## 5 Results/Findings
### Assessment of Structural Model (Inner Model)
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Path** & **Std. Beta** & **Std. Error** & \(t\)**-Value** & **Bias** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Confidence Interval**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Decision**} \\ \cline{5-8} H1 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{On-the-Job} & & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ Embeddedness \(\rightarrow\) & 0.134 & 0.063 & 2.116 & 0.006 & 0.014 & 0.225 & Supported \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Intention to Stay} & & & & & & & \\ Off-the-Job & & & & & & & & \\ H2 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Embeddedness \(\rightarrow\)} & 0.353 & 0.069 & 5.139 & \(-\)0.002 & 0.248 & 0.468 & Supported \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Intention to Stay} & & & & & & & \\ H3 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Commitment \(\rightarrow\)} & 0.399 & 0.064 & 6.19 & \(-\)0.003 & 0.284 & 0.495 & Supported \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Intention to Stay} & & & & & & & \\ H4 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{On-the-Job} & & & & & & & \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Embeddedness \(\rightarrow\)} & 0.299 & 0.058 & 5.117 & 0.005 & 0.190 & 0.385 & Supported \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Commitment} & & & & & & & \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Off-the-Job} & & & & & & & \\ H5 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Embeddedness \(\rightarrow\)} & 0.545 & 0.056 & 9.68 & \(-\)0.002 & 0.446 & 0.637 & Supported \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Commitment} & & & & & & & \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{On-the-Job} & & & & & & & \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Embeddedness \(\rightarrow\)} & 0.119 & 0.029 & 4.085 & 0.001 & 0.077 & 0.176 & Supported \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Commitment \(\rightarrow\)} & & & & & & & \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Intention to Stay} & & & & & & & \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Of-the-Job} & & & & & & & \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Embeddedness \(\rightarrow\)} & 0.217 & 0.043 & 5.073 & \(-\)0.002 & 0.147 & 0.288 & Supported \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Commitment \(\rightarrow\)} & & & & & & & \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Intention to Stay} & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \(p\) < 0.05 (one-tailed test).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results of Bootstrapping for Structural Model Evaluation. ment and stay intention; there was also a significant indirect coefficient between off-the-job embedding, continuance commitment and stay intention. This statistical path coefficient shows that there is a substantial direct influence between the dimensions of continuous engagement to continue, where all direct and indirect effects are present and point in the same (i.e., positive direction. In conclusion, continuance commitment, therefore, has a full mediating impact between on-the-job embedding, off-the-job embedding and the intention to remain in Malaysian construction firms. In Table 5, you will find a comprehensive summary of the mediation analysis. Having analyzed the value and significance of the path's coefficients, the structural model's explanatory power was calculated. The decision coefficient investigated explanatory power: R\({}^{2}\) values [64]. R\({}^{2}\) reveals the sum of variance that is clarified by the model in the endogenous structures, on-the-job embeddedness, off-the-job embeddedness, continuation engagement and intention to remain [64]. In the inner model, R\({}^{2}\) values of 0.67, 0.33 or 0.19 for endogenous latent constructs can be defined as substantial, moderate or weak, respectively, according to [PERSON]. Referring to Figure 2, the findings revealed a significant model of R\({}^{2}\) = 0.604 or 60.4% of the variance in continuity commitment, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.999 or 99.9% variance in on-the-job embeddedness, R\({}^{2}\) = 1.000 or 100% variance in off-the-job embeddedness and R\({}^{2}\) = 0.645 or 64.5% variance in intent to remain. Therefore the explained variation of continuation dedication can be viewed as moderate concerning [PERSON]'s recommendation. The R\({}^{2}\) value of 0.645 was viewed as an essential model for the intention to stay. The effect size evaluates the relative effect of a predictor variable on the criterion variable, which is determined by the changes in the \(R^{2}\) values [65].