Moderated mediation, segmentation delta method, J-curve emergence, and causality assessment: Article

The article below discusses moderated mediation and the related emergence of J-curve relationships, in a context that is relevant to researchers employing structural equation modeling via partial least squares (PLS-SEM).

The article lays out three steps to combine moderation and J-curve analyses, with the goal of more fully understanding the underlying moderated mediation relationships. It proposes a new segmentation delta method to test for J-curve emergence, as part of this framework.

Finally, the article discusses three causality assessment indices that are used to show that the model used in the article is generally sound in terms of causality.

Kock, N. (2021). Moderated mediation and J-curve emergence in path models: An information systems research perspective. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 23(3), 303-321.

Link to full-text file for this article:

Click for PDF file

Abstract (structured):

Purpose. J-curve relationship analyses can provide valuable insights to information systems (IS) researchers. We discuss moderated mediation in IS research and the related emergence of J-curve relationships. Design/methodology/approach. Building on an illustrative study in the field of IS, we lay out three steps to combine moderation and J-curve analyses, with the goal of more fully understanding the underlying moderated mediation relationships. We propose a new segmentation delta method to test for J-curve emergence, as part of this framework. Findings. We show, in the context of this study, the complementarity of moderation and J-curve analyses. Research limitations/implications. Currently, IS researchers rarely conduct moderation and J-curve analyses in a complementary way, even though there are software tools, and related methods, which allow them to do so in a relatively straightforward way. Originality/value. Our analyses were conducted with the software WarpPLS, a widely used tool that allows for moderated mediation and J-curve analyses, in a way that is fully compatible with the set of steps presented in this paper.

Best regards to all!

Advantages of nonlinear over segmentation analyses in path models

Nonlinear analyses employing the software WarpPLS allow for the identification of linear segments emerging from a nonlinear analysis, but without the need to generate subsamples. A new article is available demonstrating the advantages of nonlinear over data segmentation analyses. These include a larger overall sample size for calculation of P values, and the ability to uncover very high segment-specific path coefficients. Its reference, abstract, and link to full text are available below.

Kock, N. (2016). Advantages of nonlinear over segmentation analyses in path models. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 12(4), 1-6.

The recent availability of software tools for nonlinear path analyses, such as WarpPLS, enables e-collaboration researchers to take nonlinearity into consideration when estimating coefficients of association among linked variables. Nonlinear path analyses can be applied to models with or without latent variables, and provide advantages over data segmentation analyses, including those employing finite mixture segmentation techniques (a.k.a. FIMIX). The latter assume that data can be successfully segmented into subsamples, which are then analyzed with linear algorithms. Nonlinear analyses employing WarpPLS also allow for the identification of linear segments mirroring underlying nonlinear relationships, but without the need to generate subsamples. We demonstrate the advantages of nonlinear over data segmentation analyses.

Among other things this article shows that identification of linear segments emerging from a nonlinear analysis with WarpPLS allows for: (a) a larger overall sample size for calculation of P values, which enables researchers to uncover actual segment-specific effects that could otherwise be rendered non-significant due to a combination of underestimated path coefficients and small subsample sizes; and (b) the ability to uncover very high segment-specific path coefficients, which could otherwise be grossly underestimated.

Enjoy!

Nonlinearity and type I and II errors in SEM analysis

Many relationships between variables studied in the natural and behavioral sciences seem to be nonlinear, often following a J-curve pattern (a.k.a. U-curve pattern). Other common relationships include the logarithmic, hyperbolic decay, exponential decay, and exponential. These and other relationships are modeled by WarpPLS.

Yet, the vast majority of statistical analysis methods used in the natural and behavioral sciences, from simple correlation analysis to structural equation modeling, assume relationships to be linear in the estimation of coefficients of association (e.g., Pearson correlations, standardized partial regression coefficients).

This may significantly distort results, especially in multivariate analyses, increasing the likelihood that researchers will commit type I and II errors in the same study. A type I error occurs in SEM analysis when an insignificant (the technical term is "non-significant") association is estimated as being significant (i.e., a “false positive”); a type II error occurs when a significant association is estimated as being insignificant (i.e., an existing association is “missed”).

The figure below shows a distribution of points typical of a J-curve pattern involving two variables, disrupted by uncorrelated error. The pattern, however, is modeled as a linear relationship. The line passing through the points is the best linear approximation of the distribution of points. It yields a correlation coefficient of .582. In this situation, the variable on the horizontal axis explains 33.9 percent of the variance of the variable on the vertical axis.

The figure below shows the same J-curve scatter plot pattern, but this time modeled as a nonlinear relationship. The curve passing through the points is the best nonlinear approximation of the distribution of the underlying J-curve, and excludes the uncorrelated error. That is, the curve does not attempt to model the uncorrelated error, only the underlying nonlinear relationship. It yields a correlation coefficient of .983. Here the variable on the horizontal axis explains 96.7 percent of the variance of the variable on the vertical axis.

WarpPLS transforms (or “warps”) J-curve relationship patterns like the one above BEFORE the corresponding path coefficients between each pair of variables are calculated. It does the same for many other nonlinear relationship patterns. In multivariate analyses, this may significantly change the values of the path coefficients, reducing the risk that researchers will commit type I and II errors.

The risk of committing type I and II errors is particularly high when: (a) a block of latent variables includes multiple predictor variables pointing and the same criterion variable; (b) one or more relationships between latent variables are significantly nonlinear; and (c) the predictor latent variables are correlated, even if they clearly measure different constructs (suggested by low variance inflation factors).

Viewing and changing settings in WarpPLS 1.0 and 2.0

The blog post below refers to version 1.0 - 2.0 of WarpPLS. See this YouTube video on how to view and change settings for version 3.0. For more recent versions, see the WarpPLS User Manual and YouTube videos available from warppls.com.

***

The view or change settings window (see figure below, click on it to enlarge) allows you to select an algorithm for the SEM analysis, select a resampling method, and select the number of resamples used, if the resampling method selected was bootstrapping. The analysis algorithms available are Warp3 PLS Regression, Warp2 PLS Regression, PLS Regression, and Robust Path Analysis.

Many relationships in nature, including relationships involving behavioral variables, are nonlinear and follow a pattern known as U-curve (or inverted U-curve). In this pattern a variable affects another in a way that leads to a maximum or minimum value, where the effect is either maximized or minimized, respectively. This type of relationship is also referred to as a J-curve pattern; a term that is more commonly used in economics and the health sciences.

The Warp2 PLS Regression algorithm tries to identify a U-curve relationship between latent variables, and, if that relationship exists, the algorithm transforms (or “warps”) the scores of the predictor latent variables so as to better reflect the U-curve relationship in the estimated path coefficients in the model. The Warp3 PLS Regression algorithm, the default algorithm used by the software, tries to identify a relationship defined by a function whose first derivative is a U-curve. This type of relationship follows a pattern that is more similar to an S-curve (or a somewhat distorted S-curve), and can be seen as a combination of two connected U-curves, one of which is inverted.

The PLS Regression algorithm does not perform any warping of relationships. It is essentially a standard PLS regression algorithm, whereby indicators’ weights, loadings and factor scores (a.k.a. latent variable scores) are calculated based on a least squares minimization sub-algorithm, after which path coefficients are estimated using a robust path analysis algorithm. A key criterion for the calculation of the weights, observed in virtually all PLS-based algorithms, is that the regression equation expressing the relationship between the indicators and the factor scores has an error term that equals zero. In other words, the factor scores are calculated as exact linear combinations of their indicators. PLS regression is the underlying weight calculation algorithm used in both Warp3 and Warp2 PLS Regression. The warping takes place during the estimation of path coefficients, and after the estimation of all weights and loadings in the model. The weights and loadings of a model with latent variables make up what is often referred to as outer model, whereas the path coefficients among latent variables make up what is often called the inner model.

Finally, the Robust Path Analysis algorithm is a simplified algorithm in which factor scores are calculated by averaging all of the indicators associated with a latent variable; that is, in this algorithm weights are not estimated through PLS regression. This algorithm is called “Robust” Path Analysis, because, as with most robust statistics methods, the P values are calculated through resampling. If all latent variables are measured with single indicators, the Robust Path Analysis and the PLS Regression algorithms will yield identical results.

One of two resampling methods may be selected: bootstrapping or jackknifing. Bootstrapping, the software’s default, is a resampling algorithm that creates a number of resamples (a number that can be selected by the user), by a method known as “resampling with replacement”. This means that each resample contains a random arrangement of the rows of the original dataset, where some rows may be repeated. (The commonly used analogy of a deck of cards being reshuffled, leading to many resample decks, is a good one, but not entirely correct because in bootstrapping the same card may appear more than once in each of the resample decks.) Jacknifing, on the other hand, creates a number of resamples that equals the original sample size, and each resample has one row removed. That is, the sample size of each resample is the original sample size minus 1. Thus, the choice of number of resamples has no effect on jackknifing, and is only relevant in the context of bootstrapping.