Search results

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 paper is to discuss the pros and cons of partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The topics include bias, consistency, maximization of R², reliability and model validation.

The approach in this study is descriptive, and the method consists of logical arguments and analysis that are supported by results in references.

Several optimal properties of the PLS-SEM methodology are clarified. A proposal for transforming PLS-SEM mode A to mode B is highlighted, and the transformed mode possesses the desired properties of both modes A and B. Issues with the application of regression analysis using composite scores are also discussed. The strength of PLS-SEM is also compared against that of covariance-based SEM.

Additional studies on PLS-SEM are needed when the population structure contains cross-loadings and/or correlated errors.

PLS-SEM may have inflated type I errors and R² values even with normally distributed data.

The content of this paper is new, and there does not exist such an in-depth discussion of the pros and cons of PLS-SEM methodology in the literature.

The partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach for construction management (CM) scholars has become the preferred approach for its capability of assessing the complex relationship and relaxed normality and sample size assumptions. This paper systematically maps the structure of knowledge about PLS-SEM in CM using bibliometric analysis. Also, the study employs meta-analysis to explore how data and model characteristics, model evaluation and advanced modeling techniques have been utilized in the CM domain.

This study integrated two methods: bibliometric analysis on a sample of 211 articles identified using the PRISMA framework and meta-analysis on 163 articles identified based on the availability of full-length articles and relevant information.

The results revealed the leading knowledge formation entities (countries, institutions, authors, sources and documents). Also, the study employs full content analysis to identify six research themes, and meta-analysis is used to explore the use of PLS-SEM based on the following criteria: (1) reasons for using PLS-SEM in CM, (2) data characteristics, (3) model characteristics and evaluation and (4) use of advanced modeling and analysis techniques. Further, the study uses regression analysis and identifies “advanced modeling and analysis techniques” as the critical feature responsible for the publication in a journal with high scientific prestige. Finally, the study presented the comprehensive guidelines to be used by construction management scholars who wish to use PLS-SEM in their research work.

To the author’s knowledge, it is the first study of this kind to use PLS-SEM in CM research. This study provides an extensive analysis of the Scopus database and an in-depth review of the data characteristics, model characteristics and use of advanced modeling techniques in CM research.

Expanded awareness and application of recent PLS-SEM reporting practices were again called for by Hair (2022) in his PLS 2022 Keynote Address. This paper aims to analyze and extend the application of PLS-SEM in Industrial Management and Data Systems (IMDS) to focus on trends emerging in the more recent 2016–2022 period.

A review of PLS-SEM applications in information systems studies published in IMDS and MISQ for the period 2012–2022 identifies and comments on a total of 135 articles. Selected emerging advanced analytical PLS-SEM applications are also highlighted to expand awareness of their value in more rigorously evaluating model results.

There is a continually increasing maturity of the information systems field in applying PLS-SEM, particularly for IMDS authors. Model complexity and improved prediction assessment as well as other advanced analytical options are increasingly identified as reasons for applying PLS-SEM.

Findings demonstrate the continued use and acceptance of PLS-SEM as a useful alternative research methodology within IS. PLS-SEM is the preferred SEM method in many research settings, but particularly when the research objective is prediction to the population, mediation and mediated moderation, formative constructs are specified, constructs must be modeled as higher-order and for competing model comparisons.

This update on PLS-SEM applications and recent methodological developments will help authors to better understand and apply the method, as well as publish their work. Researchers are encouraged to engage in more complete analyses and include enhanced reporting procedures.

Applications of PLS-SEM for prediction, theory testing and confirmation are increasing. Information systems scholars should continue to exercise sound practice by reporting reasons for using PLS-SEM and recognizing its wider applicability for both exploratory and confirmatory research.

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.