This is a path model showing only the structural model components.
Collinearity is assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF). VIF should be < 5, ideally \(\leq\) 3.
VIF is above 3 for some constructs, specifically lower-order constructs. But it is not above 5 for any constructs. There is no VIF information for the relationship Distrusting Beliefs - Perceived Response Costs.
In-sample predictive power is assessed using variance explained R². R² \(\geq\) 0.75 indicates substantial in-sample predictive power, R² \(\geq\) 0.5 moderate and R² \(\geq\) 0.25 weak in-sample predictive power. R² \(\leq\) 0.10 indicates a lack of model predictiveness.
All R² values are above 0.25, indicating weak in-sample predictive power at a minimum. For Behavioral Intention, R² is above 0.5, indicating moderate in-sample predictive power.
Effect size f2² measures the impact of a predictor construct on an endogenous construct. f² \(\geq\) 0.35 indicates a large effect, f² \(\geq\) 0.15 a medium and f² \(\geq\) 0.02 a small effect.
Benevolence has only an effect on Perceived Response Costs. Integrity has only an effect on Perceived Response Efficacy. Other than that, all effects are small at a minimum. The effect of Perceived Response Efficacy on Behavioral Intention is medium. The effect of Distrusting Beliefs on Perceived Response Efficacy and Perceived REsponse Costs is large.
Out-of-sample predictive performance has to be evaluated using a simplified model without HOCs as an approximation as seminr as of now does not support plspredict for HOC. If the root mean square error (RMSE) or the mean absolute deviation (MAD) of the naive LM model is below the ones for the PLS model, this indicates a lack of predictive performance. However, a lack of predictive performance does not imply a lack of explanatory power.
No indicator is predicted better by the model than the LM in terms of both RMSE and MAD. This points to a lack of out-of-sample predictive power.
Significance is denoted by t-test and p values. A t of \(\geq\) 1.65 signifies significance at the 10 % level, t \(\geq\) 1.96 at the 5 % level and t \(\geq\) 2.57 at the 1 % level.
The only insignificant paths are those from Integrity to Perceived Response Costs and from Benevolence to Perceived Response Efficacy. All other paths are significant.
All construct and higher-order construct paths are significant and the effect sizes are sufficiently large. This model can be compared with others.