Klyver, K., & Schenkel, M. T. (2013). From resource access to use: Exploring the impact of resource combinations on nascent entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(4), 539–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12030 Table 6 validates the significant relationships between the latent variables by bootstrapping sampling. The second column (Original) contains the coefficient value of the relationship; the third column (Mean.Boot) contains the value of the coefficient validated by sampling; the fourth column (Std.Error) contains the standard deviation of the validation; the fifth column (perc.025) contains the lower bound of the coefficient interval, and the sixth column (perc.975) contains the upper bound of the coefficient interval. It should be noted that if the confidence interval contains the number zero, it can be stated that the value of the coefficient will have the value of zero, and therefore, the relationship is not significant. Based on the above, it can be stated that all of the relationships between the latent variables are significant, with the exception of the relationship between Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE) and Venture Creation (VC), considering a confidence interval of 95%. Drnovšek, M., Wincent, J., & Cardon, M. S. (2010). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business start-up: Developing a multi-dimensional definition. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 16(4), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011054516

According to the description of the business cycle by Aldrich and Martinez ( 2007), it can be deduced that venture creation is a stage of entrepreneurship that occurs in the transition from nascent entrepreneur (gestation phase) to fledgling entrepreneur (infancy phase). To identify which stage of the venture creation and process a business is in, the researchers explore whether the entrepreneur is in one of three stages: planning to start a business, engaging in entrepreneurial activities, or newly established (De Carolis et al., 2009). Accordingly, the "Venture creation" variable has two levels: (a) Entrepreneurs with the intention to start a business (engaging in activities or planning to start and newly established) and (b) Entrepreneurs who have abandoned the process or failed. Assessment should ensure that all Specific Outcomes, Embedded Knowledge and Critical Cross-Field Outcomes are evaluated. The assessment of the Critical Cross-Field Outcomes should be integrated with the assessment of Specific Outcomes and Embedded Knowledge. Anwar, K., & Abdullah, N. (2021). Inspiring future entrepreneurs: The effect of experiential learning on the entrepreneurial intention at higher education. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 6, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijels.62.26The course is delivered through workshops, in-class exercises and experiential learning in which participants work in small teams taking on the role of new venture proponents. At the end of the course, participants present their business concepts to an examiners' panel - representing hypothetical investors or other stakeholders. Participant teams are actively mentored by the course lecturer. Exercises and assignments are designed to encourage participants to engage pro-actively with the ACT’s new venture creation ecosystem. Learning Outcomes

The structure of this Unit Standard based Qualification makes the Recognition of Prior Learning possible. Learner and Assessor will jointly decide on methods to determine prior learning and competence in the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes implicit in the Qualification and the associated Unit Standards. Recognition of Prior Learning will be done by means of an Integrated Assessment. Unit Standards to the value of thirty-six credits are allocated to the subject areas of Communication and Mathematical Literacy. Along the same lines, McGee et al. ( 2009) define entrepreneurial self-efficacy as “a construct that measures a person’s belief in their ability to successfully launch an entrepreneurial venture.” Based on the literature review presented in Chapter 2, the operational characterization of entrepreneurial self-efficacy is presented based on five dimensions suggested by McGee et al. ( 2009): (1) Searching dimension (Search), the entrepreneurs’ confidence in their abilities to develop new ideas and identify opportunities and/or needs; this dimension is related to the entrepreneur’s ability to create and innovate. (2) Planning dimension (Plan), the entrepreneurs’ confidence in their ability to roadmap and conceptualize the business model in terms of market quantification, pricing, investment projection, and marketing strategies. (3) Marshalling dimension (Marsh), the entrepreneurs’ confidence in their ability to convince other people to identify with their business ideas and share their vision or contribute to the needs of their venture. This ability allows entrepreneurs to gather the necessary resources (financing, clients, suppliers, work team, among others) to start their businesses. (4) Implementing-people dimension (People), the entrepreneurs’ confidence in their ability to attract, direct and guide their business’s human resources to scale and move through each phase in the business cycle. This dimension is associated with the entrepreneurs' business management skills. (5) Implementing-financial dimension, the entrepreneurs’ confidence in their ability to lead the businesses in the accounting and financial terms, enabling them to manage and raise sufficient funds to continue to grow the company. This dimension is associated with the entrepreneurs’ business management skills.From another perspective, some authors argue that venture creation is influenced by the dimension of social relations and the acquisition and development of abilities during university. Accordingly, Fueglistaller ( 2006) develops a quantitative model in which he evaluates the intention to create businesses based on the personal context and the university context. The social context comprises variables, such as age, gender, personal goals, and level of innovation, while the university context includes level of study, skills, and abilities. The model explains entrepreneurial intention by analyzing the interaction of those factors and indicates more generally that intention-based models contend that the development of business ideas must precede venture creation. Therefore, understanding actions, attitudes, and behaviours can predict venture creation intention better. Along the same lines, De Carolis ( 2006) develops a qualitative model based on papers by Bandura ( 2002b) and Bird ( 1988, 1989). The model involves the link between an individual's external factors (i.e., social capital) and internal factors (i.e., cognitive aspect) and how this link influences entrepreneurial behaviors. In their conclusion, they indicate that entrepreneurial behavior is the result of the interaction of environments (i.e., social networks) and certain cognitive biases in entrepreneurs. De Carolis proposes that both individual cognition and social capital are important for understanding entrepreneurial behavior. She further suggests a nexus between the presence of lucrative opportunities and the presence of entrepreneurial individuals. This nexus influences the link between the variables proposed in the article.