forum.smartpls.com

Hi everyone! I just want to give you guys an update, I did run the MGA analysis anyway. I found that the results were satisfactory enough, and was able to conclude similar findings as with my original data set. However, groups with cases lower than the power analysis recommendation undoubtedly showe...

Great idea Dr. Jan-Michael Becker, thank you, this will help a lot. My supervisor has asked me to interpret the results of multi-group analysis by using graphs He asked me for example to combine gender (female and male) and occupation (unemployed and employed) in a single graph to better understand...

"When engaging in PLS-MGA, researchers need to ensure that the number of observations in each group meets the rules of thumb for minimum sample size requirements (Chapter 1). As the maximum number of arrows pointing at a latent variable is three, we would need 3 · 10 = 30 observations per group...

Hi, The errors generally also occurs in charging bootstrapping on SmartPLS 2 (number of samples and number of resamples). Regards, For this particular exercise.. I just imported the project files into v2 and v3, selected the Full_Data_contract.csv case file and then ran a simple PLS Algorithm proce...

Hi BG, 1) There is no build in test for unequal variances, as there is no established test for a PLS path model. You have to find out for yourself, which test is the right one in your situation, given the advice in the literature. Generally, I would also look if there is consistency between the thr...

I ran the Simple Model.splsm that came with Corporate Reputation Moderation project file with Full_Data_contract.csv [125 records] on SmartPLS 2 and I got similar results from the book. I then ran the same file from the project on SmartPLS 3 and achieved different results.. R2 different.. Path Coeff...