis Unstd. Coefficient (β) S.E. z-value Std. Coefficient p-value Result”direct quote[Section 3.3]
“this study uses Amous 24.0 to analyze the collected data.”WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf
The statistical methods (SEM) are named, and exact p-values are reported. However, test assumptions (e.g., normality, multivariate normality for SEM) are not verified, effect sizes are reported as standardized coefficients but without confidence intervals, and individual data points are not shown.
Evidence
direct quote[Table 3]
“INC → SAT 0.162 0.055 2.936 0.180 ** Supported”direct quote[Table 3]
“Std. coefficient p-value 0.180 **”absence[Section 3.3]
No verification of SEM assumptions (e.g., multivariate normality) is reported.PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf
The study uses appropriate SEM analysis, reports path coefficients, p-values, and model fit indices. Individual data points are not shown (SEM uses aggregate data), but this is standard. No arithmetic errors detected. P-values are reported as thresholds (e.g., *** p<0.001) rather than exact values, but this is common in SEM work.
Evidence
paraphrase[Section 4, Table 2 and Table 3]
“Table 2 reports CFI, RMSEA, TLI, GFI, NFI, χ2/df, AGFI; Table 3 reports path coefficients, standard errors, z-values, p-values.”direct quote[Table 3 footnote]
“∗p < 0.05. ∗∗p < 0.01. ∗∗∗p < 0.001.”direct quote[Section 4.1]
“this study tested all the measures' model fit with the Bollen-Stine Bootstrap method”