### SmartPLS moderation and MGA interpretation

Posted:

**Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:05 am**Dear all,

I have tested two moderators in SmartPLS but struggle to confirm my hypotheses correctly.

Case 1: multi group analysis (variable has one indicator which is categorical)

Case 2: moderator effect (variable has 8 indicators which are continuous)

In both cases, the hypothesis is:

"M strengthens the postive relationship between X and Y."

Case 1:

The SmartPLS MGA reveals a very significant path for the "higher group" and a not significant path for the "lower group." Since there is no significant difference between both groups, I would conclude that there is no moderation effect. However, the "higher group" does have an impact. Can I write something like "partly confirmed"? Out of curiosity, I (only as test) run this variable simply as moderator effect, which is positive and highly significant ... I know that both approaches are different but I was then wondering if I should better use the simple moderation effect ... ?

Case 2:

The SmartPLS moderator analysis reveals a highly significant effect. The higher M the better the effect between X and Y. The slope plot tells me that the effect is clearly reversed for a low degree of moderator, just like the classic example in the book of Hair et al., (2017, p. 259). After reading books and papers, I conclude that in this case the hypothesis is simply confirmed and the crossing is just shortly mentioned. But I feel this is not 100% correct ... Or is only the steeper line relevant (significant?) for the confirmation and I am just too picky about the flatter line? In this case, I would have written "partly confirmed" to avoid that the reader thinks that both a low and high level of M is positive for the effect X and Y because without the slope one can only guess ...

I was wondering if my hypothesis formulation is not clear enough but I've seen this style multiple times ...

What do you think?

I hope you know what I mean and would be glad to find someone who can help me!

Kind regards,

Marcella

I have tested two moderators in SmartPLS but struggle to confirm my hypotheses correctly.

Case 1: multi group analysis (variable has one indicator which is categorical)

Case 2: moderator effect (variable has 8 indicators which are continuous)

In both cases, the hypothesis is:

"M strengthens the postive relationship between X and Y."

Case 1:

The SmartPLS MGA reveals a very significant path for the "higher group" and a not significant path for the "lower group." Since there is no significant difference between both groups, I would conclude that there is no moderation effect. However, the "higher group" does have an impact. Can I write something like "partly confirmed"? Out of curiosity, I (only as test) run this variable simply as moderator effect, which is positive and highly significant ... I know that both approaches are different but I was then wondering if I should better use the simple moderation effect ... ?

Case 2:

The SmartPLS moderator analysis reveals a highly significant effect. The higher M the better the effect between X and Y. The slope plot tells me that the effect is clearly reversed for a low degree of moderator, just like the classic example in the book of Hair et al., (2017, p. 259). After reading books and papers, I conclude that in this case the hypothesis is simply confirmed and the crossing is just shortly mentioned. But I feel this is not 100% correct ... Or is only the steeper line relevant (significant?) for the confirmation and I am just too picky about the flatter line? In this case, I would have written "partly confirmed" to avoid that the reader thinks that both a low and high level of M is positive for the effect X and Y because without the slope one can only guess ...

I was wondering if my hypothesis formulation is not clear enough but I've seen this style multiple times ...

What do you think?

I hope you know what I mean and would be glad to find someone who can help me!

Kind regards,

Marcella