Barrier Factor Structure
Sample size adequacy: Marginal. N:parameter ratio 4.3:1 is below the 5:1 minimum. CFA fit indices should be interpreted with caution; convergence issues and Heywood cases are possible.
The TABS Barriers scale includes 18 items and was developed through a concept-mapping process that identified four theoretical sub-constructs. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on the CRP-200 frozen dataset (N=200, with 192 listwise valid responses for the factor analysis). An exploratory 3-group decomposition is also available for practitioner-oriented reporting.
See the Statistics Glossary for definitions of all psychometric terms used on this page, or the Instrument Validation page for the full results across all three constructs.
Level 1: Theory-Based Groupings (4 Groups)
The concept-mapping exercise (Appendix D) sorted the 18 barrier items into four sub-constructs based on thematic affinity and theoretical grounding in the adoption barriers literature.
Internal cultural resistance and risk aversion
Strategy gaps, legacy systems, governance
Workforce, training, cost, infrastructure
Security, privacy, regulation, vendors
Total: 2 + 6 + 4 + 6 = 18 items. The four groups have unequal sizes by design because real-world barrier categories differ in breadth.
Level 2: EFA-Derived Structure (2 Factors)
Hornβs Parallel Analysis compared actual eigenvalues against the 95th percentile of random-data eigenvalues and retained 2 factors. The two factors explain a cumulative 39.9% of variance. Factor correlations (r = .505) confirm the oblique rotation was appropriate.
| Statistic | F1 | F2 |
|---|---|---|
| Eigenvalue | 5.874 | 1.903 |
| Variance Explained | 28.5% | 11.4% |
| Items | 14 | 4 |
| KMO (overall) | 0.851 | |
| Bartlettβs ΟΒ² | 1,135.5 (p < .001) | |
What Changed from Theory?
The theory-based 4-group structure collapsed into 2 empirical factors. All items from Organizational & Cultural, Strategic & Operational, and Resource & Skill loaded together onto F1 (Internal/Organizational). All 4 Risk/Trust items loaded onto F2 (External/Compliance). This suggests that organizational leaders perceive internal barriers as a unified challenge, while external compliance and trust constraints form a distinct dimension.
Level 3: Exploratory 3-Group Decomposition
Because F1 contains 14 of the 18 items, we explored whether it could be meaningfully sub-divided. Hornβs Parallel Analysis on F1 alone recommends retaining only 1 factor, so any split is not statistically mandated. However, a forced 2-factor extraction within F1 produces two interpretable, closely related sub-groups.
Important methodological note
The 3-group solution is exploratory and intended for practitioner reporting, not as a replacement for the statistically supported 2-factor structure.
3-Group Reliability Summary
| Group | Items | Ξ± | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1a β Strategy & Culture | 9 | 0.838 | 0.845 | 0.390 |
| F1b β Resources & Operations | 5 | 0.662 | 0.666 | 0.290 |
| F2 β External & Compliance | 4 | 0.671 | 0.730 | 0.457 |
Item-Level Factor Loadings
Full 18-item loading matrix from EFA with Promax rotation (ML estimation, N=192). Primary loadings are bolded. Items are grouped by their dominant factor assignment.
| Item | Barrier | F1 Loading | F2 Loading | Assigned |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2 | Lack of Leadership Support | 0.824 | -0.217 | F1 |
| B1 | Resistance to Change | 0.747 | -0.253 | F1 |
| B3 | Risk-Averse Culture | 0.738 | -0.126 | F1 |
| B10 | No Clear Strategy/Roadmap | 0.731 | -0.026 | F1 |
| B4 | Insufficient Workforce Skills | 0.684 | -0.074 | F1 |
| B5 | Inadequate Training | 0.568 | 0.017 | F1 |
| B9 | Difficulty Demonstrating Value | 0.543 | -0.035 | F1 |
| B12 | Workflow Disruption | 0.539 | 0.090 | F1 |
| B7 | Legacy System Integration | 0.520 | 0.042 | F1 |
| B8 | Inadequate IT Infrastructure | 0.486 | 0.120 | F1 |
| B17 | External Pressure Without Readiness | 0.475 | 0.071 | F1 |
| B11 | Insufficient Governance | 0.437 | 0.155 | F1 |
| B6 | High Implementation Cost | 0.431 | 0.100 | F1 |
| B15 | Lack of Trust in Tech/Vendors | 0.397 | 0.187 | F1 |
| B14 | Data Privacy Compliance | -0.207 | 0.952 | F2 |
| B13 | Cybersecurity Concerns | -0.227 | 0.850 | F2 |
| B16 | Regulatory Complexity | 0.146 | 0.354 | F2 |
| B18 | Vendor/Partner Difficulty | 0.232 | 0.268 | F2 |
Interpretation and Implications
Why 4 Theory Groups Become 2 Factors
The concept-mapping sub-constructs represent distinct theoretical traditions, but organizational leaders perceive barriers through a simpler lens: things within their control (internal organizational challenges) versus things imposed from outside (regulatory and compliance mandates).
The 14/4 Imbalance
F1 containing 14 items while F2 has only 4 is a legitimate asymmetry, not a flaw. Internal organizational barriers are inherently more diverse while external compliance constraints cluster tightly. The 3-group decomposition offers a more balanced practitioner view (9 / 5 / 4) for organizations seeking targeted intervention.
Practical Application
For academic reporting, use the statistically supported 2-factor structure. For practitioner dashboards and action planning, the 3-group decomposition provides more granular and actionable groupings.