Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
X1
X2
X3
X1
1.00
X2
.087
1.00
X3
.140
.080
1.00
X4
.152
.143
.272
X4
1.00
.33 .26
.46 .59
X2
X3
X1
1.00
X2
.087
1.00
X3
.140
.080
1.00
X4
.152
.143
.272
X4
1.00
.83
.33 .26
.22
.46 .59
CBSEM solution
.75 .60
.54 .71
PLSPM solution
Errors
Independent
Latent variable
Dependent
Latent variable
Independent
Latent variable
Weights
Loadings
Initialization
Inside approximation
Outside approximation
Stop criterion
Estimation of loadings,
weights and path coefficients
Raw
data
Manifest variable
indicators
Initialization
is calculated
adding its indicators
(weights and
loadings = 1)
Step1
31
32
33
10
Step 2
Covariance
between adjacent
LV is calculated
11
Inner approximation
LV estimation
from their
previous outer
estimation
Step 3
#!1inner = e13!3outer
%% inner
outer
$!2 = e23!3
% inner
outer
outer
!
=
e
!
+
e
!
%& 3
13 1
23 2
12
Paso 4
Weights and
loading estimation
x jh = c jh + w jh! inner
+ " jh
j
# x31 = c31 + w31!3inner + " 31
%%
inner
$ x32 = c32 + w32!3 + " 32
%
inner
x
=
c
+
w
!
+ " 33
%& 33
33
33 3
' w 31 , w 32 , w 33
Reflective
13
Paso 4
Weights and
loading estimation
! inner
= c j + " w jh x jh + # j
j
h
Outer approximation
Step 5
is calculated from
the last loadings &
weights estimation
outer
= w jh x jh
j
h
Stop criterion
Step 6
"
We stop iterating
if stop criterion
holds
k
k !1
w(jh ) ! w(jh ) < 10!5
h, j
k
k !1
k
k !1
w11( ) ! w11( ) + w12( ) ! w12( ) +
(k )
( k !1)
(k )
( k !1)
w21
! w21
+ w22
! w22
+
(k )
( k !1)
(k )
( k !1)
(k )
( k !1)
w31
! w31
+ w32
! w32
+ w33
! w33
< 10!5
16
Final estimation
Step 7
! j = ! outer
j
Final parameter
estimation is
performed
x jh = c jh + ! jh" j + # jh
" j = c j + % $ jh x jh +# j
reflective
Loadings
formative
Weights
! j = # " ij!i +$ j
Structural paths
17
PLSPM specification restrictions
18
When using PLSPM instead of CBSEM?
Chin y Newsted (1999; p.337)
19
5 10 = 50
20
What means a small sample size?
Chin & Newsted (1999; p.314); Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black (1995; p.2 y p.10-13)
Previous criterion is the classical rule of thumb, but power analysis must be
considered
Test power:
Probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false
(Type I error): probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true
(Type II error): probability of not rejecting the null hypothesis when it is
false
1 (Power): probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false
In Social Sciences, Minimum 80% (Cohen, 1988)
Does the previous rule of thumb meet this criterion?
For 5 predictors (our model), =.05 y and a moderate effect size, the power of
the test would be:
N
1
20
.16
40
.37
50
.47
60
.57
100
.84
L
21
Recommendation for performing power analysis
22
23
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Data screening
Missing data imputation with adequate software, as listwise deletion is the
default for SmartPLS and only media imputation is available in actual beta.
Draw the model
Run the model
Very few options
Only weighting scheme is configurable (marginal effect on the result)
Validating the measurement model
LV Reliability (Cronbachs alpha)
LV Reliability (Composite reliability)
Convergent validity (loadings size and significance, AVE, cross-loadings)
Discriminant validity (AVE vs. LV correlation)
Structural model evaluation
Explained variance of dependent LV (R squared)
Predictive relevance (Q2 using blindfolding)
Structural paths significance (bootstrapping)
Global fit
No indices
24
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Data screening
Missing data imputation with adequate software, as listwise deletion is the
default for SmartPLS and only media imputation is available in actual beta.
Missing value coding schema must be indicated to the software. -1 coding used here
25
26
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
27
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
CR =
L
ij
L
- ij + - Var Eij
j
j
( )
( )
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
DEPEND
0,5274
0,3278
0,4300
0,9250
0,6135
0,5955
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
Outer loadings
0,5714
0,7917
0,8203
0,8098
0,7766
0,7976
0,8198
0,4614
0,6897
0,7444
0,3946
0,7441
CR=.8938
0,6060
0,6617
0,2838
0,7607
0,8330
0,8042
0,7570
0,5889
0,4969
0,6737
1,0000
= 0.8938
29
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
ACTITUD
DEPEND
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
Communality
0,4425
0,3595
0,4374
1,0000
0,5869
Redundancy
0,0708
0,0412
0,1940
0,1402
30
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Reliability
Average Variance Extracted criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981):
!L
ij
AVEi =
!L
ij
( )
+ !Var Eij
j
Same notation CR
Benchmark > 0,5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)
Only for reflective LV, not formative ones (Chin, 1998)
31
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
AVE =
DEPEND
0,5274
0,3278
0,4300
0,9250
0,6135
0,5955
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
Outer loadings
0,5714
0,7917
0,8203
0,8098
0,7766
0,7976
0,8198
0,4614
0,6897
0,7444
0,3946
0,7441
AVE=.5869
0,6060
0,6617
0,2838
0,7607
0,8330
0,8042
0,7570
0,5889
0,4969
0,6737
1,0000
32
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
ACTITUD
DEPEND
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
Communality
0,4425
0,3595
0,4374
1,0000
0,5869
Redundancy
0,0708
0,0412
0,1940
0,1402
33
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
34
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
DEPEND
0,5274
0,3278
0,4300
0,9250
0,6135
0,5955
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
0,5714
0,7917
0,8203
0,8098
0,7766
0,7976
Formative constructs:
focus on WEIGHTS
not on loadings
UTIPER1 should be
dropt off
0,8198
0,4614
0,6897
0,7444
0,3946
0,7441
0,6060
0,6617
0,2838
0,7607
0,8330
0,8042
0,7570
0,5889
0,4969
0,6737
1,0000
Outer loadings
35
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Convergent validity
In SEM Lagrange multiplier test allowed us to detect items with
significant loadings in more than one LV, what is a threat to convergent
validity
PLS offers cross-loadings of one indicator on all the LV. If the loading of
one item on a factor different to the one it was designed for is higher
than the loading on that factor, the item should be deleted.
Directly calculated by SmartPLS.
Only apply to reflective constructs.
36
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
ACTITUD
0,2843
0,2736
0,3092
0,4620
0,3779
0,3635
0,4120
0,5003
0,4848
0,5004
0,4686
0,5295
0,3378
0,0874
0,2638
0,3360
0,0771
0,3617
0,6060
0,6617
0,2838
0,7607
0,8330
0,8042
0,7570
0,5889
0,4969
0,6737
0,4981
DEPEND
0,5274
0,3278
0,4300
0,9250
0,6135
0,5955
0,2931
0,5620
0,5152
0,4562
0,4622
0,4980
0,3596
0,0832
0,2390
0,3571
0,0938
0,3942
0,3289
0,4683
0,1295
0,3674
0,4246
0,4296
0,3454
0,2390
0,2470
0,3567
0,4096
FACUSO
0,2783
0,0460
0,1283
0,4160
0,2156
0,2098
0,2941
0,4143
0,4089
0,4371
0,3351
0,3454
0,8198
0,4614
0,6897
0,7444
0,3946
0,7441
0,1553
0,4597
0,0061
0,2600
0,3923
0,4008
0,1740
0,2127
0,0919
0,3685
0,4597
INTCOMP
0,2490
0,0335
0,0911
0,3823
0,1844
0,2053
0,3414
0,4306
0,3886
0,4497
0,3521
0,4032
0,3756
0,2349
0,3333
0,3577
0,1633
0,3155
0,2226
0,3545
-0,0157
0,3728
0,3995
0,4752
0,3224
0,3278
0,2122
0,3572
1,0000
UTIPER
0,2735
0,2142
0,2691
0,5852
0,3926
0,3636
0,5714
0,7917
0,8203
0,8098
0,7766
0,7976
0,3862
0,0687
0,3174
0,3976
0,0000
0,4214
0,3559
0,4331
0,1166
0,4526
0,5403
0,5991
0,3754
0,4138
0,3280
0,3683
0,5168
UTIPER
FACUSO
ACTITUD
37
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Discriminant validity
Average variance extracted criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)
One LV should share more variance with its indicators than with other LV
Squared correlation between two LV must be compared to the AVE of
each of the factors
Discriminant validity holds if:
38
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
SmartPLS offers all the information we need: AVE for each latent variable and
the correlations among factors
ACTITUD
DEPEND
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
AVE
0,4425
0,0000
0,4374
1,0000
0,5869
ACTITUD
DEPEND
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
ACTITUD
1,0000
0,5224
0,4246
0,4981
0,6315
DEPEND
FACUSO INTCOMP
UTIPER
1,0000
0,4446
0,4096
0,6145
1,0000
0,4597
0,4900
1,0000
1,0000
0,5168
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
ACTITUD
DEPEND
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
Communality
0,4425
0,3595
0,4374
1,0000
0,5869
Redundancy
0,0708
0,0412
0,1940
0,1402
40
R2
41
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Ek = " ykn ! y kn
n=1
42
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Qk2 = 1 !
Ek
Ok
Q2 is a measure of how well the observed values can be replicated using the
estimated parameters:
Q2>0 implies the model has predictive relevance regarding variable k
Q2<0 implies the model lacks of predictive relevance regarding variable k
43
Total
ACTITUD
DEPEND
INTCOMP
UTIPER
SSO
4650,0000
2790,0000
465,0000
2790,0000
SSE
3805,8981
2414,2583
326,3057
2414,4798
1-SSE/SSO
0,1815
0,1347
0,2983
0,1346
44
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
45
Bootstrapping
One
ofdethe
subsamples
Una
la N N
submuestras
Muestra original
Original
sample
20 20 20 20 20 20 20
20
20 20 20 20 20 20 20
4
20
46
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Bootstrapping
DEP1 -> DEPEND
DEP2 -> DEPEND
DEP3 -> DEPEND
DEP4 -> DEPEND
DEP5 -> DEPEND
DEP6 -> DEPEND
p.03.01 <- UTIPER
p.03.02 <- UTIPER
p.03.03 <- UTIPER
p.03.04 <- UTIPER
p.03.05 <- UTIPER
p.03.06 <- UTIPER
p.03.07 <- FACUSO
p.03.08 <- FACUSO
p.03.09 <- FACUSO
p.03.10 <- FACUSO
p.03.11 <- FACUSO
p.03.12 <- FACUSO
p.04.01 <- ACTITUD
p.04.02 <- ACTITUD
p.04.03 <- ACTITUD
p.04.04 <- ACTITUD
p.04.05 <- ACTITUD
p.04.06 <- ACTITUD
p.04.07 <- ACTITUD
p.04.08 <- ACTITUD
p.04.09 <- ACTITUD
p.04.10 <- ACTITUD
p.05 <- INTCOMP
Original Sample
Standard T
Sample
Mean
Error
Statistics
0,5274
0,5192
0,0727
7,2547
0,3278
0,3213
0,0762
4,3029
0,43
0,423
0,0777
5,5345
0,925
0,9149
0,0266 34,7133
0,6135
0,6033
0,0673
9,121
0,5955
0,5856
0,0616
9,6686
0,5714
0,5668
0,0449 12,7149
0,7917
0,7911
0,0205 38,5845
0,8203
0,8193
0,019 43,2043
0,8098
0,8079
0,0209 38,8366
0,7766
0,7727
0,0256 30,3694
0,7976
0,7945
0,0223 35,7663
0,8198
0,8163
0,0204 40,2304
0,4614
0,4544
0,0808
5,7132
0,6897
0,685
0,0432 15,9552
0,7444
0,7425
0,03 24,8401
0,3946
0,3861
0,0907
4,3502
0,7441
0,7426
0,0286 25,9782
0,606
0,6014
0,0447 13,5555
0,6617
0,6619
0,0389 17,0137
0,2838
0,2813
0,0739
3,8391
0,7607
0,7576
0,0289 26,3512
0,833
0,8304
0,017 49,0118
0,8042
0,8032
0,0205 39,2634
0,757
0,7543
0,0299 25,2988
0,5889
0,5857
0,0417 14,1064
0,4969
0,4916
0,0464 10,7014
0,6737
0,6717
0,0384 17,5488
1
1
0
0
Outer loadings
47
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Bootstrapping
Original Sample
Standard T
Sample
Mean
Error
Statistics
0,5274
0,5192
0,0727
7,2547
0,3278
0,3213
0,0762
4,3029
0,43
0,423
0,0777
5,5345
0,925
0,9149
0,0266 34,7133
0,6135
0,6033
0,0673
9,121
0,5955
0,5856
0,0616
9,6686
0,5714
0,5668
0,0449 12,7149
0,7917
0,7911
0,0205 38,5845
0,8203
0,8193
0,019 43,2043
0,8098
0,8079
0,0209 38,8366
0,7766
0,7727
0,0256 30,3694
0,7976
0,7945
0,0223 35,7663
0,8198
0,8163
0,0204 40,2304
0,4614
0,4544
0,0808
5,7132
0,6897
0,685
0,0432 15,9552
0,7444
0,7425
0,03 24,8401
0,3946
0,3861
0,0907
4,3502
0,7441
0,7426
0,0286 25,9782
0,606
0,6014
0,0447 13,5555
0,6617
0,6619
0,0389 17,0137
0,2838
0,2813
0,0739
3,8391
0,7607
0,7576
0,0289 26,3512
0,833
0,8304
0,017 49,0118
0,8042
0,8032
0,0205 39,2634
0,757
0,7543
0,0299 25,2988
0,5889
0,5857
0,0417 14,1064
0,4969
0,4916
0,0464 10,7014
0,6737
0,6717
0,0384 17,5488
1
1
0
0
Outer weights
48
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Bootstrapping
Path coefficients
Original
Sample
Sample (O)
Mean (M)
0,2655
0,1891
0,0906
0,1159
0,1888
0,49
0,4585
0,522
0,2935
Standard
0,2673
0,1944
0,0968
0,1214
0,1918
0,4961
0,4513
0,5234
0,2834
Error (STERR)
0,0591
0,0502
0,0593
0,0479
0,0524
0,0418
0,0537
0,044
0,0583
T Statistics
(|O/STERR|)
4,4887
3,7677
1,5277
2,4185
3,5989
11,7114
8,5314
11,8668
5,0363
49
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
50
51
ACTITUD
DEP1
DEP3
DEP4
DEP5
DEP6
p.03.02
p.03.03
p.03.04
p.03.05
p.03.06
p.03.07
p.03.09
p.03.10
p.03.12
p.04.04
p.04.05
p.04.06
p.04.07
p.04.10
p.05
DEPEND
0,5275
0,4170
0,9233
0,6106
0,5986
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
0,7947
0,8339
0,8122
0,7910
0,8119
Convergent validity
Outer loadings
0,8146
0,6910
0,7508
0,7547
0,7914
0,8645
0,8207
0,7614
0,7110
1,0000
52
ACTITUD
DEPEND
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
AVE
0,6265
Composite Reliability
0,8931
0,5686
1,0000
0,6543
0,8401
1,0000
0,9044
Communality
0,6265
0,4072
0,5686
1,0000
0,6543
Redundancy
0,0834
0,0539
0,1995
0,1633
53
DEP1
DEP3
DEP4
DEP5
DEP6
p.03.02
p.03.03
p.03.04
p.03.05
p.03.06
p.03.07
p.03.09
p.03.10
p.03.12
p.04.04
p.04.05
p.04.06
p.04.07
p.04.10
p.05
ACTITUD
0,2784
0,2810
0,4289
0,3501
0,3444
0,4843
0,4630
0,4795
0,4553
0,5066
0,3237
0,2492
0,3246
0,3640
0,7914
0,8645
0,8207
0,7614
0,7110
0,4942
DEPEND
0,5275
0,4170
0,9233
0,6106
0,5986
0,5633
0,5155
0,4548
0,4593
0,4981
0,3624
0,2397
0,3599
0,3946
0,3652
0,4226
0,4288
0,3414
0,3564
0,4126
FACUSO
0,2772
0,1448
0,4255
0,2365
0,2264
0,4273
0,4253
0,4537
0,3552
0,3582
0,8146
0,6910
0,7508
0,7547
0,2704
0,4021
0,4080
0,1866
0,3663
0,4566
INTCOMP
0,2490
0,0911
0,3823
0,1844
0,2053
0,4306
0,3886
0,4497
0,3521
0,4032
0,3756
0,3333
0,3577
0,3155
0,3728
0,3995
0,4752
0,3224
0,3572
1,0000
UTIPER
0,2676
0,2670
0,5889
0,3986
0,3724
0,7947
0,8339
0,8122
0,7910
0,8119
0,3733
0,3064
0,3966
0,4182
0,4330
0,5312
0,5901
0,3648
0,3629
0,5023
UTIPER
FACUSO
ACTITUD
54
ACTITUD
DEPEND
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
AVE
0,6265
Composite Reliability
0,8931
0,5686
1,0000
0,6543
0,8401
1,0000
0,9044
ACTITUD
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
ACTITUD
1,0000
0,4242
0,4942
0,5911
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
1,0000
0,4566
0,5012
1,0000
0,5023
1,0000
LV
Discriminant validity
AVE vs. correlations
Communality
0,6265
0,4072
0,5686
1,0000
0,6543
Redundancy
0,0834
0,0539
0,1995
0,1633
AVE
ACTITUD
.79
FACUSO
.75
INTCOMP
N/A
UTIPER
.81
55
ACTITUD
DEPEND
FACUSO
INTCOMP
UTIPER
AVE
0,6265
Composite Reliability
0,8931
0,5686
1,0000
0,6543
0,8401
1,0000
0,9044
Communality
0,6265
0,4072
0,5686
1,0000
0,6543
Redundancy
0,0834
0,0539
0,1995
0,1633
Structural model
R2
56
Structural model
Q2, predictive relevance
Total
ACTITUD
DEPEND
INTCOMP
UTIPER
SSO
2325,0000
2325,0000
465,0000
2325,0000
SSE
1799,2618
1947,7690
323,8041
1981,4057
1-SSE/SSO
0,2261
0,1622
0,3036
0,1478
57
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Bootstrapping
Outer loadings
58
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Bootstrapping
Outer weights
59
Desarrollo de un caso de ejemplo
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Bootstrapping
Path coefficients
60
An annotated example
Sanz, Ruiz, Alds (2008)
Indicator
F1. Usefulness
UTPER2
UTPER3
UTPER4
UTPER5
UTPER6
FACUSO1
FACUSO3
FACUSO4
FACUSO6
DIM1
DIM3
DIM4
DIM5
DIM6
ACT4
ACT5
ACT6
ACT7
ACT10
F4. Attitude
Loading
Weight
0,795***
0,834***
0,812***
0,791***
0,812***
0,815***
0,691***
0,751***
0,755***
0,286***
-0,122*
0,732***
0,168**
0,203**
0,791***
0,864***
0,821***
0,861***
0,711***
t value
42,02
53,33
44,17
31,73
44,49
41,27
17,09
27,26
29,95
4,57
1,64
13,71
1,96
2,47
32,23
62,43
44,86
27,63
20,30
CA
CR
AVE
0,868
0,904
0,654
0,748
0,840
0,569
N/A
N/A
N/A
0,851
0,893
0,627
61
F2
.81
0,501
0,618
0,591
F3
.75
0,459
0,424
F4
N/A
0,488
.79
62
Hypotheses testing
Hypothesis
Standardized
beta
0,501**
0,138**
0,419**
0,268**
0,283**
0,518**
0,199**
0,166**
0,110*
t value
Bootstrap
13,38
3,14
8,34
4,49
5,05
13,54
4,04
3,48
2,08
63
64
Determinants and consequences of client satisfaction
Fornell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha y Bryant (1996)
Model
Read paper from Fornell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha & Bryant (1996)
65
Determinants and consequences of client satisfaction
Fornell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha y Bryant (1996)
Questions
Use data file ecsi.csv
Draw model of next figure
Evaluate if sample size is big enough to apply PLSPM
Evaluate measurement model reliability and validity and estimate
parameters significance using bootstrapping
Evaluate the structural model
Create a table to publish the results in an academic paper
66
67