Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Data in Brief

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dib

Data Article
A perspective on using partial least squares
structural equation modelling in data articles ✩
Christian M. Ringle a, Marko Sarstedt b,c, Noemi Sinkovics d,∗,
Rudolf R. Sinkovics e
a
Hamburg University of Technology, Department of Management Sciences and Technology, Hamburg, Germany
b
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany
c
Babeș-Bolyai University, Romania
d
University of Glasgow, Adam Smith Business School, United Kingdom
e
University of Glasgow, Adam Smith Business School, United Kingdom, and LUT University, Lappeenranta, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This perspective article on using partial least squares struc-
Received 9 November 2022 tural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) is intended as a guide
Revised 7 March 2023 for authors who wish to publish datasets that can be anal-
Accepted 10 March 2023 ysed with this method as stand-alone data articles. Stand-
Available online 21 March 2023
alone data articles are different from supporting data articles
Dataset link: Empty reference data (filler
in that they are not linked to a full research article published
link) (Original data) in another journal. Nevertheless, authors of stand-alone data
articles will be required to clearly demonstrate and justify
Keywords: the usefulness of their dataset. This perspective article offers
PLS-SEM
actionable recommendations regarding the conceptualisation
Partial least squares
phase, the types of data suitable for PLS-SEM and quality cri-
Structural equation modelling
Open science
teria to report, which are generally applicable to studies us-
Discriminant validity ing PLS-SEM. We also present adjusted versions of the HTMT
HTMT metric for discriminant validity testing that broaden its ap-
plicability. Further, we highlight the benefit of linking data
articles to already published research papers that employ the
PLS-SEM method.

✩
Noemi Sinkovics has a role as Editor In Chief of this journal but had no involvement in the peer-review of this article
and has no access to information regarding its peer-review.
∗
Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.M. Ringle), [email protected] (M. Sarstedt), [email protected] (N.
Sinkovics), [email protected] (R.R. Sinkovics).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109074
2352-3409/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
2 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

1. Background

This perspective article on using partial least squares (PLS) for estimating relationships
among observed and latent variables [1,2] – also referred to as PLS path modelling (e.g., [3,4]),
the PLS approach to structural equation modelling [e.g., [5]], or PLS structural equation mod-
elling (PLS-SEM; e.g., [6,7]) – in data articles has at least two objectives. First, it is intended
as a guide for authors who wish to publish datasets that can be analysed with PLS-SEM as a
stand-alone data article. Stand-alone data articles are not linked to an original research arti-
cle published in another journal. These datasets are frequently generated through some form of
replication of previous studies and thus may not meet the criterion of novel theoretical contri-
bution as defined by many traditional journals in the broader field of business and management.
However, it is important to emphasise that empirical contributions are no less important for the
advancement of science than theoretical contributions [8]. Therefore, a stand-alone data article
can be seen as valuable as long as it makes a meaningful empirical contribution. Köhler and
Cortina [8] offer a typology of the various forms of replication and examine the contribution
of each type. They distinguish between literal replication, quasi random replication, constructive
replication, confounded replication, and regressive replication. The degree of the empirical con-
tribution varies across the different forms. Specifically, the value of confounded replications and
regressive replications are unclear as they contain shortcomings vis-à-vis the original article [8].
Second, this perspective article aims to highlight the benefits of publishing data articles
alongside original research articles in other journals. Linked data articles can be regarded as
an important enabler on the road towards ‘gold standard reproducibility’ [9]. Research articles
that only describe the data but do not make the data publicly available are only partially re-
producible and may not be fully replicable. This is partly due to the limited space available in
research articles that can be dedicated to the methods section. Some journals have strict word
count limits. Although it is possible to host supplementary files with research articles, the reader
may not be able to easily understand them without additional explanation. Therefore, repro-
ducibility requires publication of the research article that provides the theoretical underpinning
and interpretation of the results, a detailed description of the method and research design, as
well as the publication of the data set [9].
A linked data article allows authors to focus more on the theoretical framing and interpre-
tation of results in the main research article and to offer a more detailed description of all the
decisions that have been made in the research design and data analysis aspect of the process
in the data article. Some decisions that hold relevance for future replication studies may not
be reported in the original research article because of space constraints. Further, in linked data
articles, authors can provide details of all the items in their dataset beyond the items analysed
in the main research article.
Both types of data articles support the advent of open science. Open science is fundamentally
changing the landscape in which research, education and innovation are undertaken, archived,
curated and disseminated around the world [10]. Open science is about ensuring research find-
ings are accessible to all rather than keeping them behind a paywall. It encompasses four princi-
ples or pillars of openness, namely, open data, open code, open papers and open reviews [9,11].
The case for open science has become a particularly strong one as the world grapples with global
challenges of resource scarcity, climate change, poverty, ill-health, pollution, rapid urbanisation
and food insecurity [12]. However, although open science practices are increasingly permeat-
ing the natural and medical sciences, other fields, including the social sciences, business and
management, and economics, are lagging behind in adopting these practices [13–15]. As studies
 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074 3

in business and management increasingly use the PLS-SEM method (e.g., [16]), this perspective
article also aims to encourage researchers to keep abreast of reporting standards and data curat-
ing practices in other disciplinary areas. We therefore revisit PLS-SEM’s key characteristics and
reporting standards, pointing to contradicting streams in the methodological literature that au-
thors need to be aware of. In our discussion of model evaluation metrics, we also offer adjusted
versions of the HTMT metric for discriminant validity testing that broaden its applicability.

2. Recommendations

2.1. The conceptualisation phase: ensuring the model is meaningful and highlights interesting
relationships

A key characteristic of appropriately anchoring any quantitative research paper is the align-
ment of concepts with the operational part of a study [17]. While data articles do not feature ex-
tensive theoretical or conceptual sections, it is nevertheless critically important to demonstrate
the underpinning conceptual or theoretical ‘story’ explored in the data and its origins. This step
includes a justification why specific concepts were selected and how they are related. The model
specification should be described or represented by a graphical model illustration. In addition to
journal articles, construct definitions and their measurements (i.e., sets of items or ‘scales’) can
also be found in scale handbooks. Scale handbooks are available for sub-fields and functional
areas of business and management, such as marketing [18,19] entrepreneurship [20], work or-
ganisation [21], and organisational behaviour or human resource management [22]. In addition,
journal articles routinely document item wordings in the main text or an appendix. In reviewing
existing scales, researchers should closely consider their psychometric properties with regard to
prior reliability and validity assessments [23]. Regarding the underpinning of the measurement
scales’ quality, it is usually a signal of good quality if the constructs on which PLS path mod-
els are built originate from high level and reputed journal publications rather than outlets that
are not widely known. Journal lists [24–26] offer guidance regarding the reputation and quality
levels of published outputs, which improves the ‘face validity’ of the scales and items reported.
Advice to authors: Describe the concepts and their relationships and report the measure-
ment scales, including underpinning literature. If the scales have been adapted, report the
changes made to the scales (highlight the changes to the wording).
If the authors’ path model has already been published, they will still need to demonstrate a
high standard of care with the reporting and referencing of source materials. In addition, authors
should strengthen the trustworthiness and cogency of the data that they seek to make publicly
available. Authors will also need to explain how the data article adds value to the information
provided in the original research article. This is important because a linked data article should
not be a simple replication of the methods section of the original article.
In stand-alone submissions to a data journal, where conceptual and theoretical reference
work that develops the reported PLS path model does not yet exist, authors need to build their
case carefully to demonstrate their model’s usefulness. It is not sufficient to show that the data
used to deploy the PLS-SEM method satisfies the common model evaluation criteria as docu-
mented in, for example, Hair et al. (2022). Careful, transparent, and practically engaging writing
is required to provide a convincing chain of arguments demonstrating why the model offers
meaning. Since space is limited, this may involve references to a conceptual debate elsewhere
that could be enriched through the dataset. A multi-stage pattern-matching process can be a
useful way to ascertain that the conceptual model is meaningful and relevant in a specific con-
text [27].
Our advice to authors: Demonstrate that the model is meaningful and relevant.
4 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074

2.2. Model estimation: Why PLS-SEM?

As much as the conceptual or theoretical level and measurement level cannot be divorced
[28], the write-up of a conceptualisation stage in a data article and the model estimation stage
are intertwined and cannot be separated [29]. Therefore, a clear statement of the objectives of
the analysis is required in addition to an explanation of how the PLS-SEM results support the
accomplishment of the stated objectives. With respect to the associated empirical aspects, this
relates to, for example, high model complexity, the estimation of formative measurement mod-
els, and the use of small samples (e.g., [7]). Most notably, researchers have emphasized that
PLS-SEM is particularly well suited for estimating models from an explanation-prediction per-
spective (e.g., [30,31,32]), which implies an understanding of the relationships assumed in the
model as well as its ability to predict theoretical concepts under consideration [33].
Our advice to authors: Discuss how the use of PLS-SEM contributes to the overall aim of
the analysis.
Researchers have developed variants of the standard PLS-SEM algorithm to deal with dif-
ferent data or model types. For instance, to adjust the original parameter estimates to accom-
modate common factor models, authors may revert to consistent PLS (PLSc), “which was first
mathematically developed by Theo K. Dijkstra” [114] see also p. 299, for instance, [34,35], its
PLSe1/PLS2e extensions [36,37], or Yuan et al.’s [38] Cronbach α based approach. Compared to
the standard algorithm, PLSc builds on different assumptions regarding the nature of measure-
ment, most notably, how theoretical concepts are represented in statistical models [29]. While
different perspectives are tenable [39], authors need to be aware of the underlying assumptions
and potential consequences if there is a misalignment between the model type (i.e., composite
vs. common factor models) and estimator (e.g., standard PLS-SEM vs. PLSc-SEM) [40,41].
Our advice to authors: Consider the assumptions, characteristics, and different outcomes
of a composite estimation of constructs compared to a common factor estimation.

2.3. Types of data suitable for PLS-SEM and quality criteria to report

The PLS-SEM algorithm relies on a series of linear regressions coupled with linear combi-
nations to estimate the model parameters [2], Chapter 2 [42]. The indicator variables in a con-
struct’s measurement model should have data on a metric scale (ratio or interval measurement),
such as age or income [43], Chapter 1. However, researchers also use survey data with ordi-
nal scales (e.g., Likert-type scales). These data are useful for PLS-SEM when the researchers
can justify equidistant data points (i.e., measurement on a quasi-metric scale). Alternatively, re-
searchers may consider approaches for nonmetric partial least squares [44] and ordinal partial
least squares (e.g., [45,46]). Also, Lohmöller [2], Chapter 4) presents a PLS-SEM approach that
only uses binary variables (see also [47]), which can also be used for categorical and ordinal
variables, or a mixture of both. However, binary, and categorical variables should usually not be
mixed with metric or quasi-metric indictors in a construct’s measurement model as this may
complicate the interpretation of the results. PLS-SEM users can relatively easily include binary-
coded data as control variables, moderators or grouping variables (i.e., when conducting a PLS-
SEM multigroup analysis) in their analyses [for further details see [48]].
Our advice to authors: Report the scale of the data.
The data used in the analysis can come in the form of primary or secondary data (for further
details on the suitability and use of secondary data in PLS-SEM, see [43], Chapter 1). In using
such data, researchers typically draw on samples, drawn from a larger population. This step,
however, requires (1) clearly defining the population about which inferences will be made, and
(2) statements regarding the sample’s (specific) representativeness [49]. The latter step entails
safeguarding that the sample matches the population with regard to relevant characteristics (e.g.,
age, income, or gender). Researchers sometimes use samples generated by market research com-
panies (e.g., [50]). These data usually include a weighting variable to ensure the sample’s rep-
 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074 5

resentativeness with regard to relevant characteristics. The weighted PLS-SEM algorithm [51] –
see also [52] – allows aligning the sample and population with regard to such characteristics by
weighting observations differently. Further, the use of digital sources of data such as Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk (MTurk) is on the rise. Authors are advised to familiarize themselves with the
discussions around the pitfalls of such data sources [53].
Our advice to authors: Discuss the population and the sample’s structure. Apply sam-
pling weights in case of a mismatch between sample and population with regard to key
characteristics.
As with any multivariate analysis method, the use of large samples is usually advantageous.
However, in some situations, the population of interest is extremely small. For example, in
business-to-business and family business research, populations are often restricted in size (e.g.,
[54,55]). In such situations, researchers must ensure that the PLS-SEM method meets the mini-
mum sample size requirements (e.g., [5,43], Chapter 1). Researchers using PLS-SEM should there-
fore run power analyses or rely on heuristics such as Kock and Hadaya [56] inverse square root
method to determine the sample size needed for achieving a certain level of statistical power
(typically 80%; [57]). Researchers in epidemiology have proposed alternative means for mini-
mum sample size requirements that do not rely on the concept of statistical power, but specify
maximum allowable margins of error in confidence intervals for population effect sizes based on
sample data [58]. Such an approach may be advantageous as there is no reliance on traditional
inference testing, which has come under scrutiny in some research areas (e.g., [59]).
Our advice for authors: Ensure that the analysis yields sufficient levels of statistical
power.
Datasets typically have missing values, which need to be treated. As missing value treatment
is, in a sense, data manipulation, it should remain within reasonable limits. For instance, re-
searchers have suggested that variables with more than 15% missing values be removed from
the dataset [43], Chapter 1. Typical missing value treatment options are mean replacement,
expectation-maximisation (EM), hot and cold deck, maximum likelihood, nearest neighbour, and
regression imputation [60], Chapter 2. For example, Wang, Lu and Liu [61] suggested an EM algo-
rithm for missing data imputation in PLS-SEM. Alternatively, researchers can delete observations
with missing values, a process also known as casewise or listwise deletion. For studies using
PLS-SEM, Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt [43], Chapter 1 suggest applying mean replacement
when less than 5% of the values per variable are missing and to consider the use of casewise
deletion otherwise. However, researchers need to ensure that the deletion of observations does
not occur systematically and that sufficient observations remain for analysis.
Our advice for authors: Report the percentage of missing values for the entire dataset
and the percentage of missing values per variable. Additionally, report the missing value
treatment option used.
Besides treating missing values, authors should inspect their dataset for suspicious response
patterns, such as straight lining or alternating extreme pole responses. An analysis of descriptive
statistics (e.g., mean, variance and distribution of the answers per respondent) and/or graphical
representation of the data enables the identification of suspicious response patterns (for fur-
ther details, see [43], Chapter 1). Researchers should also rule out possibility that participants
respond at random to survey items or tasks. Prior research has shown that rates of random re-
sponding can be substantial, offering practical suggestions for detecting corresponding response
patterns [113].
Our advice to authors: Report the analyses carried out to identify and treat suspicious
response patterns, including random responding.
Similarly, researchers typically address outliers, which can come in the form of extreme re-
sponses or extreme values. Statistical software packages support the identification of outliers
through univariate, bivariate or multivariate statistics and charts, for example, box plots and
stem-and-leaf plots [62], Chapter 5. Boxplots can help identify responses that are three times
the interquartile range below the first quartile or above the third quartile. Such responses could
be extreme outliers due to erroneous data in which case they need to be eliminated. If an ex-
6 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074

planation is available for exceptionally high or low values, outliers are typically retained; see
Sarstedt and Mooi [62], Chapter 5, for more details about outliers and their treatment.
Our advice for authors: Report the outlier detection approach, provide a justification for
deleting outliers, and report the number of outliers deleted.
Finally, researchers should provide the covariance matrix of their data as well as key de-
scriptive statistics. The latter should include, for example, the minimum and maximum value,
the mean value and median, the skewness and kurtosis, and the result of a nonnormality test
statistic (e.g., the Anderson-Darling test or Cramér-von Mises test). PLS-SEM is a nonparamet-
ric method, which can accommodate nonnormal data. However, nonnormal data may lead to
skewed bootstrap distributions, which negatively affect the bootstrap confidence intervals for
significance testing. In such a situation, researchers may prefer bias-corrected and accelerated
bootstrap confidence intervals over percentile-based confidence intervals – the standard variant
in PLS-SEM studies [63].
Our advice for authors: Provide the covariance matrix and key descriptive statistics, in-
cluding results of nonnormality tests.

2.4. Everything PLS-SEM, once the model stands

Model estimation using PLS-SEM requires reporting and citing the software used as well as
any algorithm settings deviating from the defaults; not only for the PLS-SEM algorithm, but all
computations including, for instance, bootstrapping and PLSpredict . Besides commercial software
packages such as SmartPLS [64] and WarpPLS [65], authors can also revert to the open source
statistical software R [66] and its cSEM [67] and SEMinR [68] packages for PLS-SEM.
After the results computation, authors should report the criteria for reflective and formative
measurement model assessment and the structural model. Several articles and textbooks provide
overviews of which PLS-SEM results and criteria should be reported and how [69–71]. Table 1
provides a summary of key criteria as discussed in, for example, Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt
[43]. Additional components may include endogeneity assessment (e.g., [72]), model compar-
isons (e.g., [31]), or extended visualizations of PLS-SEM results such as importance-performance
map analysis (e.g., [73]).
In terms of measurement model assessment, particular care should be devoted to discrimi-
nant validity assessment, which ensures that each construct is empirically unique and captures
a phenomenon not represented by other constructs in a statistical model [74]. Safeguarding dis-
criminant validity is of crucial concern to ensure that implications drawn from the analysis of
structural model relationships are not the result of statistical discrepancies [75]. The primary
criterion for PLS-SEM-based discriminant validity assessment is Henseler et al.’s [76] HTMT cri-
terion and its recent extension HTMT2 [77]. While both criteria will not differ much in common
applications, their results may be affected by negative correlation patterns. We therefore pro-
pose adjusted versions of the criteria, which rely on absolute correlations in their computations.
We refer to these criteria as HTMT+ and HTMT2+ to indicate that they only employ positive
(absolute) correlation values (hence, the additional plus symbol). We document these criteria
and showcase their usefulness in the Appendix. To assess discriminant validity, researchers are
advised to use the adjustment of the HTMT criterion (i.e., HTMT+), which is available, for in-
stance, in the widely adopted SmartPLS software [64] for PLS-SEM analyses. In some extreme
data and model constellations (especially when the number of indicators is low and their het-
erogeneity of loadings is particularly high), researchers may also consider the adjustment of the
HTMT2 criterion (i.e., HTMT2+).
In terms of structural model assessment, authors need to assess their model’s predictive
power, which is often neglected in regression-based studies [32]. Authors are therefore advised
to routinely run Shmueli et al.’s [78] PLSpredict procedure and follow extant guidelines for results
reporting [79]. While the PLSpredict focuses on the model’s predictive power on an item-level,
authors are also advised to compare their model’s predictive power on a construct level – either
on the grounds of all endogenous constructs or one specific key target construct. Sharma et al.’s
 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074 7

Table 1
Results reporting.

Reflective measurement models

Evaluation purpose Criterion

Internal consistency reliability ρ A ≥ 0.7 and < 0.95; consider reporting Cronbach’s α and ρ C as
lower and upper boundaries, respectively (note that these two
additional metrics require that indicator correlations in a
measurement model are either all positive or negative)
Indicator reliability Loadings: ≥ 0.7 (or 0.708 to be precise)
Convergent validity Average variance extracted (AVE): ≥ 0.5
Discriminant validity HTMT+ (and HTMT2+): ≤ 0.85 or 0.9. Assess whether the selected
threshold falls into the (one-sided) bootstrap confidence interval

Formative measurement models

Convergent validity Redundancy analysis

Collinearity Variance inflation factor (VIF): ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3
Significance and relevance of indicators Bootstrap-based significance testing of indicator weights (and
loadings); size of the coefficients

Structural model

Collinearity Variance inflation factor (VIF): ≤ 5, ideally ≤ 3

Significance and relevance of path Bootstrap-based significance testing; (effect) size of the coefficients
coefficients
Predictive power and model fit Primary focus is on prediction: Focus on predictive power assessment
using PLSpredict and the cross-validated predictive ability test (CVPAT)
Primary focus is on explanation: Model fit metrics (e.g., SRMR) and
bootstrap-based tests for model fit, but consider limitations related
to their applicability
Focus is on both prediction and explanation: Consider the trade-off
between model fit and predictive power

[80] extension of Liengaard et al.’s [31] cross-validated predictive ability test (CVPAT) facilitates
such analyses.
In following the guidelines in Table 1, authors need to be aware of two streams in the PLS-
SEM literature that suggest different procedures for model evaluation. While Schuberth, Rade-
maker and Henseler [81] emphasize the role of model fit for results assessment, using indices
such as the GFI, NFI, and SRMR or bootstrap-based tests for model fit, Hair, Hult, Ringle and
Sarstedt [43], Chapters 1 and 6 focus on predictive power assessment, emphasizing the method’s
causal-predictive nature (see also [82]). Both procedures are tenable, but authors need to be
aware of the two streams and make an informed assessment which route they follow. In ad-
dition, researchers need to be aware of potential trade-offs between the two perspectives. Fo-
cusing on model fit may sacrifice predictive power [32] – a practice which has been intensively
discussed in different methodological contexts [83,84]. Finally, researchers can conduct various
robustness checks to safeguard the validity of the results. For instance, Hair et al. [85], Sarstedt
et al. [69], and Sarstedt et al. [86] provide an overview of these analyses and the reporting of
their results.
Our advice for authors: Comply with the most recent guidelines for PLS-SEM use, while
considering different streams in the literature. Run robustness checks to safeguard the va-
lidity of the results.

2.5. How to communicate the value to user communities

Authors of data articles are expected to articulate why and how the data article generates
value. [8]. Some generic examples to aid the communication of the value statement are provided
here:
8 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074

Reference material: A dataset can be useful as a reference for understanding a particular

phenomenon in a particular context and can illuminate the hands-on application of spe-
cific methodologies that were used to uncover the phenomenon. This can be of particular
relevance for single-shot (cross-sectional) primary and survey-based data, which are usu-
ally not available via public databases or research archives of funding bodies.
Replication: If the underlying dataset was produced through replication, authors need to be
aware which form of replication they applied [8]. This will aid the communication of the
dataset’s contribution. With the provision of openly accessible data, it is possible to estab-
lish whether previously published empirical findings can be repeated and whether similar
findings can be obtained under comparable conditions. When using the same data, this
refers to the stability of results through verification or reanalysis and thus points to the
findings’ robustness. As soon as additional and different data are introduced, further value
can be provisioned through direct replication and extension [14], Table 9.1 on p. 159. Such
replications are crucial in light of increasing concerns regarding the stability of even sem-
inal behavioural effects like nudging [87]. Authors have the opportunity to use the data
article to highlight the research avenues that the dataset feeds into as well as delineate
other potential uses for the dataset. Some of this may stem from ‘future research’ sections
of previous research articles or relate to new possibilities that the new data provide.
Data pooling: Pooling data from previously existing studies can be useful to increase the
sample size and the statistical power of the analysis. In international contexts, the abil-
ity to pool data can support the development of cross-country, comparative models and
thus help establish an understanding of key differences. Conceptual issues of equivalence
must be considered, which include research subject, time and context, to render such data
pooling efforts useful [88]. Empirical considerations and words of caution regarding equiv-
alence issues should be discussed in the model evaluation section. In the context of PLS-
SEM, this involves running Henseler et al.’s [89] MICOM procedure.
Temporal value: The provision of open access data may contribute to an understanding of
value changes regarding the underpinning constructs over time. This will be of special
value to studies in which sociological or psychological constructs are involved. While dif-
ferent sampling and equivalence concerns may render direct comparison difficult, tenden-
tial assessment can produce value for research communities.

Frequently, authors become overly excited when referring to their ‘unique’ datasets, even
when these datasets would not have been possible without the help of intermediary parties and
grant-funding bodies and may have been the result of significant collaborative efforts involving
academics at various stages of their careers. Researchers in the social sciences, humanities, and
business and management are still considerably reluctant to share their data [90]. Christensen,
Freese and Miguel [14] report the case of a mysterious psychologist who claimed a loss of data
in response to a query about suspicious results, which “exemplifies one reason researchers might
not want to share their data: maybe they have something to hide” [14], p. 176. Null results in rela-
tionships not openly documented in the original manuscript may be such a reason. In support of
open science, data journals, encourage the inclusion of null results in data articles. Another, less
uncomfortable explanation for the reluctance of researchers to share datasets is the fear of los-
ing further publication opportunities to extend the model and analysis, if other research teams
manage to exploit these opportunities more quickly. Yet, with reproducibility and transparency
requests increasing [91] and social science, humanities and business and management becoming
eager to close the open data gap to the natural and medical sciences [92,93], it will also become
attractive for curators of such datasets to receive appropriate recognition and credit. New cita-
tion standards regarding referencing of datasets, such as those included in the seventh edition of
the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association [94] and modern ‘how to’ guides
that include datasets and data articles [95], will help increase the value of open data further.
 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074 9

3. Key points

• Ensure model is meaningful: Report the model, measures, including any changes made
and underpinning literature
• Demonstrate that the model and PLS-SEM results are meaningful and relevant
• Check whether the data is appropriate for analysis and report quality criteria
• Report scale levels of data, representativeness of sample, minimum sample size require-
ments, percentage of missing values and missing data option used, analyses carried out
to identify suspicious response patters and deleted observations, covariance matrix and
descriptive statistics, results reporting including criteria for reflective and formative mea-
surement models and the structural model.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be
considered as potential competing interests: Although this research does not use the statisti-
cal software SmartPLS (https://www.smartpls.com), Christian M. Ringle acknowledges a financial
interest in SmartPLS.

Data Availability

Empty reference data (filler link) (Original data) (https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/data-

in-brief).

A. Appendix

A.1. Extending the standard HTMT metrics for discriminant validity testing

For any two constructs ξi and ξ j measured by Ki and Kj indicators, Henseler, Ringle and Sarst-
edt [76] defined the HTMT as the arithmetic mean of the heterotrait-heteromethod correlations
rig,jh relative to the geometric mean of the average monotrait-heteromethod correlations of ξi
(i.e., rig,ih ) and the average monotrait-heteromethod correlation of ξ j (i.e., rjg,jh ):

1 Ki K j
Ki K j g=1
r
h=1 ig, jh
HTMTi j =  .
2 Ki −1 Ki 2 K j −1 K j
r · r
Ki (Ki −1 ) g=1 h=g+1 ig,ih K j (K j −1 ) g=1 h=g+1 j g, j h

Based on prior research and simulation study results, Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt [76] sug-
gest a threshold value of 0.90 if constructs are conceptually very similar and 0.85 if the con-
structs are conceptually more distinct. That is, an HTMT value for two constructs that exceeds
the corresponding threshold indicates a lack of discriminant validity. In addition, these authors
suggested testing whether HTMT is significantly different from unity, which is a very liberal way
of testing for discriminant validity testing. Rather than relying on cutoff values lower than unity,
Franke and Sarstedt [74] suggest testing whether an HTMT value differs significantly from a se-
lected threshold different from unity (e.g., 0.90). To do so, researchers can compute the HTMT
statistic’s bootstrap-based confidence interval and assess whether the corresponding cutoff value
falls into the interval.
The HTMT criterion rests on the assumption that the indicators’ population loadings are
equal, a requirement also referred to as tau-equivalence [96]. However, this assumption is un-
likely to hold in many empirical settings [97]. Addressing this concern, Roemer, Schuberth and
10 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074

Table A1
Indicator correlations (wave #1).

ξ1 ξ2
x11 x12 x13 x14 x21 x22 x23 x24

ξ1 x11 1.0 0 0
x12 0.504 1.0 0 0
x13 0.456 0.632 1.0 0 0
x14 0.463 0.485 0.510 1.0 0 0

ξ2 x21 0.311 0.477 0.380 0.289 1.0 0 0

x22 0.396 0.468 0.405 0.591 0.380 1.0 0 0
x23 0.362 0.435 0.382 0.341 0.445 0.396 1.0 0 0
x24 0.343 0.455 0.367 0.314 0.556 0.400 0.382 1.0 0 0

Note: The dark-shaded elements denote the heterotrait-heteromethod correlations, while the remaining off-diagonal el-
ements correspond to the monotrait-heteromethod correlations.

Henseler [77] introduced an extension of the original criterion, which considers the geometric
mean instead of the arithmetic mean for calculating the average indicator correlations [77], Eq.
31 :

Ki ·K j Ki K j
g=1
r
h=1 ig, jh
HTMT2i j = 

K 2 −K 

K 2 −K j
i i Ki −1 Ki j K j −1 K j
2
g=1
r
h=g+1 ig,ih
· 2
g=1
r
h=g+1 j g, j h

Roemer et al.’s [77] simulation study shows that the HTMT2 slightly outperforms the original
metric when the indicator loading patterns are extremely heterogeneous (e.g., some indicator
loadings are around 0.5, while others are close to 1), particularly when ξi and ξ j are highly
correlated (see the HTMT2 discussion in [69]). While the HTMT2 addresses conceptual concerns
regarding the original metric’s tau-equivalence assumption, both HTMT variants require the aver-
age monotrait-heteromethod correlations to be positive: “Computation of the HTMT/HTMT2 as-
sumes that all intra-block and inter-block correlations between indicators are either all-positive
or all-negative” [67], p. 17. Similarly, Roemer et al. [77], p. 2647 note that the HTMT “is not de-
fined for cases, in which indicator correlations are negative.” However, this is not necessarily the
case in empirical applications of PLS-SEM and SEM in general.
Consider the following example taken from a model on customer satisfaction, where the con-
struct ξ1 , represents the respondents’ trust [98] and is measured with indicators x11 , x12 , x13 ,
and x14 . The construct ξ2 represents their perceived switching costs [99] and is measured with
indicators x21 , x22 , x23 , and x24 . A professional market research firm collected responses from
5,368 different consumers in three parallel study waves. Each study wave drew random samples
from the German population, but with slight variations in the indicator scaling. Specifically, con-
struct measurement in wave #1 (n=1,812) relies on the original indicator wording; in wave #2
(n=1,767), x11 was reverse-scaled; in wave #3 (n=1,789), x11 and x21 were reverse-scaled.
Table A1 documents the correlation patterns between the indicators of ξ1 and ξ2 for wave #1.
The dark-shaded elements denote the heterotrait-heteromethod correlations, while the remain-
ing off-diagonal elements correspond to the monotrait-heteromethod correlations of ξ1 and ξ2
respectively.
All indicator correlations are positive, producing the following values for HTMT and HTMT2:

0.395
HTMT = √ = 0.848
0.508 · 0.427

1
Note that the denominator in Roemer et al.’s [77] Eq. 3 erroneously denoted the indicator correlations of ξi as r jg, jh
and the upper index of the corresponding product term (i.e., in the second position) with Kj . We corrected these errors
in our definition of HTMT2ij .
 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074 11

Table A2
Indicator correlations (wave #2).

ξ1 ξ2
x11 x12 x13 x14 x21 x22 x23 x24

ξ1 x11 1.0 0 0
x12 -0.520 1.0 0 0
x13 -0.446 0.659 1.0 0 0
x14 -0.426 0.499 0.501 1.0 0 0

ξ2 x21 -0.317 0.526 0.420 0.317 1.0 0 0

x22 -0.413 0.506 0.419 0.621 0.397 1.0 0 0
x23 -0.369 0.442 0.358 0.339 0.438 0.419 1.0 0 0
x24 -0.362 0.549 0.441 0.388 0.579 0.460 0.419 1.0 0 0

Note: The dark-shaded elements denote the heterotrait-heteromethod correlations, while the remaining off-diagonal el-
ements correspond to the monotrait-heteromethod correlations.

Table A3
Indicator correlations (wave #3).

ξ1 ξ2
x11 x12 x13 x14 x21 x22 x23 x24

ξ1 x11 1.0 0 0
x12 -0.449 1.0 0 0
x13 -0.373 0.615 1.0 0 0
x14 -0.404 0.487 0.510 1.0 0 0

ξ2 x21 0.254 -0.469 -0.375 -0.309 1.0 0 0

x22 -0.343 0.437 0.382 0.627 -0.350 1.0 0 0
x23 -0.276 0.422 0.331 0.343 -0.448 0.373 1.0 0 0
x24 -0.350 0.488 0.390 0.355 -0.546 0.384 0.407 1.0 0 0

Note: The dark-shaded elements denote the heterotrait-heteromethod correlations, while the remaining off-diagonal el-
ements correspond to the monotrait-heteromethod correlations.

0.388
HTMT2 = √ = 0.840
0.505 · 0.423
Assuming a cutoff value of 0.90 or higher in light of the constructs’ conceptual similarity,
both HTMT metrics would indicate discriminant validity as both values are lower than this
threshold. As expected in light of the measurement models’ quality, HTMT and HTMT2 are in
close correspondence [69]. Researchers could also run bootstrapping and construct confidence
intervals to test whether the two HTMT values are significantly lower than this threshold.
However, a different picture emerges when computing the HTMT metrics based on the
wave#2 correlation matrix. Using the indicator correlations documented in Table A2 as input
produces an HTMT value far above 1, which is surprising as the reverse-coding of a single in-
dicator (x11 ) should not alter whether or not ξ1 and ξ2 are empirically distinct. More severely,
HTMT2 is not defined because of the negative first terms that result in the formulas’ denomina-
tor.
0.242
HTMT = √ = 1.703
0.045 · 0.452

0.416
HTMT2 =  √ √ = not de f ined
6 6
−0.016 · 0.008
A similar problem occurs when using the indicator correlations from wave #3, where one in-
dicator in each of the two constructs is reverse-coded (x11 and x21 ). Using the indicator correla-
tions documented in Table A3 as input produces negative values in the formulas’ denominators,
12 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074

rendering the computation of HTMT and HTMT2 impossible:

0.119
HTMT =  = not de f ined
0.064 · (−0.030 )

0.375
HTMT2 =  √ √ = not de f ined
6 6
−0.010 · −0.005
These and similar problems (e.g., negative and positive correlations cancelling each other out
in the computation of the mean) have been recognized in the context of the original HTMT
metric and considered in its implementation in SmartPLS, the most frequently used software
for PLS-SEM analyses in various fields of business research (e.g., [100,101]) and other disciplines
(e.g., [102,103]). Specifically, since the HTMT computation update in version 3.2.1 of SmartPLS
3 [104]2 and continuing with SmartPLS 4 [64], the software considers the absolute correlation
values in the computation of the HTMT.3 Since the correlations are only intended to determine
the indicators’ empirical overlap, their signs are not decisive. Hence, both the HTMT and HTMT2
metrics may draw on absolute correlations to avoid problems that occur when encountering
correlation patterns as in the wave #2 and wave #3 examples.
To distinguish these adjusted versions from their previous implementations, we refer to these
metrics as HTMT+ and HTMT2+:
1 Ki K j 
 
r 
Ki K j g=1 h=1 ig, jh
HTMT+i j = 
Ki −1 Ki   K j −1 K j  
2 r  · 2 r jg, jh 
Ki (Ki −1 )
g=1 h=g+1 ig,ih g=1 K j (K j −1 )
h=g+1


Ki K j  
Ki ·K j rig, jh 
g=1 h=1
HTMT2+i j = 

K 2 −Ki   
K 2 −K j  
i Ki −1 Ki rig,ih  · j K j −1 K j r jg, jh 
2 2
g=1 h=g+1 g=1 h=g+1

Since all correlations in wave #1 are positive, the results of HTMT+ and HTMT2+ are identical
to those of HTMT and HTMT2. Computing the HTMT+ and HTMT2+ values for waves #2 and
#3 as outlined above produces the following results, which are very close to the values from
wave #1. This result is expected considering that the samples have been drawn from the same
population.
Wave #2:
0.424
HTMT+ = √ = 0.885
0.509 · 0.452
0.416
HTMT2+ = √ = 0.876
0.503 · 0.448
Wave #3:
0.384
HTMT+ = √ = 0.865
0.473 · 0.418
0.375
HTMT2+ = √ = 0.854
0.467 · 0.413
This adjustment resolves the problem that a simple recoding of indicators or lack thereof
may alter the results of a discriminant validity analysis.

2
Version 3.2.1 of SmartPLS 3 was released on May 5, 2015 (see https://www.smartpls.com/release_notes/). Since then,
the improved HTMT computation with absolute correlation values (i.e., HTMT+) has been documented on the SmartPLS
webpages (https://www.smartpls.com/documentation/algorithms- and- techniques/discriminant- validity- assessment).
3
The cSEM R package, which provides the HTMT and HTMT2 metrics, issues a warning when such inadmissible values
occur [67].
 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074 13

In case of deliberately reverse-coded items, researchers may, of course recode the corre-
sponding item(s) and apply the standard HTMT metrics [77]. However, negative correlation pat-
terns may occur systematically, but without any prior expectations, causing the standard HTMT
metrics to fail. For example, negative correlation patterns among indicators routinely occur in
applications of personality scales and measurements of emotions (e.g., PANAS; [105]), clinical
symptoms (e.g., [106,107]), response styles (e.g., [108,109]), and response times (e.g., [110])—to
name a few. In such situations, reverse-coding might be difficult to defend from a conceptual
standpoint, calling for metrics that are universally applicable to situations where negative cor-
relation patterns occur. Note that the above examples are different from unsystematic variations
in indicator loadings, for example, due to sampling variance. We will discuss this aspect in the
following section.

A.2. Additional insights from simulations

Supplementary simulation studies will allow us to gain additional insights into how HTMT
in its different variants can be used for discriminant validity testing. More specifically, one of
the reviewers of this article pointed out that negative correlations may also occur unsystemati-
cally, despite positive population values due to sampling variation.4 To show that such negative
correlations can have adverse consequences for the computation of the HTMT+ metric, the re-
viewer presented the results of a small simulation study assuming a two-construct model with
a 0.3 correlation, each measured by three indicators with loadings of 0.5. When estimating this
model with n = 100 and 10 0,0 0 0 replications, the HTMT+ produced a larger than the expected
value of 0.3, while the regular HTMT was not biased upwards.
While the metric’s behaviour is important to understand, this simulation design constitutes
a borderline situation with limited practical relevance due to (1) very low indicators loadings,
(2) low construct correlations, and (3) a small sample size. We expect that the issue described
above will vanish with higher indicator loadings, larger correlations between the constructs, and
higher sample sizes. Taking these limitations into account, we first replicated the simulation
with two constructs correlated at 0.3 and each measured by four indicators, which aligns with
our empirical example presented in the previous section and corresponds to the measurement
model complexity commonly encountered in applications of PLS-SEM (e.g., [69]). Our simula-
tion study additionally considers the HTMT2 and HTMT2+ metrics as well as a series of further
simulation factors. First, we considered a broader range of loadings. Specifically, loadings of 0.5
would raise a red flag in any empirical application (Table 1) as they would produce unbearably
low internal consistency reliability (and convergent validity) values, rendering the discriminant
validity assessment meaningless, because “a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for validity
of measures is that they are reliable” [111], p. 6. We therefore also considered homogeneous
loadings of 0.7 and a pattern of heterogeneous loadings with values of 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, and 0.6
for both constructs, ensuring that the lowest loading still meets minimum standards in terms
of indicator reliability (Table 1). We reiterated these patterns by assuming a negative loading of
equal size for one of the two constructs (e.g., -0.7 for the first indicator of the first constructs, all
other loadings 0.7). Second, we not only considered a sample size of 100, but also 200 and 300,
because prior reviews of PLS-SEM report similar average sample sizes in empirical applications
of the method (e.g., [69]). We additionally considered a sample size of 10,0 0 0 to shed light on
the metrics’ asymptotic behaviour. Finally, as 10,0 0 0 replications produced highly similar results
as 10 0,0 0 0 replications in our initial analysis, we considered this lower number to save compu-

4
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this helpful remark and the code provided for the statistical
software R [66], which we modified and extended for our additional analyses.
14 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074

Table A4
Simulation results (construct correlation 0.3, positive loadings only).

Expected HTMT value: 0.3; all loadings 0.5

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
solutions solutions solutions solutions

100 0.305 0 0.420 0 0.329 5173 0.330 0

200 0.299 0 0.345 0 0.277 4715 0.267 0
300 0.301 0 0.323 0 0.271 4308 0.256 0
10,0 0 0 0.300 0 0.300 0 0.298 0 0.298 0

Expected HTMT value: 0.3; all loadings 0.7

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissi- inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
ble solutions solutions solutions
solutions

100 0.300 0 0.313 0 0.295 2959 0.266 0

200 0.298 0 0.300 0 0.288 1341 0.273 0
300 0.299 0 0.300 0 0.289 519 0.282 0
10,0 0 0 0.300 0 0.300 0 0.299 0 0.299 0

Expected HTMT value: 0.3; loadings (per construct): 0.9 / 0.8 / 0.7 / 0.6

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissi- inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
ble solutions solutions solutions
solutions

100 0.302 0 0.311 0 0.299 2629 0.273 0

200 0.300 0 0.302 0 0.292 1264 0.278 0
300 0.301 0 0.302 0 0.291 567 0.285 0
10,0 0 0 0.302 0 0.302 0 0.299 0 0.299 0

tational time.5 We used the statistical software R [66] with its foreach package [112] for these
simulations. Table A.4 shows the results of our analysis for measurement models with positive
loadings only.
For loadings of 0.5, we find that the HTMT2 produces a great share of inadmissible solutions
of up to 52% at sample sizes of 10 0, 20 0, and 30 0, while this is not the case for the other met-
rics. Looking at the estimates, we find that only HTMT returns (almost) unbiased average results
for sample sizes of 10 0, 20 0, and 30 0. The other metrics improve in performance as sample
sizes increases. Considering the scenario with 0.7 loadings for all indicators slightly changes the
picture. HTMT2 still produces inadmissible solutions at small sample sizes, ranging between ap-
proximately 5% and 30%, which is less than in the previous scenario with lower loadings. In
terms of parameter bias, HTMT shows practically no bias, whereas the HTMT+ metric is slightly
upwards biased only for sample size of 100. HTMT2 and HTMT2+ are downwards biased at small
sample sizes of 200 and 300, but less so compared to the scenario with 0.5 loadings. These met-
rics’ bias diminishes as sample size increases. Finally, in the case of heterogeneous loadings, the
HTMT2’s share of inadmissible solutions is still high. The values of HTMT, HTMT+, and HTMT2
are highly similar, whereas HTMT2+ has a more pronounced underestimation tendency.
Table A.5 shows the results for the scenario where one loading is negative. As expected,
HTMT and HTMT2 produce a significant share of inadmissible solutions. In the few cases where

5
For instance, the first row in Table A.4 shows the outcomes for an expected average HTMT value of 0.3, all loadings
set to 0.5 (i.e., four indicators per construct), 100 observations, and 10,0 0 0 replications. The corresponding results for
10 0,0 0 0 replications were (number of inadmissible solutions in squared brackets): HTMT = 0.305 [0], HTMT+ = 0.419
[0], HTMT2 = 0.329 [52,019], and HTMT2+ = 0.330 [0].
 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074 15

Table A5
Simulation results (construct correlation 0.3, negative and positive loadings).

Expected HTMT value: 0.3; first loading of the first construct -0.5, all other loadings 0.5

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
solutions solutions solutions solutions

100 0.689 5083 0.420 0 0.430 9854 0.330 0

200 0.800 5015 0.345 0 0.326 9998 0.267 0
300 0.893 5060 0.323 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.256 0
10,0 0 0 2.252 4966 0.300 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.298 0

Expected HTMT value: 0.3; first loading of the first construct -0.7, all other loadings 0.7

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissi- inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
ble solutions solutions solutions
solutions

100 1.095 5095 0.313 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.266 0

200 1.312 5079 0.300 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.273 0
300 1.401 5070 0.300 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.282 0
10,0 0 0 3.339 5105 0.300 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.299 0

Expected HTMT value: 0.3; loadings: -0.9 / 0.8 / 0.7 / 0.6 (first construct), 0.9 / 0.8 / 0.7 / 0.6 (second construct)

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissi- inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
ble solutions solutions solutions
solutions

100 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.311 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.273 0

200 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.302 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.278 0
300 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.302 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.285 0
10,0 0 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.302 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.299 0

these metrics can be computed, the results are substantially biased. On the contrary, the HTMT+
and HTMT2+ produce the same results as when assuming only positive loadings (Table A.4).
The previous settings assumed a relatively low construct correlation of 0.3. Understanding
the metrics’ performance in such a scenario is important as low construct correlations favour
the occurrence of negative indicator correlations, triggering a substantial number of inadmissible
solutions in the HTMT2 metric. At the same time, however, discriminant validity issues are less
likely emerge when construct correlations are low. This is also why Roemer et al. [77] explicitly
disregarded such correlations and have not identified HTMT2’s tendency to produce inadmissible
solutions. We therefore replicated the above analyses, but—in view of empirical applications—
assumed a very high construct correlation of 0.8. Table A6 shows the results of our analysis for
measurement models with positive loadings only.
As expected, we find that the number of inadmissible solutions in HTMT2 is much smaller
than in the previous analyses, occurring mostly in situations where n = 100. Considering the
parameter bias, we find that all metrics are generally in sync when the measurement models
meet common quality standards. In these situations, HTMT2 has a marginal underestimation
tendency, while HTMT has a marginal overestimation tendency. This also holds for the case of
heterogeneous loadings, where one would expect the HTMT2 to outperform the HTMT metric.
The HTMT+ and HTMT2+ metrics generally correspond to their standard versions, except for
the borderline case with loadings of 0.5 and n = 100, where the differences are somewhat more
pronounced.
A more detailed analysis of the results shows that HTMT and HTMT+ values are slightly too
high (0.805 or 0.806 instead of 0.800) when loadings are heterogeneous, which parallels Roemer
et al.’s [77] findings. However, in situation with equal loadings (in line with HTMT’s assump-
tion of tau-equivalent measurement models; [76,96]), this slight bias vanishes. On the contrary,
16 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074

Table A6
Simulation results (construct correlation 0.8, positive loadings only).

Expected HTMT value: 0.8; all loadings 0.5

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
solutions solutions solutions solutions

100 0.815 0 0.821 0 0.788 2457 0.774 0

200 0.804 0 0.804 0 0.783 362 0.778 0
300 0.804 0 0.804 0 0.789 34 0.788 0
10,0 0 0 0.800 0 0.800 0 0.800 0 0.800 0

Expected HTMT value: 0.8; all loadings 0.7

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
solutions solutions solutions solutions

100 0.801 0 0.801 0 0.792 3 0.792 0

200 0.799 0 0.799 0 0.795 0 0.795 0
300 0.800 0 0.800 0 0.798 0 0.798 0
10,0 0 0 0.800 0 0.800 0 0.800 0 0.800 0

Expected HTMT value: 0.8; loadings (per construct): 0.9 / 0.8 / 0.7 / 0.6

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
solutions solutions solutions solutions

100 0.806 0 0.806 0 0.793 28 0.793 0

200 0.805 0 0.805 0 0.795 0 0.795 0
300 0.806 0 0.806 0 0.798 0 0.798 0
10,0 0 0 0.806 0 0.806 0 0.800 0 0.800 0

HTMT2 and HTMT2+ are slightly too low at sample sizes of 10 0, 20 0, and 30 0, regardless of
whether loadings are homogeneous or heterogeneous. This downward bias diminishes as sam-
ple sizes increase, which is in line with Roemer et al.’s [77] findings. Hence, HTMT and HTMT+
can be considered slightly more conservative, whereas HTMT2 and HTMT2+ can be considered
more liberal metrics for discriminant validity assessment.
Finally, Table A7 shows the results for combinations of negative and positive loadings when
the constructs are 0.8 correlated. The findings parallel those obtained in the setting with 0.3
construct correlations. HTMT and HTMT2 produce substantial amounts of inadmissible solutions,
while their absolute variants (HTMT+ and HTMT2+) yield almost the same values as in the
situation where all loadings are positive.6
To summarize, we find that particularly HTMT2 suffers from inadmissible solutions, not only
in scenarios where negative loadings occur systematically (whether expected or not), but also
in situations where construct correlations are low. While using HTMT2+ resolves this issue, the
metric’s performance doesn’t substantially improve on the HTMT+ metric, even when loadings
are heterogeneous (i.e., in this situation HTMT+ has a slight upwards bias while HTMT2+ has
a downwards bias for smaller sample sizes). When loadings are homogeneous, HTMT+ actually
shows a slightly better performance. In light of the direction of the bias, HTMT2+ can be consid-
ered more liberal as the metric shows a slight underestimation tendency. This behaviour can be
problematic when comparing the metric against a firm cutoff value. Considering the occurrence
of inadmissible solutions and the magnitude and size of the biases produced by the metrics, our
results therefore suggest that researchers should primarily rely on the HTMT+ in their discrim-
inant validity assessment tasks. However, they may also consider HTMT2+, especially when the

6
Compared with Table A.6, the slight deviations in HTMT2+ results at the third decimal place are due to rounding.
 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074 17

Table A7
Simulation results (construct correlation 0.8, negative and positive loadings).

Expected HTMT value: 0.8; first loading of the first construct -0.5, all other loadings 0.5

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
solutions solutions solutions solutions

100 1.860 5054 0.821 0 0.930 9809 0.775 0

200 2.178 5034 0.804 0 0.973 9997 0.779 0
300 2.331 4967 0.804 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.789 0
10,0 0 0 5.869 5067 0.800 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.800 0

Expected HTMT value: 0.8; first loading of the first construct -0.7, all other loadings 0.7

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
solutions solutions solutions solutions

100 2.969 5139 0.801 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.793 0

200 3.417 5104 0.799 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.795 0
300 4.031 5071 0.800 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.797 0
10,0 0 0 9.013 5019 0.800 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.800 0

Expected HTMT value: 0.8; loadings: -0.9 / 0.8 / 0.7 / 0.6 (first construct), 0.9 / 0.8 / 0.7 / 0.6 (second construct)

Sample size HTMT Number of HTMT+ Number of HTMT2 Number of HTMT2+ Number of
inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible inadmissible
solutions solutions solutions solutions

100 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.806 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.793 0

200 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.805 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.795 0
300 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.806 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.798 0
10,0 0 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.806 0 n/a 10,0 0 0 0.800 0

loadings pattern is quite heterogenous (e.g., 0.95/0.8/0.65), and the sample is not too small (e.g.,
>300).
Due to the nature of this article, we focused on a limited number of simulation factors,
which, however (1) directly relate to the reviewer’s concern, and (2) extend the initial design to
accommodate more realistic settings. Future research may add to these findings by researching
the impact of further design factors on the metrics’ behavior, such as the number of indicators,
which partly dictates the degree of possible heterogeneity in indicator loadings—assuming a cer-
tain quality of measurement models. Finally, future research could also extend on the concept
of discriminant validity testing as implied by HTMT and consider measurement congruence, as
recently discussed by [115].

CRediT Author Statement

Christian M. Ringle: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – original

draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization; Marko Sarstedt: Conceptualization, Method-
ology, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Visualization; Noemi Sinkovics: Conceptualiza-
tion, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervi-
sion, Project administration; Rudolf R. Sinkovics: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – origi-
nal draft, Writing – review & editing.

References

[1] H. Wold, Path models with latent variables: the NIPALS approach, in: H.M. Blalock, A. Aganbegian, F.M. Borodkin,
R. Boudon, V. Capecchi (Eds.), Quantitative Sociology: International Perspectives on Mathematical and Statistical
Modeling, Academic Press, New York, 1975, pp. 307–357.
[2] J.-B. Lohmöller, Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares, Physica, Heidelberg, 1989, doi:10.1007/
978- 3- 642- 52512- 4.
18 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074

[3] M. Tenenhaus, V. Esposito Vinzi, Y.-M. Chatelin, C. Lauro, PLS Path Modeling, Computational Statistics & Data Anal-
ysis 48 (1) (2005) 159–205, doi:10.1016/j.csda.20 04.03.0 05.
[4] V. Esposito Vinzi, L. Trinchera, S. Amato, PLS path modeling: from foundations to recent developments and
open issues for model assessment and improvement, in: V. Esposito Vinzi, W.W. Chin, J. Henseler, H. Wang
(Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications (Springer Handbooks of Compu-
tational Statistics Series, vol. II), Springer, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York, 2010, pp. 47–82, doi:10.1007/
978- 3- 540- 32827- 8_3.
[5] W.W. Chin, The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling, in: G.A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern
Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1998, pp. 295–358.
[6] J.F. Hair, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19 (2)
(2011) 139–151, doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202.
[7] M. Sarstedt, J.F. Hair, C.M. Ringle, “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet” – retrospective observations and recent ad-
vances, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice (2022) Advance online publication, doi:10.1080/10696679.2022.
2056488.
[8] T. Köhler, J.M. Cortina, Play it again, Sam! An analysis of constructive replication in the organizational sciences,
Journal of Management 47 (2) (2021) 488–518, doi:10.1177/0149206319843985.
[9] R.D. Peng, Reproducible research in computational science, Science 334 (6060) (2011) 1226–1227, doi:10.1126/
science.1213847.
[10] LERUOpen science and its role in universities: a roadmap for cultural change, League of European Research Uni-
versities, Leuven, 2018.
[11] Fosterscience, What is Open Science? Four pillars of Open Science: putting OS into practice. 2018 https://www.
fosteropenscience.eu/learning/what- is- open- science/#/id/5ab8ea32dd1827131b90e3ac Accessed February 25, 2023.
[12] J. Cribb, T.S. Hartomo, Open science sharing knowledge in the global century, Commonwealth Scientific and Indus-
trial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Collingwood, 2010.
[13] C.M. Castille, L.M. Kreamer, B.H. Albritton, G.C. Banks, S.G. Rogelberg, The open science challenge: adopt one prac-
tice that enacts widely shared values, Journal of Business and Psychology 37 (3) (2022) 459–467, doi:10.1007/
s10869- 022- 09806- 2.
[14] G.S. Christensen, J. Freese, E. Miguel, Transparent and reproducible social science research: how to do open science,
University of California Press, Oakland, CA, 2019, doi:10.2307/j.ctvpb3xkg.
[15] P.G. Hensel, Dissecting the tension of open science standards implementation in management and organization
journals, Accountability in Research 20 (3) (2021) 150–175, doi:10.1080/08989621.2021.1981870.
[16] E. Ciavolino, M. Aria, J.-H. Cheah, J.L. Roldán, A tale of PLS structural equation modelling: episode I - a bibliometrix
citation analysis, Social Indicators Research 164 (3) (2022) 1323–1348, doi:10.1007/s11205- 022- 02994- 7.
[17] R.L. Daft, Why I Recommended That Your Manuscript Be Rejected and What You Can Do About It, in: L.L. Cum-
mings, P.J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences, R.D. Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1985, pp. 164–182.
[18] W.O. Bearden, R.G. Netemeyer, K.L. Haws, Handbook of marketing scales: multi-item measures for marketing and
consumer behavior research, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2011.
[19] G.C. Bruner, Marketing scales handbook: multi-item measures for consumer insight research, GCBII Productions,
Fort Worth, TX, 2021.
[20] N. Coviello, H. Yli-Renko, Handbook of Measures for International Entrepreneurship Research: Multi-item Scales
Crossing Disciplines and Contexts, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2016, doi:10.4337/9781784711405.
[21] J.L. Price, Handbook of organizational measurement, International Journal of Manpower 18 (4/5/6) (1997) 305–558,
doi:10.1108/01437729710182260.
[22] F.J. Smith, Organizational surveys: The diagnosis and betterment of organizations through their members, Psychol-
ogy Press, London, 2003, doi:10.4324/9781410607270.
[23] M. Appelbaum, H. Cooper, R.B. Kline, E. Mayo-Wilson, A.M. Nezu, S.M. Rao, Journal article reporting standards for
quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report, American
Psychologist 73 (2018) 3–25, doi:10.1037/amp0 0 0 0191.
[24] CABS, Academic journal guide. 2021 https://charteredabs.org/academic- journal- guide- 2021/. Accessed June 24,
2021.
[25] H. Tüselmann, R.R. Sinkovics, G. Pishchulov, Revisiting the standing of International Business journals in the com-
petitive landscape, Journal of World Business 51 (4) (2016) 487–498, doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2016.01.006.
[26] A.-W. Harzing, Journal Quality List. 2022 https://harzing.com/resources/journal-quality-list. Accessed October 21,
2022.
[27] N. Sinkovics, J. Kim, R.R. Sinkovics, Business-civil society collaborations in South Korea: a multi-stage pattern
matching study, Management International Review 62 (4) (2022) 471–516, doi:10.1007/s11575- 022- 00476-z.
[28] E.E. Rigdon, Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: in praise of simple methods, Long Range Planning 45
(5) (2012) 341–358, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.010.
[29] M. Sarstedt, J.F. Hair, C.M. Ringle, K.O. Thiele, S.P. Gudergan, Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the
bias lies!, Journal of Business Research 69 (10) (2016) 3998–4010, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.007.
[30] J.F. Hair, M. Sarstedt, Explanation plus prediction—the logical focus of project management research, Project Man-
agement Journal 52 (4) (2021) 319–322, doi:10.1177/8756972821999945.
[31] B.D. Liengaard, P.N. Sharma, G.T.M. Hult, M.B. Jensen, M. Sarstedt, J.F. Hair, C.M. Ringle, Prediction: coveted, yet
forsaken? Introducing a cross-validated predictive ability test in partial least squares path modeling, Decision Sci-
ences 52 (2) (2021) 362–392, doi:10.1111/deci.12445.
[32] M. Sarstedt, N.P. Danks, Prediction in HRM research–a gap between rhetoric and reality, Human Resource Manage-
ment Journal 32 (2) (2022) 485–513, doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12400.
[33] S. Gregor, The nature of theory in information systems, MIS Quarterly 30 (3) (2006) 611–642, doi:10.2307/
25148742.
 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074 19

[34] T.K. Dijkstra, PLS’ Janus face–response to professor Rigdon’s ‘rethinking partial least squares modeling: in praise of
simple methods, Long Range Planning 47 (3) (2014) 146–153, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.004.
[35] T.K. Dijkstra, K. Schermelleh-Engel, Consistent partial least squares for nonlinear structural equation models, Psy-
chometrika 79 (4) (2014) 585–604, doi:10.1007/s11336-013- 9370- 0.
[36] P.M. Bentler, W. Huang, On components, latent variables, PLS and simple methods: reactions to Rigdon’s rethinking
of PLS, Long Range Planning 47 (3) (2014) 138–145, doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.005.
[37] W. Huang, PLSe: Efficient Estimators and Tests for Partial Least Square (Dissertation), University of California Los
Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 2013.
[38] K.-H. Yuan, Y. Wen, J. Tang, Regression analysis with latent variables by partial least squares and four other com-
posite scores: consistency, bias and correction, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 27 (3)
(2020) 333–350, doi:10.1080/10705511.2019.1647107.
[39] E.E. Rigdon, M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, On Comparing Results from CB-SEM and PLS-SEM. Five Perspectives and Five
Recommendations, Marketing ZFP 39 (3) (2017) 4–16.
[40] G. Cho, M. Sarstedt, H. Hwang, Comparison of covariance structure analysis, partial least squares path modeling
and generalized structured component analysis in factor- and composite models, British Journal of Mathematical
and Statistical Psychology 75 (2) (2022) 220–251, doi:10.1111/bmsp.12255.
[41] J.F. Hair, G.T.M. Hult, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, K.O. Thiele, Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation
of composite-based structural equation modeling methods, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45 (5)
(2017) 616–632, doi:10.1007/s11747- 017- 0517- x.
[42] H. Wold, Soft modeling: the basic design and some extensions, in: K.G. Jöreskog, H. Wold (Eds.), Systems Under
Indirect Observations: Part II, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 1–54.
[43] J.F. Hair, G.T.M. Hult, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling
(PLS-SEM), 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2022.
[44] G. Russolillo, Non-metric partial least squares, Electronic Journal of Statistics 6 (none) (2012) 1641–1669 29, doi:10.
1214/12-EJS724.
[45] G. Cantaluppi, G. Boari, A partial least squares algorithm handling ordinal variables, in: H. Abdi, V.Esposito Vinzi,
G. Russolillo, G. Saporta, L. Trinchera (Eds.), The Multiple Facets of Partial Least Squares and Related Methods: PLS,
Paris, France, 2014, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016, pp. 295–306, doi:10.1007/978- 3- 319- 40643- 5_
22.
[46] F. Schuberth, J. Henseler, T.K. Dijkstra, Partial least squares path modeling using ordinal categorical indicators,
Quality & Quantity 52 (1) (2018) 9–35, doi:10.1007/s11135- 016- 0401- 7.
[47] J.F. Hair, C.M. Ringle, S.P. Gudergan, A. Fischer, C. Nitzl, C. Menictas, Partial least squares structural equation
modeling-based discrete choice modeling: an illustration in modeling retailer choice, Business Research 12 (1)
(2019) 115–142, doi:10.1007/s40685- 018- 0072- 4.
[48] J.-M. Becker, J.-H. Cheah, R. Gholamzade, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 35 (1) (2023) 321–346, doi:10.1108/IJCHM- 04- 2022- 0474.
[49] M. Sarstedt, P. Bengart, A.M. Shaltoni, S. Lehmann, The use of sampling methods in advertising research: a gap
between theory and practice, International Journal of Advertising 37 (4) (2018) 650–663, doi:10.1080/02650487.
2017.1348329.
[50] U.A. Saari, S. Damberg, L. Frömbling, C.M. Ringle, Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: the influence
of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention, Ecological
Economics 189 (2021) 107155, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107155.
[51] J.-M. Becker, I.R. Ismail, Accounting for sampling weights in PLS path modeling: simulations and empirical exam-
ples, European Management Journal 34 (6) (2016) 606–617, doi:10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.009.
[52] J.-H. Cheah, J.L. Roldán, E. Ciavolino, H. Ting, T. Ramayah, Sampling weight adjustments in partial least squares
structural equation modeling: guidelines and illustrations, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 32
(13-14) (2021) 1594–1613, doi:10.1080/14783363.2020.1754125.
[53] M.A. Webb, J.P. Tangney, Too good to be true: bots and bad data from Mechanical Turk, Perspectives on Psycho-
logical Science (2022), doi:10.1177/17456916221120027.
[54] J. Henseler, C.M. Ringle, R.R. Sinkovics, The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing,
in: R.R. Sinkovics, P.N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances in International Marketing, Emerald Bingley, 2009, pp. 277–320,
doi:10.1108/S1474-7979(20 09)0 0 0 0 020 014.
[55] M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, D. Smith, R. Reams, J.F. Hair, Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM): a useful tool for family business researchers, Journal of Family Business Strategy 5 (1) (2014) 105–115,
doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002.
[56] N. Kock, P. Hadaya, Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: the inverse square root and gamma-exponential
methods, Information Systems Journal 28 (1) (2018) 227–261, doi:10.1111/isj.12131.
[57] J. Cohen, A power primer, Psychological Bulletin 112 (1) (1992) 155–159, doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155.
[58] K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland, Planning study size based on precision rather than power, Epidemiology 29 (5) (2018)
599–603, doi:10.1097/ede.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0876.
[59] R.L. Wasserstein, A.L. Schirm, N.A. Lazar, Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”, The American Statistician 73 (sup1)
(2019) 1–19, doi:10.1080/0 0 031305.2019.1583913.
[60] J.F. Hair, W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R.E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis, 8 ed., Cengage Learning, London, 2018.
[61] H. Wang, S. Lu, Y. Liu, Missing data imputation in PLS-SEM, Quality & Quantity 56 (6) (2022) 4777–4795, doi:10.
1007/s11135- 022- 01338- 4.
[62] M. Sarstedt, E.A. Mooi, A Concise Guide to Market Research: The Process, Data, and Methods Using IBM SPSS
Statistics, 3 ed., Springer, Berlin, 2019, doi:10.1007/978- 3- 642- 12541- 6.
[63] M.I. Aguirre-Urreta, M. Rönkkö, Statistical inference with PLSc using bootstrap confidence intervals, MIS Quarterly
42 (3) (2018) 1001–1020.
[64] C.M. Ringle, S. Wende, J.-M. Becker, SmartPLS 4, SmartPLS, Oststeinbek, 2022.
20 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074

[65] N. Kock, WarpPLS 8.0 User Manual, ScriptWarp Systems, Laredo, TX, 2022.
[66] R Core TeamR: a language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vi-
enna, Austria, 2022 https://www.R-project.org.
[67] M.E. Rademaker, F. Schuberth, Reference manual of the R package cSEM: composite-based structural equation
modeling (version 0.5.0), https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cSEM/cSEM.pdf, 2022.
[68] S. Ray, N.P. Danks, A. Calero Valdez, R package SEMinR: domain-specific language for building and estimating
structural equation models (Version 2.3.2), https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/seminr/2022.
[69] M. Sarstedt, J.F. Hair, M. Pick, B.D. Liengaard, L. Radomir, C.M. Ringle, Progress in partial least squares structural
equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade, Psychology & Marketing 39 (5) (2022) 1035–1064,
doi:10.1002/mar.21640.
[70] A.E. Legate, J.F. Hair, J.L. Chretien, J.J. Risher, PLS-SEM: prediction-oriented solutions for HRD researchers, Human
Resource Development Quarterly 34 (1) (2023) 91–109, doi:10.1002/hrdq.21466.
[71] M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, J.F. Hair, Partial least squares structural equation modeling, in: C. Homburg, M. Klar-
mann, A.E. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of Market Research, Springer, Cham, 2022, pp. 587–632, doi:10.1007/
978- 3- 319- 05542- 8_15- 2.
[72] G.T.M. Hult, J.F. Hair, D. Proksch, M. Sarstedt, A. Pinkwart, C.M. Ringle, Addressing endogeneity in international
marketing applications of partial least squares structural equation modeling, Journal of International Marketing 26
(3) (2018) 1–21, doi:10.1509/jim.17.0151.
[73] C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results, Industrial Management & Data Systems
116 (9) (2016) 1865–1886, doi:10.1108/IMDS-10-2015-0449.
[74] G. Franke, M. Sarstedt, Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a comparison of four procedures,
Internet Research 29 (3) (2019) 430–447, doi:10.1108/IntR- 12- 2017- 0515.
[75] A.M. Farrell, Insufficient discriminant validity: a comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009), Journal of
Business Research 63 (3) (2010) 324–327, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.20 09.05.0 03.
[76] J. Henseler, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based struc-
tural equation modeling, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43 (1) (2015) 115–135, doi:10.1007/
s11747- 014- 0403- 8.
[77] E. Roemer, F. Schuberth, J. Henseler, HTMT2–an improved criterion for assessing discriminant validity in struc-
tural equation modeling, Industrial Management & Data Systems 121 (12) (2021) 2637–2650, doi:10.1108/
IMDS- 02- 2021- 0082.
[78] G. Shmueli, S. Ray, J.M. Velasquez Estrada, S.B. Chatla, The elephant in the room: predictive performance of PLS
models, Journal of Business Research 69 (10) (2016) 4552–4564, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.049.
[79] G. Shmueli, M. Sarstedt, J.F. Hair, J.-H. Cheah, H. Ting, S. Vaithilingam, C.M. Ringle, Predictive model assessment in
PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict, European Journal of Marketing 53 (11) (2019) 2322–2347, doi:10.1108/
EJM- 02- 2019- 0189.
[80] P.N. Sharma, B.D. Liengaard, J.F. Hair, M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, Predictive model assessment and selection in
composite-based modeling using PLS-SEM: extensions and guidelines for using CVPAT, European Journal of Mar-
keting (2022) ahead-of-print, doi:10.1108/EJM- 08- 2020- 0636.
[81] F. Schuberth, M.E. Rademaker, J. Henseler, Assessing the overall fit of composite models estimated by partial least
squares path modeling, European Journal of Marketing (2022) ahead-of-print, doi:10.1108/EJM- 08- 2020- 0586.
[82] W. Chin, J.-H. Cheah, Y. Liu, H. Ting, X.-J. Lim, T.H. Cham, Demystifying the role of causal-predictive modeling using
partial least squares structural equation modeling in information systems research, Industrial Management & Data
Systems 120 (12) (2020) 2161–2209, doi:10.1108/IMDS-10-2019-0529.
[83] M. de Rooij, J.D. Karch, M. Fokkema, Z. Bakk, B.C. Pratiwi, H. Kelderman, SEM-based out-of-sample pvredic-
tions, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 30 (1) (2023) 132–148, doi:10.1080/10705511.2022.
2061494.
[84] G. Shmueli, To explain or to predict? Statistical Science 25 (3) (2010) 289–310 22, doi:10.1214/10-STS330.
[85] J.F. Hair, M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, S.P. Gudergan, Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Mod-
eling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2024.
[86] M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, J.-H. Cheah, H. Ting, O.I. Moisescu, L. Radomir, Structural model robustness checks in
PLS-SEM, Tourism Economics 26 (4) (2020) 531–554, doi:10.1177/1354816618823921.
[87] B. Szaszi, A. Higney, A. Charlton, A. Gelman, I. Ziano, B. Aczel, D.G. Goldstein, D.S. Yeager, E. Tipton, No reason to
expect large and consistent effects of nudge interventions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119
(31) (2022) e2200732119, doi:10.1073/pnas.2200732119.
[88] T. Salzberger, R.R. Sinkovics, B.B. Schlegelmilch, Data equivalence in cross-cultural research: a comparison of clas-
sical test theory and latent trait theory based approaches, Australasian Marketing Journal 7 (2) (1999) 23–38,
doi:10.1016/S1441- 3582(99)70213- 2.
[89] J. Henseler, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares,
International Marketing Review 33 (3) (2016) 405–431, doi:10.1108/IMR- 09- 2014- 0304.
[90] L.M. Federer, C.W. Belter, D.J. Joubert, A. Livinski, Y.L. Lu, L.N. Snyders, H. Thompson, Data sharing in PLOS ONE:
An analysis of Data Availability Statements, PLoS One 13 (5) (2018) e0194768, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194768.
[91] C.F. Camerer, A. Dreber, F. Holzmeister, T.-H. Ho, J. Huber, M. Johannesson, M. Kirchler, G. Nave, B.A. Nosek,
T. Pfeiffer, A. Altmejd, N. Buttrick, T. Chan, Y. Chen, E. Forsell, A. Gampa, E. Heikensten, L. Hummer, T. Imai,
S. Isaksson, D. Manfredi, J. Rose, E.-J. Wagenmakers, H. Wu, Evaluating the replicability of social science ex-
periments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015, Nature Human Behaviour 2 (9) (2018) 637–644,
doi:10.1038/s41562- 018- 0399- z.
[92] E.E. Rigdon, M. Sarstedt, J.-M. Becker, Quantify uncertainty in behavioral research, Nature Human Behaviour 4 (4)
(2020) 329–331, doi:10.1038/s41562- 019- 0806- 0.
 C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt and N. Sinkovics et al. / Data in Brief 48 (2023) 109074 21

[93] E.E. Rigdon, M. Sarstedt, Accounting for uncertainty in the measurement of unobservable marketing phenomena,
in: H. Baumgartner, B. Weijters (Eds.), Measurement in Marketing, Emerald, Bingley, 2022, pp. 53–73, doi:10.1108/
S1548-643520220 0 0 0 0190 03.
[94] APAPublication manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th ed., American Psychological Association,
Washington, 2020, doi:10.1037/0 0 0 0165-0 0 0.
[95] R. Pears, G.J. Shields, Cite them right: the essential referencing guide, 12th ed., Bloomsbury Academic, London,
2022.
[96] M. Rönkkö, E. Cho, An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity, Organizational Research Methods 25
(1) (2022) 6–14, doi:10.1177/1094428120968614.
[97] D. McNeish, Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here, Psychological Methods 23 (3) (2018) 412–433, doi:10.
1037/met0 0 0 0144.
[98] G. Walsh, V.-W. Mitchell, P.R. Jackson, S.E. Beatty, Examining the antecedents and consequences of corporate rep-
utation: a customer perspective, British Journal of Management 20 (2) (2009) 187–203, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.
20 07.0 0557.x.
[99] M.A. Jones, D.L. Mothersbaugh, S.E. Beatty, Switching barriers and repurchase intentions in services, Journal of
Retailing 76 (2) (20 0 0) 259–274, doi:10.1016/S0 022-4359(0 0)0 0 024-5.
[100] A. Usakli, K.G. Kucukergin, Using partial least squares structural equation modeling in hospitality and
tourism, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30 (11) (2018) 3462–3512, doi:10.1108/
IJCHM- 11- 2017- 0753.
[101] E. Bayonne, J.A. Marin-Garcia, R. Alfalla-Luque, Partial least squares (PLS) in operations management research:
insights from a systematic literature review, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 13 (3) (2020),
doi:10.3926/jiem.3416.
[102] N. Zeng, Y. Liu, P. Gong, M. Hertogh, M. König, Do right PLS and do PLS right: a critical review of the application
of PLS-SEM in construction management research, Frontiers of Engineering Management 8 (3) (2021) 356–369,
doi:10.1007/s42524- 021- 0153- 5.
[103] H.-M. Lin, M.-H. Lee, J.-C. Liang, H.-Y. Chang, P. Huang, C.-C. Tsai, A review of using partial least square struc-
tural equation modeling in e-learning research, British Journal of Educational Technology 51 (4) (2020) 1354–1372,
doi:10.1111/bjet.12890.
[104] C.M. Ringle, S. Wende, J.-M. Becker, SmartPLS 3, SmartPLS, Bönningstedt, 2015.
[105] E.R. Thompson, Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and
negative affect schedule (PANAS), Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 38 (2) (2007) 227–242, doi:10.1177/
0022022106297301.
[106] M. van der Gaag, T. Hoffman, M. Remijsen, R. Hijman, L. de Haan, B. van Meijel, P.N. van Harten, L. Valmaggia,
M. de Hert, A. Cuijpers, D. Wiersma, The five-factor model of the positive and negative syndrome scale II: a ten-
fold cross-validation of a revised model, Schizophrenia Research 85 (1) (2006) 280–287, doi:10.1016/j.schres.2006.
03.021.
[107] P. Bech, M. Fava, M.H. Trivedi, S.R. Wisniewski, A.J. Rush, Factor structure and dimensionality of the two depression
scales in STAR∗ D using level 1 datasets, Journal of Affective Disorders 132 (3) (2011) 396–400, doi:10.1016/j.jad.
2011.03.011.
[108] J. He, F.J.R. van de Vijver, A general response style factor: Evidence from a multi-ethnic study in the Netherlands,
Personality and Individual Differences 55 (7) (2013) 794–800, doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.017.
[109] J. He, D. Bartram, I. Inceoglu, F.J.R. van de Vijver, Response styles and personality traits: a multilevel analysis,
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 45 (7) (2014) 1028–1045, doi:10.1177/0022022114534773.
[110] P. De Boeck, F. Rijmen, Response times in cognitive tests: interpretation and importance, in: M.J. Margolis,
R.A. Feinberg (Eds.), Integrating Timing Considerations to Improve Testing Practices, Routledge, New York, NY,
2020, pp. 142–149.
[111] J.P. Peter, Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices, Journal of Marketing Re-
search 16 (1) (1979) 6–17, doi:10.2307/3150868.
[112] D. Folashade, R Package foreach: provides foreach looping construct (version 1.5.2), https://cran.r-project.org/web/
packages/foreach/2022.
[113] J.W. Osborne, Best Practices in Data Cleaning: A Complete Guide to Everything You Need to Do Before and After
Collecting Your Data, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2013.
[114] T.K. Dijkstra, J. Henseler. Consistent partial least squares path modeling, MIS Quarterly 39 (2) (2015) 297-316.
doi:10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02.
[115] G.R. Franke, M. Sarstedt, N.P. Danks, Assessing measurement congruence in nomological networks, Journal of Busi-
ness Research 130 (2021) 318–334, doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.003.