## 4 Results
### Measurement Model  
The measuring model defines how things are right now regarding some latent components [108]. Evaluating the BIM barriers in PLS-SEM necessitates the evaluation of both convergent and discriminant validity [109]. Measured as a subset of construct validity, convergent validity is the degree to which two or more barriers of the same construct are consistent and logically organized [104]. Estimating the convergent validity of the suggested constructs in PLS-SEM may be performed with the help of the composite reliability scores (\(\rho_{c}\)), Cronbach's alpha (\(\alpha\)), and average variance extracted (AVE) [110].  
Table 4 indicates that the composite reliability of all the BIM barriers exceeded the minimum acceptable value of 0.60 and was thus approved [111; 112]. Similarly, the Cronbach alpha exceeded the minimum acceptable value of 0.60, showing a moderate to high reliability, as advised by [PERSON] et al. [113]. The AVE was also employed to test the converging validity of the construct variables using Equation (1) [110]:  
\[\text{AVE}=\frac{\sum\lambda_{\text{i}}^{2}}{\sum\lambda_{\text{i}}^{2}+\sum \text{var}(\varepsilon_{\text{i}})} \tag{1}\]  
where AVE is the average variance extracted; \(\lambda_{\text{i}}\) is the component loading of each item to a latent variable, and \(\text{var}(\varepsilon_{\text{i}})=1-\lambda_{\text{i}}^{2}\). AVE values estimated using PLS 3.0 software were more than 0.5, indicating that the measurement model is convergent and internally stable--this is seen in Table 6; however, [PERSON] [104] says that if the analysis is explanatory, a value of 0.40 or higher is reasonable for external stress. All exterior loads are allowed in the first model, as shown in Figure 3.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Constructs**} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Cronbach’s** \\ **Alpha** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Composite** \\ **Reliability** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Average Variance** \\ **Extracted (AVE)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline BIM collaboration and standard & 0.931 & 0.941 & 0.593 \\ \hline BIM literacy among the construction professionals & 0.861 & 0.894 & 0.549 \\ \hline Contract condition & 0.723 & 0.844 & 0.643 \\ \hline Cost Impact of BIM & 0.829 & 0.88 & 0.596 \\ \hline Culture & 0.790 & 0.864 & 0.614 \\ \hline Problem of standardization & 0.669 & 0.858 & 0.751 \\ \hline The competitive mentality among the stakeholders and BIM Reliability & 0.797 & 0.881 & 0.711 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Construct’s reliability and validity analyses.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Constructs**} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Barriers** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Loading** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline Culture & B19 & 0.654 \\ \hline B20 & 0.650 \\ \hline B21 & 0.890 \\ \hline B1 & 0.685 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: _Cont._Figure 3: Path analysis.  
The discriminant validity assessment was conducted to confirm the distinct and unique nature of the evaluated construct [105]. The Cornell-Larcker criteria and hetrotrait-monotrait criterion ratio (HTMT) were used in the current study to assess the discriminant validity. Table 7 shows that the BIM challenges are recognized and accepted based on Cornell and Larcker criteria, as the square root of the AVE is higher than the correlation between the build indications and elements [110; 114].  
The hetrotrait-monotrait criterion ratio (HTMT) was also used to assess the discriminating validity of variance-based SEMs by estimating the precise correlation between the two constructs. [PERSON] et al. [105] recommended an HTMT value of less than 0.85 for model structures with dissimilar concepts and 0.90 for a model construct with extremely similar concepts. Table 8 displays the HTMT values for all components studied in this study, demonstrating sufficient discriminating validity.