1. Your psychological resilience scale includes an item with a loading of 0.455 and a t-value of 1.917, which is below conventional significance thresholds. Why was this item retained despite failing to meet even the most lenient standards for indicator reliability, and how does this not fundamentally compromise the construct validity of your psychological resilience measure?
2. There is a clear inconsistency in your hypothesis numbering: H4 is stated as personnel resilience → life satisfaction in the hypotheses section, but in the results section, H4 is reported as life satisfaction → organizational resilience, and H5 is reversed accordingly. This misalignment suggests a possible post-hoc adjustment of your model. Can you clarify whether this reflects an error in reporting or an unacknowledged change to your hypothesized model after seeing the data?
Moreover, your study claims that psychological resilience does not significantly predict personnel resilience, yet the items used to measure both constructs (e.g., I possess the ability to effectively address and manage situations inside the workplace for personnel resilience and recovering from negative events is challenging for me for psychological resilience) appear conceptually overlapping. How can you be confident that this null finding reflects a genuine theoretical distinction rather than a measurement artifact or poor operationalization of the constructs?