*3.2. Reliability of Factor Analysis*

For this study, Cronbach's alpha (*Cα*) testing was used to measure the reliability and strength of the internal consistency of the identified risk factors. The *Cα* range is between 0 and 1, and the acceptable reliability number is typically 0.7 or higher as identified by [67]. The *Cα* formula for Likert scale is shown in Equation (3) below:

$$\mathcal{C}\alpha = \frac{K}{K-1} \left[ 1 - \frac{\sum\_{i=0}^{k} \sigma\_b^2}{\sigma\_t^2} \right] \tag{3}$$

where:

*Cα*—is Cronbach's alpha;

*K*—is many items;

*σ*2 *<sup>b</sup>*—is the variance of test score;

*σ*2 *<sup>t</sup>* —is the variance of item scores after weighing.

#### *3.3. Agreement Analysis*

Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (*rs*) was used to measure the strength and direction of relationship between two ranked sets rather than the actual values. The coefficient was calculated by Equation (4) for ranked risk factors for pairs of the parties involved in this study (client, contractor, and consultant):

$$r\_s = 1 - \frac{6\sum d^2}{n(n^2 - 1)}\tag{4}$$

#### where

*rs*—is Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between two parties; *d*—is the difference between ranks assigned to each risk; *n*—is the number of pairs of rank.

#### **4. Results and Discussion**

#### *4.1. Participants' Demographics*

Out of 55 acceptable questionnaires, 30 respondents (54.55%) belonged to the public sector, whereas (34.55%) were from the private sector, and 5.45% belonged to semigovernment sector; the remaining 5.45% belonged to academic and research institutions. Twenty-seven respondents (49.09%) designated themselves as the client (owner/government agency), eighteen respondents (32.73%) were designers and consultants, and eight respondents (14.55%) reported to be contractors. The majority indicated that they had a masters degree (MSc) (41.82%), and 23.64% responded that they held a PhD.

Furthermore, the majority of the participants (63%) in this study had an experience of more than 15 years on construction projects, and they were distributed across various areas in the construction sector, reflecting the quality inputs gathered from the diverse experts. The quality of the responses was considered reliable for the analysis due to personal level interaction, relevant experiences, and clear understanding of the questionnaire among the participates. Table 1 summarises the first part of the questionnaire responses, including the respondents' educational background and experience.


**Table 1.** Participants' demographic details.

#### *4.2. Delay and Cost Overrun in Construction Projects*

Based on reported experience, more than 40% of projects had been subject to delays in the execution phase for thirty respondents (54.55%), and the percentage of project delays was more than 30%, as identified by 25 respondents. Fifty-four respondents had experienced project cost overruns in the execution phase and the average percentages of cost overruns were between 10% and 25% for 29 respondents, whereas 25 respondents (45.45%) have experienced projects cost overruns with less than 10% of average percentage of cost overruns. Table 2, below, summarises the results of second part of the questionnaire.

However, it has been documented that over 70% of the public projects in Saudi Arabia were delayed [68]. For instance, university construction projects were found to be experiencing delays from 50% to 150% [42]. The findings of this study indicate slightly fewer delays (45% of participants stating delays less than 40%) compared to previous studies [69,70], which have identified them as being from 70% to 75%.


