Letter to Editor "Predictive Preparedness and Recurrent Shock Reduction in Somalia: The Roles of Adaptive Governance and Institutional Fragmentation” [Letter]

We read with interest the study by Rage, which examined the relationships among predictive preparedness, adaptive governance, institutional fragmentation, and recurrent shock reduction in Somalia using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in a cross-sectional sample of 315 respondents. 1 It is a study on an important policy question -can anticipatory preparedness play a role in the process of disaster-risk reduction in a context of fragmented governance?But a few points related to the interpretation of the statistics, moderated mediation, construct measurements and the conclusions that can be drawn need clarification.One obvious worry is that there does not seem to be an agreement on how to interpret the conditional indirect effect at the highest level of institutional fragmentation.The abstract states that the effect was -0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.18 to -0.02; p = 0.012), but it is reported in the abstract as non-significant.This same interpretation is found in the summary of hypothesis testing, while Table 6 classifies this effect as statistically significant.The interval does not contain zero and this result is reported with a p-value that is less than the conventional 0.05 value. 1 The findings should thus not be termed "not significant" without any specific methodological explanation.This difference is especially relevant as it forms the foundation for the main finding in the article: that institutional fragmentation reduces the benefits from preparedness through the mechanism of governance.Another interesting issue is the difference between a conditional indirect effect and evidence of moderated mediation.The study reports a positive indirect effect at low fragmentation (0.10; 95% CI: 0.04-0.16)and a negative effect at high fragmentation (-0.10; 95% CI: -0.18 to -0.02). 1 If these estimates are correct, it appears that the direction of the indirect association may have reversed.This outcome should be given more attention before it is viewed as a diminishing of effect.No, a substantial conditional indirect effect at one value of the moderator and another at another does not prove that there is a significant difference in the conditional indirect effects between the two values.The formal test of the relationship between the moderated mediation and the moderator, typically a so-called index of moderated mediation and its confidence interval 2 is required.The authors should specify whether this index was estimated and report the associated 95% bootstrap confidence interval for the index, and present relevant conditional-effect estimates and interaction plots.Also, the coding and direction of the moderator must be verified as well to be able to properly interpret the negative high-fragmentation estimate.There's one more concern with the measurement specification.In this article, institutional fragmentation is presented as a formative construct but the measurement-model evaluation seems to be reflective indicator-based.Formative and reflective specifications are not equivalent; they are appropriate for different types of relationships between the construct and the indicators, and can be misspecified, which can lead to incorrect interpretations of estimated relationships. 3 Institutional Fragmentation: If the indicators represent institutional fragmentation, rather than a latent trait, then the rationale for the chosen Risk Management and Healthcare Policy 2026:19 663501 1