英语翻译We first conducted analyses separately for each factor a

英语翻译
We first conducted analyses separately for each factor and calculated coefficient alphas,composite reliabilities,and average variances extracted.The respective values are indicative of a reliable and valid measurement of the individual factors.All coefficient alphas exceed the recommended threshold of .7 (Nunnally 1978),composite reliabilities are greater than .7,and average variances extracted surpass values of .5 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988).In an analysis based on Fornell and Larcker (1981),we subsequently assessed the discriminant validity of the factors.The results indicate that there are no problems with respect to discriminant validity; the average variance extracted by the measure of each factor is larger than the squared correlation of that factor’s measure with all measures of other factors.Moreover,we checked for the existence of common method bias in the data.Harman’s one-factor test was employed,in which no single,general factor was extracted (Podsakoff and Organ 1986).In addition,we re-estimated our structural equation model with all
the indicator variables loading on an unmeasured latent method factor (MacKenzie et al.1993).For identification purposes,it was necessary to constrain factor loadings within constructs to be
equal when estimating this model.The results showed that none of the individual path coefficients corresponding to relationships between the indicators and the method factor was significant.
Moreover,the overall pattern of significant relationships was not affected by common method variance (i.e.,all of the paths that were significant when common method variance was not
controlled remained significant even when common method variance was controlled).Overall,we conclude that common method bias does not seem to be a serious concern for this study.

我们首先进行了分析,分别为每个因子和计算系数透明度和可靠性,复合材料,平均差额提取.各自的值表明一个可靠和有效的衡量个人的因素.所有系数透明度超过规定的阈值.7（南奈利·1978）,复合材料的可靠性大于7,平均方差.提取超越价值.5（i彝族1988）.在分析的基础上,佛内尔和拉克尔（1981）,我们后来评估判别有效性的因素.结果表明,不存在任何问题方面的区分效度；平均方差的衡量每个因素大于平方相关的因子的测量与所有措施的其他因素.此外,我们检查了存在共同方法偏差的数据.哈曼的单因素试验使用,其中没有一个,一般因子提取（器官的1986）.此外,我们估计的结构方程模型的所有
指标变量加载一个衡量潜在因素（麦肯齐等人.1993.鉴定的目的,有必要限制因子载荷的结构是
在估算这个模型等.结果表明,没有任何个人的路径对应的系数之间的关系,指标和方法的因素是重要的.
此外,总体格局的重大关系,不影响共同方法变异（即,所有的路径,显着的共同方法变异是不
控制仍然很大,即使在共同方法变异控制）.总体而言,我们得出这样的结论：共同方法偏差似乎并不是一个严肃的问题研究