forum.smartpls.com

Hello,

I have run the IPMA analysis in Smart PLS 3, but when I check my performance-importance maps for both constructs and indicators, I notice that it is the unstandardized total effect, which is used to indicate importance.

I reviewed chapter 7 in A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) by Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt (2014), and I found that the authors used the standardized total effects/indicated by the path coefficients when conducting the IPMA analysis.

Thus, I am puzzled as I would expect the importance/performance map for both constructs and indicators to use the standardized total effects for measuring importance.

Does anyone have an explanation for this?

Best regards,

Anne

Please use the unstandardized coefficients as they better represent the cetris paribus considerations.

You can cite the following source which will appear soon:

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Best regards
Christian Ringle

Dears,

I have a construct X using a standardized total effect that results as the most important. However, by using unstandardized total effect changes its relative position and becomes the third in matters of importance. Could you help me to understand this?

Thank you in advance
Javier

Hi everyone,
I`ve been reading some of the posts and I have the same questions. I can see that it´s better to use the unstandardized coefficients for the importance-performance matrix, but if I want to express the importance relative of my latent variables with the standardized total effects, how can I change the importance-performance matrix?


Thanks a lot!