Purpose: Partial least squares (PLS) has been introduced as a “causal-predictive” approach to structural equation modeling (SEM), designed to overcome the apparent dichotomy between explanation and prediction. However, while researchers using PLS-SEM routinely stress the predictive nature of their analyses, model evaluation assessment relies exclusively on metrics designed to assess the path model’s explanatory power. Recent research has proposed PLSpredict, a holdout sample-based procedure that generates case-level predictions on an item or a construct level. This paper offers guidelines for applying PLSpredict and explains the key choices researchers need to make using the procedure.Design/methodology/approach: The authors discuss the need for prediction-oriented model evaluations in PLS-SEM and conceptually explain and further advance the PLSpredict method. In addition, they illustrate the PLSpredict procedure’s use with a tourism marketing model and provide recommendations on how the results should be interpreted. While the focus of the paper is on the PLSpredict procedure, the overarching aim is to encourage the routine prediction-oriented assessment in PLS-SEM analyses.Findings: The paper advances PLSpredict and offers guidance on how to use this prediction-oriented model evaluation approach. Researchers should routinely consider the assessment of the predictive power of their PLS path models. PLSpredict is a useful and straightforward approach to evaluate the out-of-sample predictive capabilities of PLS path models that researchers can apply in their studies.Research limitations/implications: Future research should seek to extend PLSpredict’s capabilities, for example, by developing more benchmarks for comparing PLS-SEM results and empirically contrasting the earliest antecedent and the direct antecedent approaches to predictive power assessment.Practical implications: This paper offers clear guidelines for using PLSpredict, which researchers and practitioners should routinely apply as part of their PLS-SEM analyses.Originality/value: This research substantiates the use of PLSpredict. It provides marketing researchers and practitioners with the knowledge they need to properly assess, report and interpret PLS-SEM results. Thereby, this research contributes to safeguarding the rigor of marketing studies using PLS-SEM.

Higher-order constructs, which facilitate modeling a construct on a more abstract higher-level dimension and its more concrete lower-order subdimensions, have become an increasingly visible trend in applications of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Unfortunately, researchers frequently confuse the specification, estimation, and validation of higher-order constructs, for example, when it comes to assessing their reliability and validity. Addressing this concern, this paper explains how to evaluate the results of higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM using the repeated indicators and the two-stage approaches, which feature prominently in applied social sciences research. Focusing on the reflective-reflective and reflective-formative types of higher-order constructs, we use the well-known corporate reputation model example to illustrate their specification, estimation, and validation. Thereby, we provide the guidance that scholars, marketing researchers, and practitioners need when using higher-order constructs in their studies.

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.

Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) has become a standard tool for analyzing complex inter-relationships between observed and latent variables in tourism and numerous other fields of scientific inquiry. Along with the recent surge in the method’s use, research has contributed several complementary methods for assessing the robustness of PLS-SEM results. Although these improvements are documented in extant literature, research on tourism has been slow to adopt the relevant complementary methods. This article illustrates the use of recent advances in PLS-SEM, designed to ensure structural model results’ robustness in terms of nonlinear effects, endogeneity, and unobserved heterogeneity in a PLS-SEM framework. Our overarching aim is to encourage the routine use of these complementary methods to increase methodological rigor in the field.

Purpose: Partial 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/approach: A 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.Findings: The 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/value: This 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.