[shalini sahni]

Respected Sir and Dear Group members

Koach Scholar is conducting a hands on four-day professional development workshop on "Leveraging Generative AI for teaching, Research and Professional Innovation

Date- 15-20 Jan, 2025 (No session on sat and sun)

Time:  6:30–8:30 PM IST

Sessions will be facilitated by  Dr. Shalini Sahni and Ms. Abhinaya Nair

Key Learnings

Daily Tasks for any professional including educator and researcher

• Overview of AI and addressing AI Hallucinations
• Fact checking workflows
• The CCCTS framework for effective prompts
• Few-Shot prompting
• Gen AI’s role in digital strategies, and high volume content creation
• Mastering AI automation with Zapier (Connect GenAI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) with everyday platforms (Google Forms, Sheets, Docs, Gmail)
• Automated workflows- Anatomy of AI Zap
• Tools for business and financial investment and Intelligence
• Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) workflows

For Faculty and Research Scholar

• Data Scrapping - AI Scrapers
• Extraction of data using AI
• Identifying Research Gaps
• Building frameworks and model
• Developing Questionnaire and survey google form using AI
• Systematic Literature Review
• Bibliometrics using AI tools
• Text Mining
• Qualitative & Quantitative Data Analysis

Registration Details:

Registration Fee: INR 1200 / 30 USD

Registration link: https://forms.gle/dM9MmpMp7y5eMtnm8

For Indian Participants
Reg Fee: INR 1200/
Payment link: https://www.koachscholar.com/payment.php
 
For international Participants
Reg Fee : 30 USD

Payment Link:
https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/HVQ796MS8GRHQ

Takeaways

• Recordings
• Certificates
• Scripts wherever applicable
  
  

For any query, please contact at +91-8178627309

Regards
Team Koach

[Priyanka Tagra]

Hello everyone,

Is there someone in this group who provide professionally language editing services ? Actually I need it urgently because journal is asking again and again in every revision to do professional language editing.

Thankyou

Research Scholar

Priyanka 

[Sukhmani Singh]

Dear Priyanka,

You can send your document to the following email address, as I offer proofreading services to scholars.
Rest, converse with me via email instead of this group.

Best wishes.

Dr. Sukhmani
Proofreader, Founder, and Mentor
www.scholars-help.com
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Scholars-Help_dr.sukhmani

[Sukhmani Singh]

Apologies for skipping email id in first message, now added.

Dr. Sukhmani
Proofreader, Founder, and Mentor
www.scholars-help.com

Email: ad...@scholars-help.com
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@Scholars-Help_dr.sukhmani

[Ashraf Abdou]

Dear Team,

I have comment from reviewer told me, :The study demonstrates methodological rigor, a clear empirical contribution, and contextual relevance. However, the manuscript currently exhibits conceptual redundancies, over-extended hypothesis structure, and weaknesses in theoretical parsimony, which limit its impact and clarity.

What I can do, separate main hypothesis than sub diminsion factots. I need your recommendation please. This is  example likey my model. 

My suggestion is to 

Here is the brief English explanation of the Q1-correct approach:

Q1-Correct Hypothesis Structure

You should use only two levels:

Level 1 – Main Hypotheses (formal, numbered)

Test only the core causal model:

TOE → Trust → Intention

Example:

H1: Technological factors → Trust

H2: Organizational factors → Trust

H3: Environmental factors → Trust

H4: Trust → Intention

These are the only hypotheses that should be statistically tested and reported as supported / not supported.

Level 2 – Sub-dimensions (not hypotheses)

Sub-dimensions (e.g., relative advantage, top management support, perceived risk, regulation, etc.) should:

NOT be written as H1a, H1b, H2a…

NOT be part of the formal hypothesis structure

Be used only as explanatory drivers inside:

Measurement model

Results (diagnostic tables)

Discussion

They explain why a main hypothesis is supported or not, but they are not theory-testing units.

How to report results

You report:

TOE → Trust → Intention as supported / not supported

Then you explain:

“At the sub-dimension level, top management support was significant, while technological complexity was not…”

This keeps the model:

Theoretically clean

Statistically valid

Acceptable 

 value will be 

:

Parsimony (simple theory)

Strong causal logic

No hypothesis inflation

..

The members of this group are expected to follow the following Protocols:

1. Please search previous posts in the group before posting the question.

2. Don't write the query in someone's post. Always use the option of New topic for the new question. You can do this by writing to dataanaly...@googlegroups.com

3. It’s better to give a proper subject to your post/query. It'll help others while searching.

4. Never write Open-ended queries. This group intends to help research scholars, NOT TO WORK FOR THEM.

5. Never write words like URGENT in your posts. People will help when they are free.

6. Never upload any information about National Seminars/Conferences. Send such information

in personal emails and feel free to share any RESEARCH-related information.

7. No Happy New Year, Happy Diwali, Happy Holi, Happy Birthday, Happy Anniversary, etc. allowed in this group.

8. Asking or sharing Research Papers is NOT ALLOWED.

9. You can share your questionnaire only once.

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataAnalysis" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dataanalysistrai...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dataanalysistraining/55da18ba-9b7d-44c1-bdd4-a5db265f7dccn%40googlegroups.com.

[Neeraj Kaushik]

Dear Ashraf
Hypotheses should only be formed between second-order constructs. Where possible, create mediated hypotheses; for example: Perch trust mediated the relationship between Technology and Intention to use. This will significantly reduce the number of hypotheses.
Best wishes
Neeraj

--

The members of this group are expected to follow the following Protocols:
1. Please search previous posts in the group before posting the question.
2. Don't write the query in someone's post. Always use the option of New topic for the new question. You can do this by writing to dataanaly...@googlegroups.com
3. It’s better to give a proper subject to your post/query. It'll help others while searching.
4. Never write Open-ended queries. This group intends to help research scholars, NOT TO WORK FOR THEM.
5. Never write words like URGENT in your posts. People will help when they are free.
6. Never upload any information about National Seminars/Conferences. Send such information
in personal emails and feel free to share any RESEARCH-related information.
7. No Happy New Year, Happy Diwali, Happy Holi, Happy Birthday, Happy Anniversary, etc. allowed in this group.
8. Asking or sharing Research Papers is NOT ALLOWED.
9. You can share your questionnaire only once.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataAnalysis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dataanalysistrai...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dataanalysistraining/CAO22LEgdNSMdQr4Gfj29%2BbMQb3wxrqszeZBPU%3D5jAKz1%2BXH%3DFg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ashraf Abdou]

The table below includes all hypotheses. I suggest removing the sub-hypotheses that fall under the main hypothesis, converting them into sub-dimensions, conducting measurement analysis, and determining their significant effects.  What do you think? Is that statistically true? To avoid hypothesis inflation and theoretical redundancy, hypotheses were formulated at the TOE construct level, while sub-construct effects were analyzed as part of the measurement model.

---

🟦 Table 1. Structural Model Results (TOE-level hypotheses)

H	Structural Path	β	t-value	p-value	95% CI (LB, UB)	Result
H1	Technology → Intention to use	0.598	7.795	0.000	(0.467, 0.767)	Supported
H2	Technology → Perceived trust	0.114	0.726	0.468	(-0.298, 0.118)	Not Supported
H3	Organization → Intention to use	-0.078	0.726	0.468	(-0.298, 0.118)	Not Supported
H4	Environment → Intention to use	-0.017	0.191	0.849	(-0.181, 0.174)	Not Supported
H5	Perceived trust → Intention to use	0.218	2.258	0.024	(0.027, 0.396)	Supported
H8	Technology → Perceived Trust → Intention to use	0.040	1.284	0.199	(-0.006, 0.113)	Not Supported
H9	Organization → Perceived Trust → Intention to use	0.202	2.020	0.044	(0.028, 0.253)	Supported
H10	Environment → Perceived Trust → Intention to use	0.341	3.417	0.001	(0.088, 0.290)	Supported

In this case, if any hypothesis is not supported, you must explain why.

🟨 Table 2. Sub-dimension (Micro-level) Effects (Reported separately; not hypotheses)

A) Technological sub-dimensions

Sub-path	β	t-value	p-value	95% CI (LB, UB)	Result
Relative advantage → Perceived trust	0.067	0.686	0.494	(-0.281, 0.102)	Not Supported
Relative advantage → Intention to use	0.553	5.556	0.000	(0.337, 0.741)	Supported
Security and privacy → Perceived trust	0.196	2.634	0.009	(0.061, 0.351)	Supported
Security and privacy → Intention to use	0.135	1.317	0.188	(-0.061, 0.343)	Not Supported
Perceived complexity → Perceived trust	-0.097	0.882	0.378	(-0.297, 0.121)	Not Supported
Perceived complexity → Intention to use	-0.238	2.277	0.023	(-0.480, -0.061)	Supported

---

B) Organizational sub-dimensions

Sub-path	β	t-value	p-value	95% CI (LB, UB)	Result
Perceived risk → Perceived trust	-0.175	1.668	0.095	(-0.027, 0.384)	Not Supported
Perceived risk → Intention to use	-0.297	2.666	0.008	(0.112, 0.540)	Supported
Top management support → Perceived trust	0.234	3.505	0.000	(0.083, 0.352)	Supported
Top management support → Intention to use	0.102	0.889	0.374	(-0.142, 0.316)	Not Supported
Hospital readiness → Perceived trust	0.135	2.437	0.021	(0.047, 0.320)	Supported
Hospital readiness → Intention to use	0.117	1.161	0.246	(-0.299, 0.104)	Not Supported

---

---

C) Environmental sub-dimensions

Sub-path	β	t-value	p-value	95% CI (LB, UB)	Result
Financial capabilities → Perceived trust	0.373	4.309	0.000	(0.168, 0.527)	Supported
Financial capabilities → Intention to use	0.207	1.958	0.046	(0.019, 0.430)	Supported
Government support and regulations → Perceived trust	0.199	2.321	0.020	(0.044, 0.377)	Supported
Government support and regulations → Intention to use	0.127	1.440	0.150	(-0.305, 0.039)	Not Supported

---

and explain just significant sub-dimension factors in this case

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dataanalysistraining/CAAd%3Dc8M%3DoLA4pv5QQWvusgeVH7YgiWB-%3D7zJioNUc%2BE-hm3Rpg%40mail.gmail.com.