## 5 Results  
### Measurement Model  
Firstly, a validated factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. The findings led to the exclusion of certain candidate items, following guidelines related to modification indices (exceeding 10) and the standardized residual matrix (surpassing 3) as recommended by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [78], and that the resulting model produced very suitable indices. Table 3 indicates that the CMIN/DF (chi-square/DF ratio) stands at 1.445, a figure commonly utilized to determine the model's overall compatibility, where a ratio under three indicates a good fit. The IFI (incremental fit index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis index), and CFI (comparative fit index) serve as measures of incremental fit, with values exceeding 0.9 typically signifying an acceptable fit. The findings suggest that the model competes with the collected data. The RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) evaluates the model's approximation error, with lower values suggesting minimal discrepancies between the model and the observed data. An RMSEA below 0.05 suggests an excellent fit, while values ranging from 0.05 to 0.08 represent an acceptable fit. The model is considered an excellent fit with an RMSEA of 0.028 in this study. These results affirm the model's effective fit to the observed data. Subsequently, a reliability analysis was conducted to assess the consistency of the questionnaire's study variables across the measurement items, utilizing [PERSON]'s alpha reliability coefficient. The evaluation of [PERSON]'s alpha followed the criteria set forth by [PERSON] [79], where a score of >0.8 is considered good, >0.7 is acceptable, >0.6 is questionable, >0.5 is inadequate, and \(\leq\)0.5 is unacceptable. This analysis revealed that the model's 13 variable combinations were highly reliable across all variables. These findings are presented in Table 4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Measurement Indicators** & **CMIN** & **DF** & **CMIN/DF** & **IFI** & **TLI** & **CFI** & **RMSEA** \\ \hline Measured value & 901.841 & 624 & 1.445 & 0.975 & 0.97 & 0.975 & 0.028 \\ Reference standard & — & — & \(\leq\)3.00 & \(\geq\)0.90 & \(\geq\)0.90 & \(\geq\)0.90 & \(\leq\)0.08 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results of validated factor analysis. Then, both convergent and discriminant validity were estimated to evaluate the construct validity of the measurement model. For convergent validity, validated factor analyses were employed, with measurements taken via composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) [80]. An AVE value exceeding 0.5 and a CR value surpassing 0.7 for each factor signify strong convergent validity. The specific measurement items for each variable in this study are shown in Appendix C. Table 5 illustrates that all variables demonstrate robust convergent validity. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & & **Cronbach’s Alpha** \\ \hline Career Development & (CD) & 0.806 \\ Business Needs & (BN) & 0.797 \\ Self-Management & (SM) & 0.822 \\ Learning Experience & (LE) & 0.867 \\ Company Atmosphere & (CA) & 0.840 \\ External Pressure & (EP) & 0.839 \\ Company Support & (CS) & 0.881 \\ Course Quality & (CQ) & 0.867 \\ Performance Expectancy & (PE) & 0.771 \\ Effort Expectancy & (EE) & 0.804 \\ Social Influence & (SI) & 0.806 \\ Facilitating Conditions & (FC) & 0.878 \\ Behavioral Intention & (BI) & 0.884 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of reliability analysis.