Search results

This study aims to examine the role of an overall model fit assessment in the context of partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM). In doing so, it will explain when it is important to assess the overall model fit and provides ways of assessing the fit of composite models. Moreover, it will resolve major concerns about model fit assessment that have been raised in the literature on PLS-PM.

This paper explains when and how to assess the fit of PLS path models. Furthermore, it discusses the concerns raised in the PLS-PM literature about the overall model fit assessment and provides concise guidelines on assessing the overall fit of composite models.

This study explains that the model fit assessment is as important for composite models as it is for common factor models. To assess the overall fit of composite models, researchers can use a statistical test and several fit indices known through structural equation modeling (SEM) with latent variables.

Researchers who use PLS-PM to assess composite models that aim to understand the mechanism of an underlying population and draw statistical inferences should take the concept of the overall model fit seriously.

To facilitate the overall fit assessment of composite models, this study presents a two-step procedure adopted from the literature on SEM with latent variables.

This paper clarifies that the necessity to assess model fit is not a question of which estimator will be used (PLS-PM, maximum likelihood, etc). but of the purpose of statistical modeling. Whereas, the model fit assessment is paramount in explanatory modeling, it is not imperative in predictive modeling.

Researchers often stress the predictive goals of their partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analyses. However, the method has long lacked a statistical test to compare different models in terms of their predictive accuracy and to establish whether a proposed model offers a significantly better out-of-sample predictive accuracy than a naïve benchmark. This paper aims to address this methodological research gap in predictive model assessment and selection in composite-based modeling.

Recent research has proposed the cross-validated predictive ability test (CVPAT) to compare theoretically established models. This paper proposes several extensions that broaden the scope of CVPAT and explains the key choices researchers must make when using them. A popular marketing model is used to illustrate the CVPAT extensions’ use and to make recommendations for the interpretation and benchmarking of the results.

This research asserts that prediction-oriented model assessments and comparisons are essential for theory development and validation. It recommends that researchers routinely consider the application of CVPAT and its extensions when analyzing their theoretical models.

The findings offer several avenues for future research to extend and strengthen prediction-oriented model assessment and comparison in PLS-SEM.

Guidelines are provided for applying CVPAT extensions and reporting the results to help researchers substantiate their models’ predictive capabilities.

This research contributes to strengthening the predictive model validation practice in PLS-SEM, which is essential to derive managerial implications that are typically predictive in nature.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the appropriateness of equal weights estimation (sumscores) and the application of the composite equivalence index (CEI) vis-à-vis differentiated indicator weights produced by partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).

The authors rely on prior literature as well as empirical illustrations and a simulation study to assess the efficacy of equal weights estimation and the CEI.

The results show that the CEI lacks discriminatory power, and its use can lead to major differences in structural model estimates, conceals measurement model issues and almost always leads to inferior out-of-sample predictive accuracy compared to differentiated weights produced by PLS-SEM.

In light of its manifold conceptual and empirical limitations, the authors advise against the use of the CEI. Its adoption and the routine use of equal weights estimation could adversely affect the validity of measurement and structural model results and understate structural model predictive accuracy. Although this study shows that the CEI is an unsuitable metric to decide between equal weights and differentiated weights, it does not propose another means for such a comparison.

The results suggest that researchers and practitioners should prefer differentiated indicator weights such as those produced by PLS-SEM over equal weights.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide a comprehensive assessment of the CEI’s usefulness. The results provide guidance for researchers considering using equal indicator weights instead of PLS-SEM-based weighted indicators.

In their paper titled “A Miracle of Measurement or Accidental Constructivism? How PLS Subverts the Realist Search for Truth,” Cadogan and Lee (2022) cast serious doubt on PLS’s suitability for scientific studies. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the claims of Cadogan and Lee, correct some inaccuracies, and derive recommendations for researchers using structural equation models.

This paper uses scenario analysis to show which estimators are appropriate for reflective measurement models and composite models, and formulates the statistical model that underlies PLS Mode A. It also contrasts two different perspectives: PLS as an estimator for structural equation models vs. PLS-SEM as an overarching framework with a sui generis logic.

There are different variants of PLS, which include PLS, consistent PLS, PLSe1, PLSe2, proposed ordinal PLS and robust PLS, each of which serves a particular purpose. All of these are appropriate for scientific inquiry if applied properly. It is not PLS that subverts the realist search for truth, but some proponents of a framework called “PLS-SEM.” These proponents redefine the term “reflective measurement,” argue against the assessment of model fit and suggest that researchers could obtain “confirmation” for their model.

Researchers should be more conscious, open and respectful regarding different research paradigms.

Researchers should select a statistical model that adequately represents their theory, not necessarily a common factor model, and formulate their model explicitly. Particularly for instrumentalists, pragmatists and constructivists, the composite model appears promising. Researchers should be concerned about their estimator’s properties, not about whether it is called “PLS.” Further, researchers should critically evaluate their model, not seek confirmation or blindly believe in its value.

This paper critically appraises Cadogan and Lee (2022) and reminds researchers who wish to use structural equation modeling, particularly PLS, for their statistical analysis, of some important scientific principles.

Generalized structured component analysis (GSCA) and partial least squares path modeling (PLSPM) are two key component-based approaches to structural equation modeling that facilitate the analysis of theoretically established models in terms of both explanation and prediction. This study aims to offer a comparative evaluation of GSCA and PLSPM in a predictive modeling framework.

A simulation study compares the predictive performance of GSCA and PLSPM under various simulation conditions and different prediction types of correctly specified and misspecified models.

The results suggest that GSCA with reflective composite indicators (GSCA_R) is the most versatile approach. For observed prediction, which uses the component scores to generate prediction for the indicators, GSCA_R performs slightly better than PLSPM with mode A. For operative prediction, which considers all parameter estimates to generate predictions, both methods perform equally well. GSCA with formative composite indicators and PLSPM with mode B generally lag behind the other methods.

Future research may further assess the methods’ prediction precision, considering more experimental factors with a wider range of levels, including more extreme ones.

When prediction is the primary study aim, researchers should generally revert to GSCA_R, considering its performance for observed and operative prediction together.

This research is the first to compare the relative efficacy of GSCA and PLSPM in terms of predictive power.

The purpose of this paper is to present integrated generalized structured component analysis (IGSCA) as a versatile approach for estimating models that contain both components and factors as statistical proxies for the constructs. The paper sets out to discuss the how-tos of using IGSCA by explaining how to specify, estimate, and evaluate different types of models. The paper’s overarching aim is to make business researchers aware of this promising structural equation modeling (SEM) method.

By merging works of literature from various fields of science, the paper provides an overview of the steps that are required to run IGSCA. Findings from conceptual, analytical and empirical articles are combined to derive concrete guidelines for IGSCA use. Finally, an empirical case study is used to illustrate the analysis steps with the GSCA Pro software.

Many of the principles and metrics known from partial least squares path modeling – the most prominent component-based SEM method – are also relevant in the context of IGSCA. However, there are differences in model specification, estimation and evaluation (e.g. assessment of overall model fit).

Methodological developments associated with IGSCA are rapidly emerging. The metrics reported in this paper are useful for current applications, but researchers should follow the latest developments in the field.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to offer guidelines for IGSCA use and to illustrate the method's application by means of the GSCA Pro software. The recommendations and illustrations guide researchers who are seeking to conduct IGSCA studies in business research and practice.

Over the past 20 years, partial least squares (PLS) has become a popular method in marketing research. At the same time, several methodological studies have demonstrated problems with the technique but have had little impact on its use in marketing research practice. This study aims to present some of these criticisms in a reader-friendly way for non-methodologists.

Key critiques of PLS are summarized and demonstrated using existing data sets in easily replicated ways. Recommendations are made for assessing whether PLS is a useful method for a given research problem.

PLS is fundamentally just a way of constructing scale scores for regression. PLS provides no clear benefits for marketing researchers and has disadvantages that are features of the original design and cannot be solved within the PLS framework itself. Unweighted sums of item scores provide a more robust way of creating scale scores.

The findings strongly suggest that researchers abandon the use of PLS in typical marketing studies.

This paper provides concrete examples and techniques to practicing marketing and social science researchers regarding how to incorporate composites into their work, and how to make decisions regarding such.

This work presents a novel perspective on PLS critiques by showing how researchers can use their own data to assess whether PLS (or another composite method) can provide any advantage over simple sum scores. A composite equivalence index is introduced for this purpose.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a well-established and frequently applied method in various disciplines. New methods in the context of SEM are being introduced in an ongoing manner. Since formal proof of statistical properties is difficult or impossible, new methods are frequently justified using Monte Carlo simulations. For SEM with covariance-based estimators, several tools are available to perform Monte Carlo simulations. Moreover, several guidelines on how to conduct a Monte Carlo simulation for SEM with these tools have been introduced. In contrast, software to estimate structural equation models with variance-based estimators such as partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM) is limited.

As a remedy, the R package cSEM which allows researchers to estimate structural equation models and to perform Monte Carlo simulations for SEM with variance-based estimators has been introduced. This manuscript provides guidelines on how to conduct a Monte Carlo simulation for SEM with variance-based estimators using the R packages cSEM and cSEM.DGP.

The author introduces and recommends a six-step procedure to be followed in conducting each Monte Carlo simulation.

For each of the steps, common design patterns are given. Moreover, these guidelines are illustrated by an example Monte Carlo simulation with ready-to-use R code showing that PLS-PM needs the constructs to be embedded in a nomological net to yield valuable results.

The purpose of this paper is to integrate the findings of articles appearing in European Journal of Marketing’s special section on covariance-based versus composite-based structural equations modeling (SEM).

This is an editorial which uses literature review to draw conclusions regarding areas of agreement, areas for further research, and changing the discussion around composite-based SEM methods.

There are now four new areas of agreement regarding composite-based SEM. Researchers should adopt a toolbox approach to their methods and know the strengths and weaknesses of the research tools in their toolbox. Partial least squares (PLS) SEM and covariance-based SEM are not substitutes, and it is inappropriate to use the language of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in reporting measurement estimates from PLS SEM. Measurement matters and researchers need to devote effort to using reliable and valid multi-item measures in their investigations.

This postscript article outlines recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors regarding the analysis of data and reporting of results using structural equations models.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence that technological, environmental and organizational factors have on the rate of Internet of Things (IoT) adoption within the logistics industry. In addition, the moderating effect that the risk factor has on the technological, environmental and organizational factors regarding the implementation of IoT in logistics.

For the purpose of testing the models and hypotheses, a survey was carried out in order to collect the responses from currently employed individuals at various companies working in the field of logistics or IoT. For the purpose of analysis, the authors made use of the partial least squares structure equation model (PLS-SEM) technique.

Findings of this study concluded that technology- and environmental-related factors significantly affect the adoption of IoT in logistics, while risk acts as a moderator for the technological-related factor only in the adoption of IoT in logistics.

The relevance of the authors' study lies in the growing importance of IoT in logistics and the need for logistics companies to understand the factors that impact the adoption of IoT in their operations. By identifying and analyzing the factors that influence IoT adoption in logistics, the authors' study provides valuable insights that can help logistics companies make informed decisions about whether and how to adopt IoT.

The research will help organizations make strategies for the successful adoption of IoT and ease the lives of all the stakeholders.

In this research, the authors attempted to find the factors that influence the adoption of IoT in logistics management. The influence of the technological, environmental, organizational and risk-related factors on the adoption of IoT in logistics management was studied. The moderating effect of risk over these factors on the adoption of IoT in logistics was also analyzed. This is original work and has never been done earlier.