forum.smartpls.com

First: It does mean that there is no effect. At least on average (if you are looking at the awareness effects, but have a significant interaction effect). Btw, I would usually report it the other way: first significance (if not significant than there is no effect), second strength (i.e., effect size...

You might need to exclude some of your respondents (and/or renegotiate with your data provider). I usually screen respondents of answers that are less than half of the median (speeders) and those answering more than 90% of the time in the same response category (straighliners). You may also include ...

As you have posted under a different topic you might be confusing some of the terminology. You may also read some additional literature on how to test mediating effects (in general and in PLS). Some helpful information and additional literature can be found here: https://www.smartpls.com/documentati...

It depends on what you want to assess, but likely you want to look at the indirect effect (specific or total). Establishing an indirect effect validates your mediation hypothesis, i.e., that there is an intervening variable M that explains part of whole of the effect of A on B. The total effect is t...

1) Below the diagonal we show the correlations. These can also be negative. It also seems to match your expectation about the relationship of the constructs, which is good. Whether you want to use only absolute (i.e., positive) correlations for a Fornell-Larcker matrix or also negative is a matter o...

Yes, you could multiply outer_weight*path_coefficient*outer_loading, e.g., 0.866*-0.371*0.833 = -0.268 for the effect of eee on fff in a sence of a total effect that matches partial regression coefficient logic. Another option would be the use of outer_loading*path_coefficient*outer_loading, which w...

It could be heterogeneity, but it like another problem that is known in the PLS literature. A bimodal distribution is likely the effect of a very weak (or zero) relationship while one of the variables has also no relations with other constructs in the model. Then the weight estimation procedure is n...

There are different ways to do that, but the easiest way is the following: Double click on each construct and choose as Indicator Weighting Mode the Sumscores . It will show you that you use Sumscores by placing a small "S" inside the construct. Then just run the normal PLS algorithm, bootstrapping,...

It is a technical issue. The reliability of an interaction effect is not directly estimable from the attached indicators. It is more conceptually the product of the two reliabilities from the predictor and the moderator. You need to calculate that yourself if you which to get that. However, note, th...

If you click on the data file in your SmartPLS project the data file view will open. There you can create you data groups.

See also in the following video: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation/ ... smartpls-3

1) What type of second-order construct?
2) What type of total effect are you missing?

Please be more specific with your questions. It seems you first need to read some basic literature. The smartpls website provides some useful sources for your topics. The PLS-SEM Book: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation/learn-pls-sem-and-smartpls/pls-sem-book Book on Advanced Issues in PLS-SEM: ...

I don't quite understand the problem, but you might look into the PLS SEM book for redundancy analysis and also the following paper might help you: Cheah, J. H., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Ramayah, T., & Ting, H. (2018). Convergent validity assessment of formatively measured constructs in PLS-SEM:...

Sure. They all build on latent variables scores and therefore also work with single item constructs.

First, it depends on what type of measures you have. For reflective measures you always want high and significant loadings of all your indicators to ensure the reliability of your measurement of the constructs. Second, you want to test the significance of your paths, i.e., find out if one construct ...