The shortcomings of equal weights estimation and the composite equivalence index in PLS-SEM

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the appropriateness of equal weights estimation (sumscores) and the application of the composite equivalence index (CEI) vis-à-vis differentiated indicator weights produced by partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Design/methodology/approach The authors rely on prior literature as well as empirical illustrations and a simulation study to assess the efficacy of equal weights estimation and the CEI. Findings The results show that the CEI lacks discriminatory power, and its use can lead to major differences in structural model estimates, conceals measurement model issues and almost always leads to inferior out-of-sample predictive accuracy compared to differentiated weights produced by PLS-SEM. Research limitations/implications In light of its manifold conceptual and empirical limitations, the authors advise against the use of the CEI. Its adoption and the routine use of equal weights estimation could adversely affect the validity of measurement and structural model results and understate structural model predictive accuracy. Although this study shows that the CEI is an unsuitable metric to decide between equal weights and differentiated weights, it does not propose another means for such a comparison. Practical implications The results suggest that researchers and practitioners should prefer differentiated indicator weights such as those produced by PLS-SEM over equal weights. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide a comprehensive assessment of the CEI’s usefulness. The results provide guidance for researchers considering using equal indicator weights instead of PLS-SEM-based weighted indicators

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: A Comment on “Recent Developments in PLS”

Evermann and Rönkkö (2023) review recent developments in partial least squares (PLS) with the aim of providing guidance to researchers. Indeed, the explosion of methodological advances in PLS in the last decade necessitates such overview articles. In so far as the goal is to provide an objective assessment of the technique, such articles are most welcome. Unfortunately, the authors’ extraordinary and questionable claims paint a misleading picture of PLS. Our goal in this short commentary is to address selected claims made by Evermann and Rönkkö (2023) using simulations and the latest research. Our objective is to bring a positive perspective to this debate and highlight the recent developments in PLS that make it an increasingly valuable technique in IS and management research in general

TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits - the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants - determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits - almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives

TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits—the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants—determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait-based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits—almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives.Rest of authors: Decky Junaedi, Robert R. Junker, Eric Justes, Richard Kabzems, Jeffrey Kane, Zdenek Kaplan, Teja Kattenborn, Lyudmila Kavelenova, Elizabeth Kearsley, Anne Kempel, Tanaka Kenzo, Andrew Kerkhoff, Mohammed I. Khalil, Nicole L. Kinlock, Wilm Daniel Kissling, Kaoru Kitajima, Thomas Kitzberger, Rasmus Kjøller, Tamir Klein, Michael Kleyer, Jitka Klimešová, Joice Klipel, Brian Kloeppel, Stefan Klotz, Johannes M. H. Knops, Takashi Kohyama, Fumito Koike, Johannes Kollmann, Benjamin Komac, Kimberly Komatsu, Christian König, Nathan J. B. Kraft, Koen Kramer, Holger Kreft, Ingolf Kühn, Dushan Kumarathunge, Jonas Kuppler, Hiroko Kurokawa, Yoko Kurosawa, Shem Kuyah, Jean-Paul Laclau, Benoit Lafleur, Erik Lallai, Eric Lamb, Andrea Lamprecht, Daniel J. Larkin, Daniel Laughlin, Yoann Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Guerric le Maire, Peter C. le Roux, Elizabeth le Roux, Tali Lee, Frederic Lens, Simon L. Lewis, Barbara Lhotsky, Yuanzhi Li, Xine Li, Jeremy W. Lichstein, Mario Liebergesell, Jun Ying Lim, Yan-Shih Lin, Juan Carlos Linares, Chunjiang Liu, Daijun Liu, Udayangani Liu, Stuart Livingstone, Joan Llusià, Madelon Lohbeck, Álvaro López-García, Gabriela Lopez-Gonzalez, Zdeňka Lososová, Frédérique Louault, Balázs A. Lukács, Petr Lukeš, Yunjian Luo, Michele Lussu, Siyan Ma, Camilla Maciel Rabelo Pereira, Michelle Mack, Vincent Maire, Annikki Mäkelä, Harri Mäkinen, Ana Claudia Mendes Malhado, Azim Mallik, Peter Manning, Stefano Manzoni, Zuleica Marchetti, Luca Marchino, Vinicius Marcilio-Silva, Eric Marcon, Michela Marignani, Lars Markesteijn, Adam Martin, Cristina Martínez-Garza, Jordi Martínez-Vilalta, Tereza Mašková, Kelly Mason, Norman Mason, Tara Joy Massad, Jacynthe Masse, Itay Mayrose, James McCarthy, M. Luke McCormack, Katherine McCulloh, Ian R. McFadden, Brian J. McGill, Mara Y. McPartland, Juliana S. Medeiros, Belinda Medlyn, Pierre Meerts, Zia Mehrabi, Patrick Meir, Felipe P. L. Melo, Maurizio Mencuccini, Céline Meredieu, Julie Messier, Ilona Mészáros, Juha Metsaranta, Sean T. Michaletz, Chrysanthi Michelaki, Svetlana Migalina, Ruben Milla, Jesse E. D. Miller, Vanessa Minden, Ray Ming, Karel Mokany, Angela T. Moles, Attila Molnár V, Jane Molofsky, Martin Molz, Rebecca A. Montgomery, Arnaud Monty, Lenka Moravcová, Alvaro Moreno-Martínez, Marco Moretti, Akira S. Mori, Shigeta Mori, Dave Morris, Jane Morrison, Ladislav Mucina, Sandra Mueller, Christopher D. Muir, Sandra Cristina Müller, François Munoz, Isla H. Myers-Smith, Randall W. Myster, Masahiro Nagano, Shawna Naidu, Ayyappan Narayanan, Balachandran Natesan, Luka Negoita, Andrew S. Nelson, Eike Lena Neuschulz, Jian Ni, Georg Niedrist, Jhon Nieto, Ülo Niinemets, Rachael Nolan, Henning Nottebrock, Yann Nouvellon, Alexander Novakovskiy, The Nutrient Network, Kristin Odden Nystuen, Anthony O'Grady, Kevin O'Hara, Andrew O'Reilly-Nugent, Simon Oakley, Walter Oberhuber, Toshiyuki Ohtsuka, Ricardo Oliveira, Kinga Öllerer, Mark E. Olson, Vladimir Onipchenko, Yusuke Onoda, Renske E. Onstein, Jenny C. Ordonez, Noriyuki Osada, Ivika Ostonen, Gianluigi Ottaviani, Sarah Otto, Gerhard E. Overbeck, Wim A. Ozinga, Anna T. Pahl, C. E. Timothy Paine, Robin J. Pakeman, Aristotelis C. Papageorgiou, Evgeniya Parfionova, Meelis Pärtel, Marco Patacca, Susana Paula, Juraj Paule, Harald Pauli, Juli G. Pausas, Begoña Peco, Josep Penuelas, Antonio Perea, Pablo Luis Peri, Ana Carolina Petisco-Souza, Alessandro Petraglia, Any Mary Petritan, Oliver L. Phillips, Simon Pierce, Valério D. Pillar, Jan Pisek, Alexandr Pomogaybin, Hendrik Poorter, Angelika Portsmuth, Peter Poschlod, Catherine Potvin, Devon Pounds, A. Shafer Powell, Sally A. Power, Andreas Prinzing, Giacomo Puglielli, Petr Pyšek, Valerie Raevel, Anja Rammig, Johannes Ransijn, Courtenay A. Ray, Peter B. Reich, Markus Reichstein, Douglas E. B. Reid, Maxime Réjou-Méchain, Victor Resco de Dios, Sabina Ribeiro, Sarah Richardson, Kersti Riibak, Matthias C. Rillig, Fiamma Riviera, Elisabeth M. R. Robert, Scott Roberts, Bjorn Robroek, Adam Roddy, Arthur Vinicius Rodrigues, Alistair Rogers, Emily Rollinson, Victor Rolo, Christine Römermann, Dina Ronzhina, Christiane Roscher, Julieta A. Rosell, Milena Fermina Rosenfield, Christian Rossi, David B. Roy, Samuel Royer-Tardif, Nadja Rüger, Ricardo Ruiz-Peinado, Sabine B. Rumpf, Graciela M. Rusch, Masahiro Ryo, Lawren Sack, Angela Saldaña, Beatriz Salgado-Negret, Roberto Salguero-Gomez, Ignacio Santa-Regina, Ana Carolina Santacruz-García, Joaquim Santos, Jordi Sardans, Brandon Schamp, Michael Scherer-Lorenzen, Matthias Schleuning, Bernhard Schmid, Marco Schmidt, Sylvain Schmitt, Julio V. Schneider, Simon D. Schowanek, Julian Schrader, Franziska Schrodt, Bernhard Schuldt, Frank Schurr, Galia Selaya Garvizu, Marina Semchenko, Colleen Seymour, Julia C. Sfair, Joanne M. Sharpe, Christine S. Sheppard, Serge Sheremetiev, Satomi Shiodera, Bill Shipley, Tanvir Ahmed Shovon, Alrun Siebenkäs, Carlos Sierra, Vasco Silva, Mateus Silva, Tommaso Sitzia, Henrik Sjöman, Martijn Slot, Nicholas G. Smith, Darwin Sodhi, Pamela Soltis, Douglas Soltis, Ben Somers, Grégory Sonnier, Mia Vedel Sørensen, Enio Egon Sosinski Jr, Nadejda A. Soudzilovskaia, Alexandre F. Souza, Marko Spasojevic, Marta Gaia Sperandii, Amanda B. Stan, James Stegen, Klaus Steinbauer, Jörg G. Stephan, Frank Sterck, Dejan B. Stojanovic, Tanya Strydom, Maria Laura Suarez, Jens-Christian Svenning, Ivana Svitková, Marek Svitok, Miroslav Svoboda, Emily Swaine, Nathan Swenson, Marcelo Tabarelli, Kentaro Takagi, Ulrike Tappeiner, Rubén Tarifa, Simon Tauugourdeau, Cagatay Tavsanoglu, Mariska te Beest, Leho Tedersoo, Nelson Thiffault, Dominik Thom, Evert Thomas, Ken Thompson, Peter E. Thornton, Wilfried Thuiller, Lubomír Tichý, David Tissue, Mark G. Tjoelker, David Yue Phin Tng, Joseph Tobias, Péter Török, Tonantzin Tarin, José M. Torres-Ruiz, Béla Tóthmérész, Martina Treurnicht, Valeria Trivellone, Franck Trolliet, Volodymyr Trotsiuk, James L. Tsakalos, Ioannis Tsiripidis, Niklas Tysklind, Toru Umehara, Vladimir Usoltsev, Matthew Vadeboncoeur, Jamil Vaezi, Fernando Valladares, Jana Vamosi, Peter M. van Bodegom, Michiel van Breugel, Elisa Van Cleemput, Martine van de Weg, Stephni van der Merwe, Fons van der Plas, Masha T. van der Sande, Mark van Kleunen, Koenraad Van Meerbeek, Mark Vanderwel, Kim André Vanselow, Angelica Vårhammar, Laura Varone, Maribel Yesenia Vasquez Valderrama, Kiril Vassilev, Mark Vellend, Erik J. Veneklaas, Hans Verbeeck, Kris Verheyen, Alexander Vibrans, Ima Vieira, Jaime Villacís, Cyrille Violle, Pandi Vivek, Katrin Wagner, Matthew Waldram, Anthony Waldron, Anthony P. Walker, Martyn Waller, Gabriel Walther, Han Wang, Feng Wang, Weiqi Wang, Harry Watkins, James Watkins, Ulrich Weber, James T. Weedon, Liping Wei, Patrick Weigelt, Evan Weiher, Aidan W. Wells, Camilla Wellstein, Elizabeth Wenk, Mark Westoby, Alana Westwood, Philip John White, Mark Whitten, Mathew Williams, Daniel E. Winkler, Klaus Winter, Chevonne Womack, Ian J. Wright, S. Joseph Wright, Justin Wright, Bruno X. Pinho, Fabiano Ximenes, Toshihiro Yamada, Keiko Yamaji, Ruth Yanai, Nikolay Yankov, Benjamin Yguel, Kátia Janaina Zanini, Amy E. Zanne, David Zelený, Yun-Peng Zhao, Jingming Zheng, Ji Zheng, Kasia Ziemińska, Chad R. Zirbel, Georg Zizka, Irié Casimir Zo-Bi, Gerhard Zotz, Christian Wirth.Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry; Max Planck Society; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig; International Programme of Biodiversity Science (DIVERSITAS); International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP); Future Earth; French Foundation for Biodiversity Research (FRB); GIS ‘Climat, Environnement et Société'.http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gcbhj2021Plant Production and Soil Scienc

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence : a comment on “Recent Developments in PLS”

Evermann and Rönkkö (2021) review recent developments in partial least squares (PLS) with the aim of providing guidance to researchers. Indeed, the explosion of methodological advances in PLS in the last decade necessitates such overview articles. In so far as the goal is to provide an objective assessment of the technique, such articles are most welcome. Unfortunately, the authors' extraordinary and questionable claims paint a misleading picture of PLS. Our goal in this short commentary is to address selected claims made by ER using simulations and latest research. Our objective is to bring a positive perspective to this debate and highlight the recent developments in PLS that make it an increasingly valuable technique in IS and management research in general

Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade

Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS‐SEM) is an essential element of marketing researchers' methodological toolbox. During the last decade, the PLS‐SEM field has undergone massive developments, raising the question of whether the method's users are following the most recent best practice guidelines. Extending prior research in the field, this paper presents the results of a new analysis of PLS‐SEM use in marketing research, focusing on articles published between 2011 and 2020 in the top 30 marketing journals. While researchers were more aware of the when's and how's of PLS‐SEM use during the period studied, we find that there continues to be some delay in the adoption of model evaluation's best practices. Based on our review results, we provide recommendations for future PLS‐SEM use, offer guidelines for the method's application, and identify areas of further research interest

Same model, same data, but different outcomes: Evaluating the impact of method choices in structural equation modeling

Scientific research demands robust findings, yet variability in results persists due to researchers' decisions in data analysis. Despite strict adherence to state-of the-art methodological norms, research results can vary when analyzing the same data. This article aims to explore this variability by examining the impact of researchers' analytical decisions when using different approaches to structural equation modeling (SEM), a widely used method in innovation management to estimate cause–effect relationships between constructs and their indicator variables. For this purpose, we invited SEM experts to estimate a model on absorptive capacity's impact on organizational innovation and performance using different SEM estimators. The results show considerable variability in effect sizes and significance levels, depending on the researchers' analytical choices. Our research underscores the necessity of transparent analytical decisions, urging researchers to acknowledge their results' uncertainty, to implement robustness checks, and to document the results from different analytical workflows. Based on our findings, we provide recommendations and guidelines on how to address results variability. Our findings, conclusions, and recommendations aim to enhance research validity and reproducibility in innovation management, providing actionable and valuable insights for improved future research practices that lead to solid practical recommendations

TRY plant trait database - enhanced coverage and open access

10.1111/gcb.14904GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY261119-18