Skip to content
Technical & algorithm documentationIndependently benchmarked

PLS-SEM workflow

Estimate supported recursive PLS path models with reflective Mode A and configured formative Mode B constructs.

When to use this

Use this when PLS-SEM is theoretically and methodologically justified for the specified model.

Why it matters

PLS measurement and structural evidence require separate assessment, especially for reflective and formative constructs.

Step-by-step instructions

1. Approve construct measurement modes and indicators.
2. Define recursive structural paths.
3. Run PLS estimation on the selected dataset version.
4. Review reflective loadings, reliability, AVE, and discriminant evidence.
5. Review formative weights, collinearity, paths, R², f², and bootstrap intervals where applicable.
6. Document the rationale and interpretation.

Expected outputs

Measurement-quality evidence, path estimates, R², f², VIF, bootstrap effects, and immutable provenance.

How to interpret the results

AVE summarises shared variance for reflective constructs; HTMT is one source of discriminant-validity evidence. Neither is a universal validity guarantee.

Common mistakes

Do not apply reflective criteria to formative constructs. Do not select PLS solely to avoid checking assumptions or to guarantee significant paths.

Was this article helpful?

Your response helps the methodology team improve this documentation.