Search results

In recent years, the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) has become widespread in tourism and hospitality research. Because there are two different approaches to SEM (i.e., covariance-based SEM and variance-based, partial least squares SEM), this brings challenges for researchers about which SEM to use and what to report in each SEM approach. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to discuss the differences between CB-SEM and PLS-SEM and to provide comprehensive guidelines for researchers on how to apply each SEM. Within this context, the authors first briefly summarize the fundamentals and advantages of using SEM. Then, the authors explain in detail the major issues that should be considered when selecting between CB-SEM and PLS-SEM. Finally, to ensure rigorous research practices, the authors provide step-by-step guidelines for the application of both CB-SEM and PLS-SEM.

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 objective of this chapter is to provide strategy researchers with a general resource for applying structural equation modeling (SEM) in their research. This objective is important for strategy researchers because of their increased use of SEM, the availability of advanced SEM approaches relevant for their substantive interests, and the fact that important technical work on SEM techniques often appear in outlets that may not be not readily accessible. This chapter begins with a presentation of the basics of SEM techniques, followed by a review of recent applications of SEM in strategic management research. We next provide an overview of five types of advanced applications of structural equation modeling and describe how they can be applied to strategic management topics. In a fourth section we discuss technical developments related to model evaluation, mediation, and data requirements. Finally, a summary of recommendations for strategic management researchers using SEM is also provided.

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.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) depicts one of the most salient research methods across a variety of disciplines, including hospitality management. Although for many researchers, SEM is equivalent to carrying out covariance-based SEM, recent research advocates the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) as an attractive alternative. The purpose of this paper is to systematically examine how PLS-SEM has been applied in major hospitality research journals with the aim of providing important guidance and, if necessary, opportunities for realignment in future applications. Because PLS-SEM in hospitality research is still in an early stage of development, critically examining its use holds considerable promise to counteract misapplications which otherwise might reinforce over time.

All PLS-SEM studies published in the six SSCI-indexed hospitality management journals between 2001 and 2015 were reviewed. Tying in with the prior studies in the field, the review covers reasons for using PLS-SEM, data characteristics, model characteristics, the evaluation of the measurement models, the evaluation of the structural model, reporting and use of advanced analyses.

Compared to other fields, the results show that several reporting practices are clearly above standard but still leave room for improvement, particularly regarding the consideration of state-of-the art metrics for measurement and structural model assessment. Furthermore, hospitality researchers seem to be unaware of the recent extensions of the PLS-SEM method, which clearly extend the scope of the analyses and help gaining more insights from the model and the data. As a result of this PLS-SEM application review in studies, this research presents guidelines on how to accurately use the method. These guidelines are important for the hospitality management and other disciplines to disseminate and ensure the rigor of PLS-SEM analyses and reporting practices.

Only articles published in the SSCI-indexed hospitality journals were examined and any journals indexed in other databases were not included. That is, while this research focused on the top-tier hospitality management journals, future research may widen the scope by considering hospitality management-related studies from other disciplines, such as tourism research or general management.

This study contributes to the literature by providing hospitality researchers with the updated guidelines for PLS-SEM use. Based on a systematic review of current practices in the hospitality literature, critical methodological issues when choosing and using the PLS-SEM were identified. The guidelines allow to improve future PLS-SEM studies and offer recommendations for using recent advances of the method.

Research on international marketing usually involves comparing different groups of respondents. When using structural equation modeling (SEM), group comparisons can be misleading unless researchers establish the invariance of their measures. While methods have been proposed to analyze measurement invariance in common factor models, research lacks an approach in respect of composite models. The purpose of this paper is to present a novel three-step procedure to analyze the measurement invariance of composite models (MICOM) when using variance-based SEM, such as partial least squares (PLS) path modeling.

A simulation study allows us to assess the suitability of the MICOM procedure to analyze the measurement invariance in PLS applications.

The MICOM procedure appropriately identifies no, partial, and full measurement invariance.

The statistical power of the proposed tests requires further research, and researchers using the MICOM procedure should take potential type-II errors into account.

The research presents a novel procedure to assess the measurement invariance in the context of composite models. Researchers in international marketing and other disciplines need to conduct this kind of assessment before undertaking multigroup analyses. They can use MICOM procedure as a standard means to assess the measurement invariance.

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 study is to review the use of partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in the field of hospitality and tourism and thereby to assess whether the PLS-SEM-based papers followed the recommended application guidelines and to investigate whether a comparison of journal types (hospitality vs tourism) and journal qualities (top-tier vs other leading) reveal significant differences in PLS-SEM use.

A total of 206 PLS-SEM based papers published between 2000 and April 2017 in the 19 SSCI-indexed hospitality and tourism journals were critically analyzed using a wide range of guidelines for the following aspects of PLS-SEM: the rationale of using the method, the data characteristics, the model characteristics, the model assessment and reporting the technical issues.

The results reveal that some aspects of PLS-SEM are correctly applied by researchers, but there are still some misapplications, especially regarding data characteristics, formative measurement model evaluation and structural model assessment. Furthermore, few significant differences were found on the use of PLS-SEM between the two fields (hospitality and tourism) and between the journal tiers (top-tier and other leading).

To enhance the quality of research in hospitality and tourism, the present study provides recommendations for improving the future use of PLS-SEM.

The present study fills a sizeable gap in hospitality and tourism literature and extends the previous assessments on the use of PLS-SEM by providing a wider perspective on the issue (i.e. includes both hospitality and tourism journals rather than the previous reviews that focus on either tourism or hospitality), using a larger sample size of 206 empirical studies, investigating the issue over a longer time period (from 2000 to April, 2017, including the in-press articles), extending the scope of criteria (guidelines) used in the review and comparing the PLS-SEM use between the two allied fields (hospitality and tourism) and between the journal tiers (top-tier and other leading).

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive, yet concise, overview of the considerations and metrics required for partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis and result reporting. Preliminary considerations are summarized first, including reasons for choosing PLS-SEM, recommended sample size in selected contexts, distributional assumptions, use of secondary data, statistical power and the need for goodness-of-fit testing. Next, the metrics as well as the rules of thumb that should be applied to assess the PLS-SEM results are covered. Besides presenting established PLS-SEM evaluation criteria, the overview includes the following new guidelines: PLSpredict (i.e., a novel approach for assessing a model’s out-of-sample prediction), metrics for model comparisons, and several complementary methods for checking the results’ robustness.

This paper provides an overview of previously and recently proposed metrics as well as rules of thumb for evaluating the research results based on the application of PLS-SEM.

Most of the previously applied metrics for evaluating PLS-SEM results are still relevant. Nevertheless, scholars need to be knowledgeable about recently proposed metrics (e.g. model comparison criteria) and methods (e.g. endogeneity assessment, latent class analysis and PLSpredict), and when and how to apply them to extend their analyses.

Methodological developments associated with PLS-SEM are rapidly emerging. The metrics reported in this paper are useful for current applications, but must always be up to date with the latest developments in the PLS-SEM method.

In light of more recent research and methodological developments in the PLS-SEM domain, guidelines for the method’s use need to be continuously extended and updated. This paper is the most current and comprehensive summary of the PLS-SEM method and the metrics applied to assess its solutions.

Structural equation modelling (SEM) has been defined as the combination of latent variables and structural relationships. The partial least squares SEM (PLS-SEM) is used to estimate complex cause-effect relationship models with latent variables as the most salient research methods across a variety of disciplines, including knowledge management (KM). Following the path initiated by different domains in business research, this paper aims to examine how PLS-SEM has been applied in KM research, also providing some new guidelines how to improve PLS-SEM report analysis.

To ensure an objective way to analyse relevant works in the field of KM, this study conducted a systematic literature review of 63 publications in three SSCI-indexed and specific KM journals between 2015 and 2017.

Our results show that over the past three years, a significant amount of KM works has empirically used PLS-SEM. The findings also suggest that in light of recent developments of PLS-SEM reporting, some common misconceptions among KM researchers occurred mainly related to the reasons for using PLS-SEM, the purposes of PLS-SEM analysis, data characteristics, model characteristics and the evaluation of the structural models.

This study contributes to that vast KM literature by documenting the PLS-SEM-related problems and misconceptions. Therefore, it will shed light for better reports in PLS-SEM studies in the KM field.