Table 14 Comparison of PLS-SEM and ANN results
Path relationship | PLS-SEM path coefficient | ANN normalized importance (%) | Path Ranking (PLS-SEM) | Path Ranking (ANN) | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ANN Model A (CUR) | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
PEOU → CUR | 0.183 | 70.147% | 2 | 3 | Not Matched |
TEC → CUR | 0.173 | 80.573% | 3 | 2 | Not Matched |
TC → CUR | 0.280 | 100.000% | 1 | 1 | Matched |
ANN Model B (JOY) | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
PEOU → JOY | 0.251 | 99.297% | 2 | 2 | Matched |
TEC → JOY | 0.168 | 43.235% | 3 | 3 | Matched |
TC → JOY | 0.307 | 100.000% | 1 | 1 | Matched |
ANN Model C (CON) | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
PEOU → CON | 0.220 | 99.574% | 2 | 2 | Matched |
TEC → CON | 0.275 | 100.000% | 1 | 1 | Matched |
TC → CON | 0.198 | 86.904% | 3 | 3 | Matched |
ANN Model D (PU) | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
PEOU → PU | 0.280 | 95.300% | 2 | 2 | Matched |
TEC → PU | 0.294 | 100.000% | 1 | 1 | Matched |
TC → PU | 0.144 | 56.019% | 3 | 3 | Matched |
ANN Model E (IM) | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
CUR → IM | 0.217 | 100.000% | 1 | 1 | Matched |
JOY → IM | 0.193 | 75.289% | 2 | 2 | Matched |
CON → IM | 0.169 | 56.695% | 4 | 4 | Matched |
PU → IM | 0.184 | 74.802% | 3 | 3 | Matched |
ANN Model F (BI) | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
CUR → BI | 0.162 | 72.569% | 3 | 4 | Not Matched |
JOY → BI | 0.160 | 83.023% | 4 | 2 | Not Matched |
CON → BI | 0.159 | 62.723% | 5 | 5 | Matched |
PU → BI | 0.189 | 82.780% | 2 | 3 | Not Matched |
IM → BI | 0.225 | 100.000% | 1 | 1 | Matched |
