Search found 5 matches
- Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:28 am
- Forum: SmartPLS 2 - FAQ
- Topic: effect size (f2) and predictive relevance (Q2 and q2)
- Replies: 20
- Views: 151970
Bootstrapping after Blindfolding? See Tenenhaus et al.(2005)
Dear Professor Ringle, given my complex model I cannot apply the q² formula to calcualte the effect size of Q² , since I have several dependent variables etc. When applying the formula and excluding the variable that is located in the middle of my model (being exogenous and endogenous at once) I can...
- Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:08 pm
- Forum: Method and application
- Topic: low path coefficients with acceptable R²?
- Replies: 2
- Views: 2594
- Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:40 am
- Forum: SmartPLS 2 - FAQ
- Topic: Index Construction
- Replies: 6
- Views: 4748
You meant "Manifest variable scores" instead of LV
Dear Professor Bido, to create an index of my three-item construct, I used the manifest variable scores of SmartPLS, created three new variables in my dataset of SPSS with these manifest variable scores and computed a new variable (my index variable) by creating the arithmetic mean of the three vari...
- Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:37 pm
- Forum: SmartPLS 2 - FAQ
- Topic: effect size
- Replies: 15
- Views: 15718
Effect size or not;Cohen's formula not suitable for my model
Dear all, dear Mr. Nitzl, you wrote that it might not be necessary to report the f² for Reem's model and that R² is enough. I am also not sure, if the calcualtion of the f² in my model makes sense.It's similar, but a bit different from the models described above. A --> B--> C B--> D B--> E The relat...
- Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:27 pm
- Forum: Method and application
- Topic: low path coefficients with acceptable R²?
- Replies: 2
- Views: 2594
low path coefficients with acceptable R²?
Hi everybody, I am at the end of my analysis, but stucked with the interpretation. Could you give me a hint on how to interpret very low, but significant path coefficients (0.11) in relation to dependent variables with R squares that still reach the minimum level of 0.19? --> Why are the path coeffi...