Search results

1 – 10 of over 4000
Open Access
Article
Publication date: 17 August 2022

Jörg Henseler and Florian Schuberth

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…

2055

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Research limitations/implications

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

Practical implications

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.

Originality/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.

Article
Publication date: 26 September 2023

Siqi Wang, Jun-Hwa Cheah, Chee Yew Wong and T. Ramayah

This study aims to evaluate the usage of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in journals related to logistics and supply chain management (LSCM).

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to evaluate the usage of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in journals related to logistics and supply chain management (LSCM).

Design/methodology/approach

Based on a structured literature review approach, the authors reviewed 401 articles in the field of LSCM applying PLS-SEM published in 15 major journals between 2014 and 2022. The analysis focused on reasons for using PLS-SEM, measurement model and structural model evaluation criteria, advanced analysis techniques and reporting practices.

Findings

LSCM researchers sometimes did not clarify the reasons for using PLS-SEM, such as sample size, complex models and non-normal distributions. Additionally, most articles exhibit limited use of measurement models and structural model evaluation techniques, leading to inappropriate use of assessment criteria. Furthermore, progress in the practical implementation of advanced analysis techniques is slow, and there is a need for improved transparency in reporting analysis algorithms.

Originality/value

This study contributes to the field of LSCM by providing clear criteria and steps for using PLS-SEM, enriching the understanding and advancement of research methodologies in this field.

Details

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0960-0035

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 20 April 2023

Kevin E. Voss

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…

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Originality/value

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

Details

European Journal of Marketing, vol. 57 no. 6
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0309-0566

Keywords

Open Access
Article
Publication date: 13 April 2022

Florian Schuberth, Manuel E. Rademaker and Jörg Henseler

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…

5878

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Research limitations/implications

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.

Practical implications

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.

Originality/value

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.

Details

European Journal of Marketing, vol. 57 no. 6
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0309-0566

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 18 May 2023

Tamara Schamberger

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…

Abstract

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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

Originality/value

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.

Details

Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 123 no. 6
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0263-5577

Keywords

Open Access
Article
Publication date: 8 February 2024

Joseph F. Hair, Pratyush N. Sharma, Marko Sarstedt, Christian M. Ringle and Benjamin D. Liengaard

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

2595

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Research limitations/implications

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.

Practical implications

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

Originality/value

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.

Details

European Journal of Marketing, vol. 58 no. 13
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0309-0566

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 10 November 2023

Bamidele Temitope Arijeloye

This paper aims to help understand how adopting risk allocation criteria impacts the delivery of public–private partnership (PPP) mass housing in Nigeria with the view of…

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to help understand how adopting risk allocation criteria impacts the delivery of public–private partnership (PPP) mass housing in Nigeria with the view of promoting the adoption of PPP housing scheme in Nigeria.

Design/methodology/approach

The research design adopts the census sampling approach by using well-structured questionnaires distributed to stakeholders involved in PPP-procured mass housing projects, i.e. consultants, in-house professionals, contractors and the organized private sector, registered with PPP departments in the Federal Capital Territory Development Authority, Abuja, Nigeria. Sixty-three risk factors, nine risk allocation criteria and nine project delivery indices were submitted for the respondents to rank on a Likert scale of 7. Two hypotheses were formulated to test whether the risk allocation criteria impacted PPP mass housing delivery or otherwise. The study adopts partial least square-structural equation modeling to model the effect of risk on risk allocation criteria on project delivery indices and risk severity.

Findings

The finding shows that project risk allocation criteria have less effect on project delivery indices than on risk severity. The study concludes that risk allocation principles do not directly affect the delivery of PPP-procured mass housing projects. This is evident by the path coefficient of 0.724 values, which is not statistically significant at a 5% alpha protection value. The study concludes that allocating critical risk factors influences the performance of PPP-procured mass housing projects, as the path coefficient of 0.360 is also not significantly far from 0 and at a 5% alpha protection value.

Originality/value

The study is one of the recent studies conducted in PPP-procured mass housing projects in Nigeria owing to the novelty of procurement option in the sector. It highlights the risk factors that can jeopardize the PPP-procured mass housing project objectives. The study is of immense value to PPP actors in the sector by providing the necessary information required to formulate risk response methods to minimize the impact of the risk factors in PPP mass housing projects.

Details

Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology , vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1726-0531

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 28 March 2022

Gyeongcheol Cho, Sunmee Kim, Jonathan Lee, Heungsun Hwang, Marko Sarstedt and Christian M. Ringle

Generalized structured component analysis (GSCA) and partial least squares path modeling (PLSPM) are two key component-based approaches to structural equation modeling that…

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

The results suggest that GSCA with reflective composite indicators (GSCAR) is the most versatile approach. For observed prediction, which uses the component scores to generate prediction for the indicators, GSCAR 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.

Research limitations/implications

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

Practical implications

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

Originality/value

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

Details

European Journal of Marketing, vol. 57 no. 6
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0309-0566

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 1 February 2024

Hakeem A. Owolabi, Azeez A. Oyedele, Lukumon Oyedele, Hafiz Alaka, Oladimeji Olawale, Oluseyi Aju, Lukman Akanbi and Sikiru Ganiyu

Despite an enormous body of literature on conflict management, intra-group conflicts vis-à-vis team performance, there is currently no study investigating the conflict prevention…

Abstract

Purpose

Despite an enormous body of literature on conflict management, intra-group conflicts vis-à-vis team performance, there is currently no study investigating the conflict prevention approach to handling innovation-induced conflicts that may hinder smooth implementation of big data technology in project teams.

Design/methodology/approach

This study uses constructs from conflict theory, and team power relations to develop an explanatory framework. The study proceeded to formulate theoretical hypotheses from task-conflict, process-conflict, relationship and team power conflict. The hypotheses were tested using Partial Least Square Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM) to understand key preventive measures that can encourage conflict prevention in project teams when implementing big data technology.

Findings

Results from the structural model validated six out of seven theoretical hypotheses and identified Relationship Conflict Prevention as the most important factor for promoting smooth implementation of Big Data Analytics technology in project teams. This is followed by power-conflict prevention, prevention of task disputes and prevention of Process conflicts respectively. Results also show that relationship and power conflicts interact on the one hand, while task and relationship conflict prevention also interact on the other hand, thus, suggesting the prevention of one of the conflicts could minimise the outbreak of the other.

Research limitations/implications

The study has been conducted within the context of big data adoption in a project-based work environment and the need to prevent innovation-induced conflicts in teams. Similarly, the research participants examined are stakeholders within UK projected-based organisations.

Practical implications

The study urges organisations wishing to embrace big data innovation to evolve a multipronged approach for facilitating smooth implementation through prevention of conflicts among project frontlines. This study urges organisations to anticipate both subtle and overt frictions that can undermine relationships and team dynamics, effective task performance, derail processes and create unhealthy rivalry that undermines cooperation and collaboration in the team.

Social implications

The study also addresses the uncertainty and disruption that big data technology presents to employees in teams and explore conflict prevention measure which can be used to mitigate such in project teams.

Originality/value

The study proposes a Structural Model for establishing conflict prevention strategies in project teams through a multidimensional framework that combines constructs like team power conflict, process, relationship and task conflicts; to encourage Big Data implementation.

Details

Information Technology & People, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0959-3845

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 14 July 2022

Pratyush N. Sharma, Benjamin D. Liengaard, Joseph F. Hair, Marko Sarstedt and Christian M. Ringle

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…

2556

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Design/methodology/approach

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.

Findings

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.

Research limitations/implications

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

Practical implications

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

Originality/value

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.

Details

European Journal of Marketing, vol. 57 no. 6
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0309-0566

Keywords

1 – 10 of over 4000