AIC=967), indicating that the leadership constructs were distinct. Second, alternative p<.001, model 2, in which the eight leadership dimensions loaded on one common factor, also had an inferior fit AIC=1071), further supporting the distinctiveness of (Δχ2=203, Δdf=18, p<.001, the leadership constructs. Third, to investigate the distinctiveness of the individual-focused and contingent-reward leadership measure, we specified alternative model 3 so that the individual-focused leadership dimensions and the five contingent-reward items loaded on one common factor. This model had a poorer fit AIC=1048). Fourth, p<.001, (Δχ2=157, Δdf=7, alternative model 4 loaded all TFL and contingent-reward items on one common factor. The worse fit AIC=1345) indicated that there was no common p<.001, (Δχ2=485, Δdf=9, leadership factor. Fifth, alternative model 5 loaded all items from the same source (commitment climate and OCB climate) on one common factor. The inferior fit (Δχ2=172, AIC=1062) showed the distinctiveness of these same source measures. Sixth, p<.001, Δdf=11, alternative model 6 loaded all items of the independent variables and mediators (all leadership dimensions, contingent-reward leadership, commitment climate, and OCB climate) on one common factor. The poorer fit indicated that the independent p<.001) (Δχ2=1457, Δdf=20, variables and mediators were separate constructs. Overall, these results strengthened the confidence in our assumed measurement structure. ***Insert Table 2 about here*** Structural Model In the second step of our SEM analyses, we inspected the structural Hypotheses testing. relationships of our proposed model. In line with the stepwise approach of models in OLS regression analyses, we first specified a model setting the moderation effects to zero, as main effects might be confounded by the interaction term (Aiken & West, 1991), and then inspected the effects of the interaction terms in two separate models. For this three-path mediation model (Hypothesized model A), we followed Taylor and colleagues (2008) and specified a model that integrated the indirect effects from the
p<.001, AIC=967), indicating that the leadership constructs were distinct. Second, alternative model 2, in which the eight leadership dimensions loaded on one common factor, also had an inferior fit (Δχ2=203, Δdf=18, p<.001, AIC=1071), further supporting the distinctiveness of the leadership constructs. Third, to investigate the distinctiveness of the individual-focused and contingent-reward leadership measure, we specified alternative model 3 so that the individual-focused leadership dimensions and the five contingent-reward items loaded on one common factor. This model had a poorer fit (Δχ2=157, Δdf=7, p<.001, AIC=1048). Fourth, alternative model 4 loaded all TFL and contingent-reward items on one common factor. The worse fit (Δχ2=485, Δdf=9, p<.001, AIC=1345) indicated that there was no common leadership factor. Fifth, alternative model 5 loaded all items from the same source (commitment climate and OCB climate) on one common factor. The inferior fit (Δχ2=172, Δdf=11, p<.001, AIC=1062) showed the distinctiveness of these same source measures. Sixth, alternative model 6 loaded all items of the independent variables and mediators (all leadership dimensions, contingent-reward leadership, commitment climate, and OCB climate) on one common factor. The poorer fit (Δχ2=1457, Δdf=20, p<.001) indicated that the independent variables and mediators were separate constructs. Overall, these results strengthened the confidence in our assumed measurement structure. ***Insert Table 2 about here*** Structural Model Hypotheses testing. In the second step of our SEM analyses, we inspected the structural relationships of our proposed model. In line with the stepwise approach of models in OLS regression analyses, we first specified a model setting the moderation effects to zero, as main effects might be confounded by the interaction term (Aiken & West, 1991), and then inspected the effects of the interaction terms in two separate models. For this three-path mediation model (Hypothesized model A), we followed Taylor and colleagues (2008) and specified a model that integrated the indirect effects from the