Cross-sectional study examines challenges and opportunities in mompreneurship, indicating new pathways for economic empowerment.
This study examines the challenges and opportunities of mompreneurship in Kazakhstan, focusing on women balancing entrepreneurship and motherhood within socio-economic and institutional contexts. Using a cross-sectional quantitative design, data were collected from 520 mompreneurs across major regions. Statistical analyses were conducted using R and Excel, including descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA, and multiple regression. Measurement reliability was confirmed through Cronbach’s Alpha (α = 0.76–0.87) and McDonald’s Omega (ω = 0.78–0.89). To enhance methodological rigor, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed, demonstrating acceptable model fit (χ²/df = 2.41, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.058, SRMR = 0.049). Convergent and discriminant validity were established using Composite Reliability (CR > 0.70), Average Variance Extracted (AVE > 0.50), and HTMT (< 0.85). Common method bias was assessed using Harman’s single-factor test (< 50%), indicating no significant bias. Regression diagnostics confirmed model robustness (R² = 0.37–0.48; VIF < 5). Findings reveal that government support, digital technology usage, and access to finance significantly influence entrepreneurial outcomes, while work–family balance remains a persistent constraint. Despite structural barriers, digitalization and evolving policy frameworks create new opportunities for flexible and home-based entrepreneurship. The study contributes by integrating institutional, technological, and life-course perspectives within the context of emerging economies. However, the study is limited by sample scope and cross-sectional design, suggesting the need for longitudinal and comparative research to enhance generalizability and policy relevance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Potluri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: