Determining an appropriate sample size is vital in drawing realistic conclusions from research findings. Although there are several widely adopted rules of thumb to calculate sample size, researchers remain unclear about which one to consider when determining sample size in their respective studies. ‘How large should the sample be?’ is one the most frequently asked questions in survey research. The objective of this editorial is three-fold. First, we discuss the factors that influence sample size decisions. Second, we review existing rules of thumb related to the calculation of sample size. Third, we present the guidelines to perform power analysis using the G*Power programme. There is, however, a caveat: we urge researchers not to blindly follow these rules. Such rules or guidelines should be understood in their specific contexts and under the conditions in which they were prescribed. We hope that this editorial does not only provide researchers a fundamental understanding of sample size and its associated issues, but also facilitates their consideration of sample size determination in their own studies.

PurposePartial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) has become popular in the information systems (IS) field for modeling structural relationships between latent variables as measured by manifest variables. However, while researchers using PLS-SEM routinely stress the causal-predictive nature of their analyses, the model evaluation assessment relies exclusively on criteria designed to assess the path model's explanatory power. To take full advantage of the purpose of causal prediction in PLS-SEM, it is imperative for researchers to comprehend the efficacy of various quality criteria, such as traditional PLS-SEM criteria, model fit, PLSpredict, cross-validated predictive ability test (CVPAT) and model selection criteria.Design/methodology/approachA systematic review was conducted to understand empirical studies employing the use of the causal prediction criteria available for PLS-SEM in the database of Industrial Management and Data Systems (IMDS) and Management Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ). Furthermore, this study discusses the details of each of the procedures for the causal prediction criteria available for PLS-SEM, as well as how these criteria should be interpreted. While the focus of the paper is on demystifying the role of causal prediction modeling in PLS-SEM, the overarching aim is to compare the performance of different quality criteria and to select the appropriate causal-predictive model from a cohort of competing models in the IS field.FindingsThe study found that the traditional PLS-SEM criteria (goodness of fit (GoF) by Tenenhaus, R2 and Q2) and model fit have difficulty determining the appropriate causal-predictive model. In contrast, PLSpredict, CVPAT and model selection criteria (i.e. Bayesian information criterion (BIC), BIC weight, Geweke–Meese criterion (GM), GM weight, HQ and HQC) were found to outperform the traditional criteria in determining the appropriate causal-predictive model, because these criteria provided both in-sample and out-of-sample predictions in PLS-SEM.Originality/valueThis research substantiates the use of the PLSpredict, CVPAT and the model selection criteria (i.e. BIC, BIC weight, GM, GM weight, HQ and HQC). It provides IS researchers and practitioners with the knowledge they need to properly assess, report on and interpret PLS-SEM results when the goal is only causal prediction, thereby contributing to safeguarding the goal of using PLS-SEM in IS studies.

This editorial is dedicated to moderation analysis. Similar to what we did with the earlier editorial about mediation analysis, this editorial addresses seven key issues related to moderation and provides guidelines to justify the inclusion of moderator(s) and perform the analysis. Specifically, it discusses identification, conceptualization, usage, analysis, and reporting of moderating variables. Additionally, it also explains several approaches pertaining to moderation analysis and highlights the key differences between a simple moderation analysis and a multi-group analysis. We hope that this editorial will be useful to academics and research students to conduct moderation analysis with rigor.

In partial least squares structural path modelling, the reflective-formative type of hierarchical component models (HCMs) (also known as Higher-Order Model) have become a popular choice for researchers. However, current approaches to estimate the reflective-formative type of HCM are ambiguous especially when used as an endogenous construct or a mediator. This paper presents a comparison between five different approaches (repeated indicator, two types of two-stage, hybrid, and improved repeated indicator) with two different estimation modes (Mode A and Mode B) when modelling a mediator construct of a reflective-formative HCM in the structural model. By using a model based on stimulus-organism-response theory, an empirical application to the tourism field is adopted in this study. The proposed HCM model examines perceived relative advantages as a mediation of the relationship between Communicability and Intention to Purchase Travel Online. The findings suggest that the improved repeated indicator approach with Mode B estimation yields better path coefficients, goodness of fit, explained variance, and predictive relevance as compared to other approaches. The study provides valuable recommendations and guidelines for tourism researchers to properly conduct an HCM analysis.

No abstract