Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 46 references

When AI Joins the Team! A Model of How AI Adoption Relates To Social Patterns in Software Engineering Teams

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims AI adoption relates to team social dysfunctions in two ways: indirectly through peer knowledge sharing in specialization work, directly through communication quality in coordination work, complementing rather than replacing

desk verdict Reusable instruments and a solid coordination result, but the specialization mechanism is not established by the paper's own statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03462 v1 pith:ZOWV6VMD submitted 2026-08-04 cs.SE cs.HC

Giusy Annunziata , Rudrajit Choudhuri , Anita Sarma , Gemma Catolino , Filomena Ferrucci This is my paper
classification cs.SEcs.HC
keywords AIadoptioncommunitysmellsTransactiveMemorySystemsPLS-SEMhuman-AIcollaborationsoftwareteamsknowledgesharingcoordination
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether AI-assisted development tools make software teams socially healthier or sicker, and answers that the effect is not one thing. Using survey data from 152 software professionals and five structural-equation models grounded in Transactive Memory Systems theory, it finds two distinct patterns: in knowledge-specialization work, AI use is associated with more frequent peer consultation, which in turn is associated with fewer knowledge-fragmentation and expertise-misalignment problems; in coordination work, AI use is directly associated with lower communication fragmentation and unhealthy interaction, without changing how often teammates interact. The central claim is that AI complements rather than replaces human interaction, but through two different routes depending on the type of collaboration. A reader should care because the finding suggests that whether AI helps or harms a team's social fabric depends on how the tool is integrated, not on the tool alone.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Specialization-Coordination split from Transactive Memory Systems theory, implemented as five separate PLS-SEM structural models. Each model has a Human-AI interaction construct as the independent variable (H_AI_Spec for knowledge and specialization practices, H_AI_Co for coordination), a Human-Human interaction frequency construct as the mediator (HH_Spec, HH_Co), and one community-smell construct as the outcome. The theoretical pivot is that a team's transactive memory, shared awareness of who knows what, is maintained by recurring peer consultations, so AI should relate to specialization smells through the frequency of peer interaction, while coordination sme

What would settle it

Run the same five models on a new, larger sample with a split validation design (EFA on one half, CFA on the other) and a revised HH_Spec scale; the central claim fails if the H_AI_Spec to HH_Spec path is no longer positive and significant, or if HH_Spec no longer predicts lower knowledge fragmentation and expertise misalignment. A longitudinal study measuring the same teams before and after AI adoption would distinguish the complementarity claim from selection effects.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that AI adoption relates to community smells, recurring social dysfunctions such as knowledge hoarding, fragmented communication, and low-engagement interaction, through two structurally different mechanisms. In specialization work (seeking and sharing expertise), developers who integrate AI with an awareness of what to delegate and what to keep human report significantly more frequent peer knowledge sharing (beta about 0.25 in all three models, p between .005 and .014); that peer interaction is in turn associated with lower knowledge/communication fragmentation and lower expertise and cultural misalignment. In coordination work (communicating and aligning tasks)

Load-bearing premise

The specialization result rests on the survey items measuring two distinct things, AI awareness and peer interaction frequency, even though the H_AI_Spec and HH_Spec scales have low Cronbach alphas (as low as 0.38 for H_AI_Spec) and were validated on the same sample used for the structural models; if respondents actually blur AI use with peer consultation, the complementarity reading collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In knowledge-specialization work, AI adoption that is discerning is associated with more peer knowledge sharing, and that sharing is what is associated with fewer knowledge and expertise misalignment smells.
  • In coordination work, AI use is directly associated with lower communication fragmentation and unhealthy interaction, independent of interaction frequency; this is the paper's strongest model, with medium effect sizes.
  • The paper does not find aggregate evidence that AI substitutes for peer interaction; the minority of developers who reported substitution in open-ended comments are read as a conditional risk of undisciplined use, not the average pattern.
  • Because the specialization effects are mediated entirely by peer interaction, interventions to keep teams healthy should preserve or stimulate peer consultation alongside AI adoption rather than focusing only on tool selection.
  • For information sharing, the evidence is less conclusive (a marginal direct association, p = .069), so the paper treats information-governance effects as an open question.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the two-mechanism account implies that the unit of analysis for AI effects on teamwork should be the interaction pattern, not the individual developer; tools designed around single-user prompts may miss or even undermine the complementary route.
  • Editorial inference: a testable moderator is existing team transactive-memory maturity; the AI-to-peer-interaction path should be stronger where teams already have strong awareness of who knows what. A survey or experiment measuring this moderator could check that prediction.
  • Editorial inference: because the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were run on the same sample, an independent-sample replication is the cheapest way to test whether the four smell constructs and the Human-AI versus Human-Human distinction are stable structures rather than sample-specific.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies Transactive Memory Systems (TMS) theory and PLS-SEM to survey data from 152 software professionals to model associations between Human–AI interaction, Human–Human interaction, and four community-smell constructs. Five structural models are estimated, organized along TMS Specialization and Coordination dimensions. The paper's central claim is that AI adoption relates to community smells through two distinct mechanisms: an indirect, complementary pathway in specialization work (AI-related awareness is associated with more peer knowledge-sharing, which in turn is associated with fewer specialization-related smells) and a direct, complementary pathway in coordination work (AI use is directly associated with lower communication fragmentation and unhealthy interaction). The paper also claims to provide a validated, reusable measurement instrument.

Significance. If the results held, the paper would make a useful contribution by moving the AI-adoption debate from individual productivity to team-level social dynamics, and by giving TMS theory a concrete operationalization in the software-engineering AI context. The study has real strengths: it is theory-grounded, uses an established community-smell catalog, reports effect sizes alongside p-values, includes a small expert-validation step, and is unusually candid in its threats-to-validity section. The coordination-side findings, in particular the direct H_AI_Co→Communication Fragmentation path (beta=-0.406, p=.001, f^2=.226), are comparatively robust and potentially valuable. However, the specialization-side mechanism—which is presented as a headline contribution—rests on a construct whose operationalization is mismatched with the paper's language of 'AI adoption,' whose internal-consistency values are very low, and whose mediated indirect effects do not reach conventional significance. As a result, the current manuscript overstates the specialization-side conclusions, and the instrument-validation claim needs substantial revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Table 3; §1; §8.1] Table 3 defines H_AI_Spec as 'the degree to which developers are aware of the specialization boundaries between human and AI knowledge,' and the items (H_AI_Spec_3/4/5) appear to measure awareness/judgment rather than frequency of AI adoption. Yet the abstract, §1, and §8.1 interpret HS1 (H_AI_Spec→HH_Spec, β≈.25, p<.02) as evidence that 'AI adoption is associated with higher peer interaction.' These are different constructs. If H_AI_Spec measures boundary awareness, then HS1 may reflect that developers who see clear boundaries consult peers more—not that using AI increases peer consultation. Please provide the item wording and, if possible, re-estimate the models with an adoption-frequency indicator, or rename/reframe the construct consistently throughout.
  2. [Table 9; §8.1] The indirect effects constituting the specialization mediation mechanism are not statistically established: Knowledge Fragmentation p=.121, Expertise & Cultural Misalignment p=.074, Information Sharing p=.560. None reaches .05. §8.1 nevertheless states that in specialization 'the relationship is entirely mediated.' With non-significant direct paths and non-significant indirect effects, the data do not support a mediation claim. The correct reading is that HS1 and the HH_Spec→smell paths are supported, but the mediated mechanism is not. Please report bootstrap confidence intervals for all indirect effects and either temper the 'entirely mediated' claim or justify it with additional evidence.
  3. [Table 7] H_AI_Spec is defined by the same three items (H_AI_Spec_3/4/5) in all three Specialization models, yet Table 7 reports Cronbach's alpha = 0.384 in the Knowledge Fragmentation model and 0.524 in the Expertise & Cultural Misalignment and Information Sharing models. Since alpha is a function of item covariances, it cannot vary across models with identical items. This is either a reporting error or different item sets/estimation procedures were used. Please clarify. The low alpha values themselves (0.384–0.524) are well below the 0.70 threshold; the claim that rho_c > 0.70 compensates is not convincing without item-level diagnostics.
  4. [§4.1; §9] The EFA that generated the four smell constructs and the CFA that 'confirmed' them are estimated on the same 152 respondents, as the paper acknowledges in §4.1 and §9. This makes the CFA an internal consistency check, not an independent validation. Since these constructs are the outcomes in all five models, and the paper describes the instrument as 'validated,' the claim is stronger than the evidence. Please label this explicitly as exploratory, provide split-sample or replication evidence, or mark the constructs as provisional pending independent validation.
  5. [Table 7; §9] HH_Spec, the mediator in all three Specialization models, has AVE 0.450–0.454, below the conventional 0.50 cutoff, and alpha 0.404. The paper's justification (§6, §9) that rho_c > 0.70 'partially compensates' is not standard convergent-validity practice. Because HH_Spec carries the specialization mechanism, weak convergent validity directly affects the interpretation of HS2.2 and HS3.1. Please provide AVE confidence intervals, item-level loadings, or re-specify the mediator to bring its convergent validity above the standard threshold.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3 vs §7] The hypothesis numbering is internally inconsistent: §4.3 defines HS3.1 as H_AI_Spec→Expertise and Cultural Misalignment and HS3.2 as HH_Spec→Expertise and Cultural Misalignment, but §7 and Table 9 swap these labels. Please harmonize.
  2. [Table 9; Figure 7] In the Unhealthy Interaction model, R²=.002 and R²adj=.005 are reported for HH_Co; adjusted R² cannot exceed R² in this setting. Please correct the value or explain the computation.
  3. [Figure 6 vs Table 9] Figure 6 labels the H_AI_Co→Communication Fragmentation effect as f²=.211, whereas Table 9 reports f²=.226 for HC2.1. Please align the reported effect sizes.
  4. [Acknowledgments] Typo: 'The paper war supported' should be 'The paper was supported.'
  5. [Throughout] The abstract and main text say 'AI adoption' when the operationalized construct H_AI_Spec is defined as 'awareness of specialization boundaries.' Please use consistent terminology that matches the construct definitions, or provide a clear argument that awareness is a valid proxy for adoption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the structural associations are estimated from independent survey data; self-citations are contextual and the same-sample EFA/CFA caveat is explicitly acknowledged.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are PLS-SEM path estimates computed from 152 survey responses; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction and no equation reduces to an input by construction. The constructs are operationalized with items adapted from an external TMS instrument [23], and the community-smell aggregates are built from the external catalog [7] via expert judgment and EFA, explicitly described by the authors as higher-level constructs rather than renamed known results: "we interpret them not as community smells in the strict, catalog-level sense, but as higher-order socio-technical conditions" (Section 4.1). Self-citations ([4,5,12,29,43]) appear as background, domain examples, or methodological precedents; none supplies the load-bearing evidence for the AI-smell associations, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The one genuine methodological caveat—the same-sample EFA then CFA in Section 4.1—is explicitly acknowledged in Section 9 as "best read as evidence of internal consistency rather than as a fully independent validation of the factor structure"; this weakens construct-validity claims and should be weighed when interpreting H_AI_Spec/HH_Spec (whose alpha values around 0.38-0.52 and AVE around 0.45 fall below conventional thresholds), but it is a validation limitation, not a circularity of the structural derivation. Similarly, the non-significant indirect effects (p = .121, .074, .560) and the marginal paths affect evidential strength, not circularity. The skeptical concern that H_AI_Spec measures awareness of boundaries rather than bare adoption is a construct-validity question; the paper consistently interprets the path as a 'discerning integration' association, and the path is an empirical correlation estimated from data, not a tautology. No fitted result is renamed as an external prediction, and the paper is self-contained against its own data rather than against a derived benchmark.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The paper's model rests on theoretical and measurement assumptions rather than ad hoc fitted constants. The path coefficients are estimated outcomes, not free inputs. The four higher-order smell constructs are new aggregations validated on the same sample, so they lack independent confirmation.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption TMS theory is a valid lens for modeling how AI adoption affects team knowledge dynamics.
    Invoked in Section 2.3 as the theoretical basis for selecting Specialization and Coordination dimensions and for specifying HH_Spec as a mediator.
  • domain assumption Self-reported Likert responses from 152 developers accurately reflect actual AI use, peer interaction frequency, and perceived community smells.
    All constructs are measured through a single self-report survey (Section 5.1); the authors acknowledge common method bias as a threat but do not have external behavioral data.
  • domain assumption Reflective measurement is appropriate for all constructs, meaning items co-vary as manifestations of a common latent state.
    Stated in Section 4.2 and supported only by same-sample EFA/CFA results, which are not an independent validation.
  • domain assumption Cross-sectional between-respondent associations can be interpreted as evidence about mechanisms of AI adoption.
    The entire mediation story relies on this assumption; the authors acknowledge in Section 9 that causal direction and unobserved third variables cannot be excluded.
invented entities (4)
  • Knowledge/Communication Fragmentation higher-order construct
    purpose: Aggregates Organizational Silo Effect, Black Cloud Effect, Radio Silence, Truck Factor, and Newbie Free-Riding into one latent dysfunction for SEM.
    Introduced in Section 4.1 and validated only through same-sample EFA and CFA; no external replications.
  • Expertise and Cultural Misalignment higher-order construct
    purpose: Aggregates Organizational Skirmish, Solution Defiance, and Cognitive Distance into one latent construct.
    Same-sample factor analysis only; the construct is a new aggregation, not a previously established scale.
  • Unhealthy Interaction construct
    purpose: Captures low participation and delayed communication; retained as a single-smell cluster.
    The EFA/CFA on the same sample retained only three items, eliminating other candidate smells from this cluster.
  • Information Sharing higher-order construct
    purpose: Aggregates Sharing Villainy and Informality Excess into a latent information-governance dysfunction.
    Derived from catalog smells and confirmed only on the same survey sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When AI Joins the Team! A Model of How AI Adoption Relates To Social Patterns in Software Engineering Teams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZOWV6VMD

@misc{pith2026260803462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When AI Joins the Team! A Model of How AI Adoption Relates To Social Patterns in Software Engineering Teams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZOWV6VMD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03462}
}
read the original abstract

Context: The growing adoption of AI-assisted development tools is changing how software teams collaborate, share knowledge, and coordinate, yet its consequences for team social dynamics remain largely unexplored. Gap: It is unclear whether AI adoption is associated with an increase or reduction in community smells,socio-technical anti-patterns reflecting coordination and communication breakdowns,and through which mechanisms. Method: Grounded in Transactive Memory Systems (TMS) theory, we validate instruments for HumanAI and HumanHuman interaction along two TMS dimensions, Specialization and Coordination, and test five PLS-SEM models on survey data from 152 software professionals using AI tools. Community smell constructs were derived from the literature and validated through expert surveys and factor analysis. Results: AI adoption relates to community smells not in a single way, but through mechanisms depending on the work. In specialization work, AI is associated with higher knowledge-sharing peer interaction, which is in turn associated with fewer smells. In coordination work, AI is directly associated with higher communication quality, complementing rather than replacing human interaction. Contributions: We provide an empirically validated, TMS-grounded model showing that the AIcommunity-smell relationship is contingent on the type of collaboration, with a reusable instrument and evidence-based implications for research and practice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the Research Process 4 Models Creation In this section, we discuss the variables of our study and the conjectured hypotheses among them. Starting from them, we create our Measurement Models and Structural Models. 4.1 Community Smells Categorization As a first step in identifying the constructs for our study, we focused on well-established social anti-patterns in software engineering, i.e., Community Smel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Measurement and Structural Models. The questionnaire was organized into multiple sections, each corresponding to a specific construct in the measurement model. Specifically, the survey included: • Demographic Analysis of the participants and information related to AI tools adoption; • a section measuring Human–AI Interaction, capturing how developers integrate and coordinate AI tools within their daily workflow, bot… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Knowledge Fragmentation Model HS2.1 — H_AI_Spec → Knowledge Fragmentation is not supported (𝛽 = −.155, 𝑇 = 1.197, 𝑝 = .231). The direct effect of AI specialization on Knowledge Fragmentation does not reach statistical significance, suggesting that H_AI_Spec does not independently explain variation in knowledge fragmentation without passing through changes in Human–Human interaction. The effect size is small (𝑓 2 = .… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Expertise and Cultural Misalignment Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Information Sharing Model adoption to these smells is not significant — an indirect, complementary pattern in which AI relates to healthier specialization dynamics through increased peer interaction. • Information Sharing shows no statistically confirmed association wi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Communication Fragmentation Model effects of both H_AI_Co and HH_Co on Fragmentation — reflects the non-significant and slightly negative path HC1 (𝛽 = −.115). Both H_AI_Co and HH_Co exert independent direct effects on Communication Fragmentation, without operating thr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Unhealthy Interaction Model The indirect effect of H_AI_Co on Unhealthy Interaction via HH_Co is negligible and non-significant (𝛽 = −.011, 𝑇 = 0.334, 𝑝 = .738), confirming the absence of mediation. As in the Communication Fragmentation model, H_AI_Co and HH_Co exert i…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nuri Almarimi, Ali Ouni, Moataz Chouchen, and Mohamed Wiem Mkaouer. 2021. csDetector: an open source tool for community smells detection. InProceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 1560–1564

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Dorine Andrews, Blair Nonnecke, and Jennifer Preece. 2007. Conducting research on the internet:: Online survey design, development and implementation guidelines. (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    2026.Online Appendix - When AI Joins the Team! A Model of How AI Adoption Relates To Social Patterns in Software Engineering Teams

    Giusy Annunziata, Rudrajit Choudhuri, Anita Sarma, Gemma Catolino, and Filomena Ferrucci. 2026.Online Appendix - When AI Joins the Team! A Model of How AI Adoption Relates To Social Patterns in Software Engineering Teams. https://figshare.com/s/049262625ee0f6cbaa74

    work page arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Giusy Annunziata, Stefano Lambiase, Fabio Palomba, Gemma Catolino, and Filomena Ferrucci. 2025. How Do Communities of ML-Enabled Systems Smell? A Cross-Sectional Study on the Prevalence of Community Smells.Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE)(2025), to appear. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.17419

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Giusy Annunziata, Stefano Lambiase, Damian A Tamburri, Willem-Jan Van Den Heuvel, Fabio Palomba, Gemma Catolino, Filomena Ferrucci, and Andrea De Lucia. 2025. Uncovering community smells in machine learning-enabled systems: Causes, effects, and mitigation strategies.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology34, 6 (2025), 1–48

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Guilherme Avelino, Leonardo Passos, Andre Hora, and Marco Tulio Valente. 2016. A novel approach for estimating Truck Factors. In2016 IEEE 24th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). 1–10. doi:10.1109/ICPC.2016.7503718

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Eduardo Caballero-Espinosa, Jeffrey C Carver, and Kimberly Stowers. 2023. Community smells—The sources of social debt: A systematic literature review.Information and Software Technology(2023), 107078

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Marcelo Cataldo, Patrick A Wagstrom, James D Herbsleb, and Kathleen M Carley. 2006. Identification of coordination requirements: Implications for the design of collaboration and awareness tools. InProceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 353–362

    work page 2006

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Gemma Catolino, Fabio Palomba, Damian Andrew Tamburri, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2021. Understanding community smells variability: A statistical approach. In2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society (ICSE-SEIS). IEEE, 77–86

    2021

  2. [10]

    Tamburri, Alexander Serebrenik, and Filomena Ferrucci

    Gemma Catolino, Fabio Palomba, Damian A. Tamburri, Alexander Serebrenik, and Filomena Ferrucci. 2019. Gender Diversity and Women in Software Teams: How Do They Affect Community Smells?. In2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Gemma Catolino, Fabio Palomba, Damian Andrew Tamburri, Alexander Serebrenik, and Filomena Ferrucci. 2020. Refactoring community smells in the wild: the practitioner’s field manual. InProceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software En...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Rudrajit Choudhuri, Bianca Trinkenreich, Rahul Pandita, Eirini Kalliamvakou, Igor Steinmacher, Marco Gerosa, Christopher Sanchez, and Anita Sarma. 2025. What Guides Our Choices? Modeling Developers’ Trust and Behavioral Intentions Towards GenAI. In2025 IEEE/ACM 47th Internatio...

    2025

  5. [13]

    2013.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

    Jacob Cohen. 2013.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. routledge

    2013

  6. [14]

    Felipe Ebert, Alexander Serebrenik, Christoph Treude, Nicole Novielli, and Fernando Castor. 2022. On Recruiting Experienced GitHub Contributors for Interviews and Surveys on Prolific. InInternational Workshop on Recruiting Participants for Empirical Software Engineering

    2022

  7. [15]

    Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Axel Buchner, and Albert-Georg Lang. 2009. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses.Behavior research methods41, 4 (2009), 1149–1160

    2009

  8. [16]

    Samuel Ferino, Rashina Hoda, John Grundy, and Christoph Treude. 2025. Walking the Tightrope of LLMs for Software Development: A Practitioners’ Perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06428(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Timothy S Flanigan, Emily McFarlane, and Sarah Cook. 2008. Conducting survey research among physicians and other medical professionals: a review of current literature. InProceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, Vol. 1. 4136–47

    2008

  10. [18]

    Joseph F Hair, Jeffrey J Risher, Marko Sarstedt, and Christian M Ringle. 2019. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM.European business review31, 1 (2019), 2–24

    2019

  11. [19]

    2021.A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)

    Joe Hair Jr, Joseph F Hair Jr, G Tomas M Hult, Christian M Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2021.A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications

    2021

  12. [20]

    James Heckman. 1990. Varieties of selection bias.The American Economic Review80, 2 (1990), 313–318. When AI Joins the Team! 43

    1990

  13. [21]

    Jörg Henseler, Christian M Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling.Journal of the academy of marketing science43 (2015), 115–135

    2015

  14. [22]

    Matt C Howard. 2016. A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve?International journal of human-computer interaction32, 1 (2016), 51–62

    2016

  15. [23]

    Chi-Cheng Huang and Pin-Nan Hsieh. 2017. Inspiring creativity in teams: Perspectives of transactive memory systems.Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology11 (2017), e6

    2017

  16. [24]

    Katherine J Hunt, Natalie Shlomo, and Julia Addington-Hall. 2013. Participant recruitment in sensitive surveys: a comparative trial of ‘opt in’versus ‘opt out’approaches.BMC medical research methodology13 (2013), 1–8

    2013

  17. [25]

    Henry F Kaiser. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity.psychometrika39, 1 (1974), 31–36

    1974

  18. [26]

    Barbara A Kitchenham and Shari L Pfleeger. 2008. Personal Opinion Surveys. InGuide to advanced empirical software engineering. Springer, 63–92

    2008

  19. [27]

    Ned Kock. 2019. From composites to factors: B ridging the gap between PLS and covariance-based structural equation modelling.Information Systems Journal29, 3 (2019), 674–706

    2019

  20. [28]

    Ned Kock and Pierre Hadaya. 2018. Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal28, 1 (2018), 227–261. doi:10.1111/isj.12131

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Tamburri, Alexander Serebrenik, Fabio Palomba, and Filomena Ferrucci

    Stefano Lambiase, Gemma Catolino, Damian A. Tamburri, Alexander Serebrenik, Fabio Palomba, and Filomena Ferrucci. 2022. Good Fences Make Good Neighbours? On the Impact of Cultural and Geographical Dispersion on Community Smells. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE 44th Internat...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Stefano Lambiase, Manuel De Stefano, Fabio Palomba, Filomena Ferrucci, and Andrea De Lucia. 2025. Socio-Technical Well-Being of Quantum Software Communities: An Overview on Community Smells. InEuromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. Springer, 39–56

    2025

  23. [31]

    Hanneke Loerts and Greg Poarch. 2026. JASP for (web-based) statistics. InDigital and Internet-Based Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 386–411

    2026

  24. [32]

    Fabio Palomba, Damian Andrew Tamburri, Francesca Arcelli Fontana, Rocco Oliveto, Andy Zaidman, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2021. Beyond Technical Aspects: How Do Community Smells Influence the Intensity of Code Smells?IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering47, 1 (Jan. 2021), 1...

    2021

  25. [33]

    Naveen Raman, Minxuan Cao, Yulia Tsvetkov, Christian Kästner, and Bogdan Vasilescu. 2020. Stress and burnout in open source: toward finding, understanding, and mitigating unhealthy interactions. InProceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineerin...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Irum Rauf, Helen Sharp, Tamara Lopez, and Michel Wermelinger. 2025. Human-Machine Teaming and Team Effectiveness in AI Tools for Software Engineering. In2025 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). 75–80. doi:10....

    2025

  27. [35]

    Brittany Reid, Markus Wagner, Marcelo d’Amorim, and Christoph Treude. 2022. Software Engineering User Study Recruitment on Prolific: An Experience Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.05348(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Daniel Russo. 2024. Navigating the complexity of generative ai adoption in software engineering.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology33, 5 (2024), 1–50

    2024

  29. [37]

    Daniel Russo and Klaas-Jan Stol. 2021. PLS-SEM for software engineering research: An introduction and survey.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 4 (2021), 1–38

    2021

  30. [38]

    Marko Sarstedt, Christian M Ringle, and Joseph F Hair. 2017. Treating unobserved heterogeneity in PLS-SEM: A multi-method approach.Partial least squares path modeling: Basic concepts, methodological issues and applications(2017), 197–217

    2017

  31. [39]

    Damian Andrew Tamburri, Rick Kazman, and Hamed Fahimi. 2016. The architect’s role in community shepherding.IEEE Software33, 6 (2016), 70–79

    2016

  32. [40]

    Damian A Tamburri, Philippe Kruchten, Patricia Lago, and Hans van Vliet. 2015. Social debt in software engineering: insights from industry.Journal of Internet Services and Applications6 (2015), 1–17

    2015

  33. [41]

    Tamburri, Fabio Palomba, and Rick Kazman

    Damian A. Tamburri, Fabio Palomba, and Rick Kazman. 2021. Exploring Community Smells in Open-Source: An Automated Approach.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering47, 3 (March 2021), 630–652. doi:10.1109/TSE.2019.2901490

    2021

  34. [42]

    Parastou Tourani, Yujuan Jiang, and Bram Adams. 2014. Monitoring sentiment in open source mailing lists: exploratory study on the apache ecosystem.. InCASCON, Vol. 14. 34–44

    2014

  35. [43]

    Bianca Trinkenreich, Klaas-Jan Stol, Anita Sarma, Daniel M German, Marco A Gerosa, and Igor Steinmacher. 2023. Do i belong? modeling sense of virtual community among linux kernel contributors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.06437(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Daniel M Wegner. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. InTheories of group behavior. Springer, 185–208

    1987

  37. [45]

    2012.Experimentation in software engineering

    Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012.Experimentation in software engineering. Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  38. [46]

    Ilya Zakharov, Ekaterina Koshchenko, and Agnia Sergeyuk. 2025. Ai in software engineering: Perceived roles and their impact on adoption. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 1305–1309

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.