forum.smartpls.com

Simple Slope Interaction Plots for the standardized coefficients are now part of SmartPLS. It is a new feature of version 3.2.0.

In our MISQ paper, we describe a process how to use and how to identify the best number of segments in PLS-POS. Becker, J.-M./ Rai, A/, Ringle, C.M./ Völckner, F.: Discovering Unobserved Heterogeneity in Structural Equation Models to Avert Validity Threats, in: MIS Quarterly (MISQ), Volume 37 (2013)...

Hi,
there is a paper in JAMS about this new criterion. You will find Information about cutsoffs and its usage there:
Henseler, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M. 2014 "A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling".

Actually I have quickly illustrated what happens if you use the individual sign change option in a case, where the true population coefficient is zero (so that there is actually no relation between the two variables). The original model coefficient (in this case -0.028) is only a result of sampling ...

The problem is that you are using the individual sign-change option, right? Hence, your direct effect estimates are all set to the sign of the original model even if they are in opposite direction. Unfortunately, this is not done for the indirect effects. I will look into this issue. However, given ...

Hi Sam, At the moment you can only calculate these specific indirect effects by hand. Therefore, you have to use the data that is provided under "Path Coefficients > Samples". There you find for each bootstrap sample the path coefficients of your model. You can then calculate the indirect ...

Hi Michael, Thank you for thoroughly investigating this issue. These options have never really been the focus of academic papers and hence there is some room for improvement. I have looked into your issue and indeed there is a small calculation bug for unstandardized interaction coefficients. The al...

How do you implement the two-stage approach? Did you use the latent variable scores of all constructs from the first stage in the second stage or only for the HOC? If you have collinearity in your formative measures then the weights are usually quite unstable in the bootstrapping: collinearity cause...

VIF statistics are important for the inner model and formative outer (measurement) models. If you have only reflective measures, then using only the inner model VIFs is ok. If you also have formative measures, then you should assess the VIFs of the indicators of the formative measures as well. Gener...

If the loadings of the indicator range from -1 to +1, then your indicator simply seems to be not a reliable measurement instrument for your construct.

Retaining an insignificant indicator has pros and cons. Yet, I would first explore what the problem could be by looking at all the samples in the bootstrapping procedure to get more insights on the problem. In general, it sounds strange that such a loading (0.675) is insignificant. Are the loadings ...

First, I would write “not recommended” also in the rightmost column of your table. Second, the choice of product-term handling is not well explored in the literature on PLS. The basic problem is that simulated data is usually already standardized. Hence, it is not much known about whether mean-cente...

Hi Michael, we have recently discussed this implementation and might change it in the near future to avoid misuse. In some rather specific cases all combinations make sense to some degree. That’s why we offered all possible combinations. Ultimately, the interpretation is different between the approa...

There are different assumptions underlying P-Values and Confidence Intervals. They are not the same and must not give the same result, especially in the case of biascorrected CI.
You have to decide which one is more appropriate for you and then choose the correct one.

Yes, it is one of the new features of 3.1.7.

There is no published paper yet, but we are working on it and there should be one in the near future (at least a conference paper).