Different sign in correlation matrix and the path coefficient

309 views
Skip to first unread message

Ahamed AFM Jalal

unread,
Jun 6, 2013, 8:35:24 AM6/6/13
to pls...@googlegroups.com
Dear all,

I run the following model in SmartPls.

The relationship between B and D is negative in theory. Although the t-value is insignificant, I found a positive relationship. Worth mentioning that D is a higher order construct, consisting three first order constructs, namely D1, D2, and D3. 

Now, my confusion is: when I look at the inter-construct correlations matrix , the correlations between B and D1, D2, D3 is negative. But, as you can see the path coefficient between B and D is positive. I would be greatly if you kindly help me to explain this.

Regards
Jalal



John J. Sailors

unread,
Jun 6, 2013, 8:58:58 AM6/6/13
to pls...@googlegroups.com
Probably multicollinearity.

JJS


--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "PLS-SEM" group.
To post to this group, send email to pls...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
pls-sem+u...@googlegroups.com
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PLS-SEM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pls-sem+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Model.bmp

José Luis Roldán

unread,
Jun 6, 2013, 9:04:00 AM6/6/13
to pls...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jalal,

This is a case of suppressor effect. According to Falk and Miller (1992, p. 75-77), there is a suppressor effect when "the sign of the path coefficient and the correlation coefficient are not the same", and then, the original relationship between the two has been suppresed. There are three types of supression: a) random fluctuations around zero, b) redundancy, c) real suppression.

Falk, R.F.; Miller; N.B. (1992): A Primer for Soft Modeling. Akron, Ohio: The University of Akron.

Best regards,

José L. Roldán

Regards
Jalal

<Model.bmp>





-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "PLS-SEM" group.
To post to this group, send email to pls...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
pls-sem+u...@googlegroups.com
 
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PLS-SEM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pls-sem+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

__________________________________________________________
Dr. José L. Roldán
Associate Professor of Business Administration

Senior Editor, The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems 
http://www.sigmis.org/DataBase.html

Department of Business Administration and Marketing
University of Seville 
Ramon y Cajal, 1. 41018 Seville (SPAIN) 
Voice: (34) 954 554 458 / 575 Fax: (34) 954 556 989 
Skype: jlroldan67
<mailto:jlro...@us.es> URL: http://personal.us.es/jlroldan
__________________________________________________________






Ahamed AFM Jalal

unread,
Jun 7, 2013, 9:32:21 AM6/7/13
to pls...@googlegroups.com

Dear all,

Thanks for your response. A silly problem in the analysis has identified and fixed. Now, everything looks fine.

Regards

JA


From: pls...@googlegroups.com [pls...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ahamed AFM Jalal [jalal....@uit.no]
Sent: 06 June 2013 14:35
To: pls...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [pls-sem] Different sign in correlation matrix and the path coefficient

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages