Path model evaluation: PLS-SEM vs PROCESS
| Hypothesis | Path | PLS-SEM ß (t-value) | PROCESS ß (t-value) | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1a | OAC→MCAP | 0.35 (3.99*) | 0.37 (4.08*) | Supported in both |
| H1b | OAC→OADJ | 0.39 (4.31*) | 0.40 (4.37*) | Supported in both |
| H2a | OAC→ITEXPR | 0.55 (8.88*) | 0.57 (8.53*) | Supported in both |
| H2b | OAC→ITEXPL | 0.41 (5.30*) | 0.34 (4.88*) | Supported in both |
| H3a | ITEXPR→MCAP | 0.27 (2.91*) | 0.64 (2.87*) | Supported in both |
| H3b | ITEXPL→OADJ | 0.20 (2.51*) | 0.69 (3.08*) | Supported in both |
| H4a | ITAMB→MCAP | −0.10 (1.86**) | −0.08 (1.85**) | Supported in both |
| H4b | ITAMB→OADJ | −0.13 (2.18*) | −0.10 (2.21*) | Supported in both |
| H5a | MCAP→COMP | 0.29 (2.52*) | 0.21 (2.51*) | Supported in both |
| H5b | OADJ →COMP | 0.06 (0.48) | 0.06 (0.70) | Not supported in both |
| Hypothesis | Path | PLS-SEM ß ( | PROCESS ß ( | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OAC→MCAP | 0.35 (3.99*) | 0.37 (4.08*) | Supported in both | |
| OAC→OADJ | 0.39 (4.31*) | 0.40 (4.37*) | Supported in both | |
| OAC→ITEXPR | 0.55 (8.88*) | 0.57 (8.53*) | Supported in both | |
| OAC→ITEXPL | 0.41 (5.30*) | 0.34 (4.88*) | Supported in both | |
| ITEXPR→MCAP | 0.27 (2.91*) | 0.64 (2.87*) | Supported in both | |
| ITEXPL→OADJ | 0.20 (2.51*) | 0.69 (3.08*) | Supported in both | |
| ITAMB→MCAP | −0.10 (1.86**) | −0.08 (1.85**) | Supported in both | |
| ITAMB→OADJ | −0.13 (2.18*) | −0.10 (2.21*) | Supported in both | |
| MCAP→COMP | 0.29 (2.52*) | 0.21 (2.51*) | Supported in both | |
| OADJ →COMP | 0.06 (0.48) | 0.06 (0.70) | Not supported in both |
Note(s): *p-value <0.05, **p-value <0.10
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.