Friday, August 9, 2019
From composites to factors: Bridging the gap between PLS and covariance-based structural equation modeling
How can one bridge the gap between PLS and covariance-based structural equation modeling, by conducting a factor-based PLS structural equation modeling (PLSF-SEM) analysis? This question is addressed through the publication below.
Kock, N. (2019). From composites to factors: Bridging the gap between PLS and covariance-based structural equation modeling. Information Systems Journal, 29(3), 674-706.
A link to a PDF file is available ().
Abstract:
Partial least squares (PLS) methods possess desirable characteristics that have led to their extensive use in the field of information systems, as well as many other fields, for path analyses with latent variables. Such variables are typically conceptualized as factors in structural equation modeling (SEM). In spite of their desirable characteristics, PLS methods suffer from a fundamental problem: unlike covariance-based SEM, they do not deal with factors, but with composites, and as such do not fully account for measurement error. This leads to biased parameters, even as sample sizes grow to infinity. Anchored on a new conceptual foundation, we discuss a method that builds on the consistent PLS technique and that estimates factors, fully accounting for measurement error. We provide evidence that this new method shares the property of statistical consistency with covariance-based SEM, but, like classic PLS methods has greater statistical power. Moreover, our method provides correlation-preserving estimates of the factors, which can be used in a variety of other tests. For readers interested in trying it, the new method is implemented in the software WarpPLS. Our detailed discussion should facilitate the implementation of the method in any numeric computing environment, including open source environments such as R and GNU Octave.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I am wondering what CFM in the settings for the outer model stands for!
Thanks
CFM stands for "common factor model".
Does WarpPLS corrects for multiple comparisons? If yes, how?
Thank you so much in advance
Hi Anon. I am not sure I understand the question.
Hi Prof.
My sample size 47.
My population 77.
I am using reflective model.
About measuring the structural model,
Firstly,
I hv to run bootstrapping.
Subsample 500
Basic bootstrapping
Bias corrected
1 tailed
@0.1sig level
Secondly, run again bootstrapping since using small sample.
500 subsample
Complete bootstrapping
Bias corrected
1 tailed
0.1 sig level
Can i do these steps👆?
********************"******
About the measuring the moderator effect, i have two queations
1) I cannot use the product indicator option. To use this option, the sample must at least 89.
So, Can i still measure the moderator using the second option?
2) When I want to measure the moderation effect, do I have to do the calculation again ie the PLS Algorithm and bootstrapping again?
Hi Urut.
You should not use bootstrapping, but the default stable method in WarpPLS (see link below). This will address the need for corrections, without having to do them.
http://cits.tamiu.edu/kock/pubs/journals/2018/Kock_2018_JASEM_StablePValues.pdf
Why not use the two-stage option for moderation? See page 70 of:
https://www.scriptwarp.com/warppls/UserManual_v_7_0.pdf
For more on the “View or change moderating effects settings” option, see page 55 of:
https://www.scriptwarp.com/warppls/UserManual_v_7_0.pdf
Post a Comment