I found several serious problems. Please clarify:
1. HTMT value is too high
In Table 5, the HTMT between SWB and APE is 0.868, which exceeds the recommended threshold of 0.85. Yet the authors claim it is “significantly below 0.85”. This is a clear mistake.
2. The t‑value for the difference is completely wrong
In Table 8, the authors report:
High ME (+1 SD): t = 4.737
Low ME (–1 SD): t = 4.086
Difference: estimate 0.130, t = 0.651, p = 0.001
It is clear that they calculated the t‑value for the difference as 4.737 − 4.086 = 0.651. This is statistically invalid. t‑values cannot be subtracted like that. The correct test for the difference between two conditional indirect effects requires the standard error of the difference, not a subtraction of individual t‑statistics. Therefore, the reported p‑value (0.001) is meaningless. Hypothesis H7 is not properly supported.
3. Wrong threshold
The authors use Harman’s single-factor test and claim that 35.45% variance is acceptable because it is below 40%. However, the widely accepted threshold is 50%. Why did the authors choose 40%? If we use 50%, common method bias becomes a serious concern. Please explain.
I kindly ask the authors to re-check these issues.