File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84901483810
- WOS: WOS:000337135400004
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it
Title | Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | 1G statistical techniques theory building 2G statistical techniques Causal inquiry partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) |
Issue Date | 2014 |
Citation | IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 2014, v. 57, n. 2, p. 123-146 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Problem: Partial least squares (PLS), a form of structural equation modeling (SEM), can provide much value for causal inquiry in communication-related and behavioral research fields. Despite the wide availability of technical information on PLS, many behavioral and communication researchers often do not use PLS in situations in which it could provide unique theoretical insights. Moreover, complex models comprising formative (causal) and reflective (consequent) constructs are now common in behavioral research, but they are often misspecified in statistical models, resulting in erroneous tests. Key concepts: First-generation (1G) techniques, such as correlations, regressions, or difference of means tests (such as ANOVA or ${\rm t}$-tests), offer limited modeling capabilities, particularly in terms of causal modeling. In contrast, second-generation techniques (such as covariance-based SEM or PLS) offer extensive, scalable, and flexible causal-modeling capabilities. Second-generation (2G) techniques do not invalidate the need for 1G techniques however. The key point of 2G techniques is that they are superior for the complex causal modeling that dominates recent communication and behavioral research. Key lessons: For exploratory work, or for studies that include formative constructs, PLS should be selected. For confirmatory work, either covariance-based SEM or PLS may be used. Despite claims that lower sampling requirements exist for PLS, inadequate sample sizes result in the same problems for either technique. Implications: SEM's strength is in modeling. In particular, SEM allows for complex models that include latent (unobserved) variables, formative variables, chains of effects (mediation), and multiple group comparisons of these more complex relationships. © 2014 IEEE. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/233840 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.6 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.496 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Lowry, Paul Benjamin | - |
dc.contributor.author | Gaskin, James | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-09-27T07:21:47Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-09-27T07:21:47Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 2014, v. 57, n. 2, p. 123-146 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0361-1434 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/233840 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Problem: Partial least squares (PLS), a form of structural equation modeling (SEM), can provide much value for causal inquiry in communication-related and behavioral research fields. Despite the wide availability of technical information on PLS, many behavioral and communication researchers often do not use PLS in situations in which it could provide unique theoretical insights. Moreover, complex models comprising formative (causal) and reflective (consequent) constructs are now common in behavioral research, but they are often misspecified in statistical models, resulting in erroneous tests. Key concepts: First-generation (1G) techniques, such as correlations, regressions, or difference of means tests (such as ANOVA or ${\rm t}$-tests), offer limited modeling capabilities, particularly in terms of causal modeling. In contrast, second-generation techniques (such as covariance-based SEM or PLS) offer extensive, scalable, and flexible causal-modeling capabilities. Second-generation (2G) techniques do not invalidate the need for 1G techniques however. The key point of 2G techniques is that they are superior for the complex causal modeling that dominates recent communication and behavioral research. Key lessons: For exploratory work, or for studies that include formative constructs, PLS should be selected. For confirmatory work, either covariance-based SEM or PLS may be used. Despite claims that lower sampling requirements exist for PLS, inadequate sample sizes result in the same problems for either technique. Implications: SEM's strength is in modeling. In particular, SEM allows for complex models that include latent (unobserved) variables, formative variables, chains of effects (mediation), and multiple group comparisons of these more complex relationships. © 2014 IEEE. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication | - |
dc.subject | 1G statistical techniques | - |
dc.subject | theory building | - |
dc.subject | 2G statistical techniques | - |
dc.subject | Causal inquiry | - |
dc.subject | partial least squares (PLS) | - |
dc.subject | structural equation modeling (SEM) | - |
dc.title | Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1109/TPC.2014.2312452 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84901483810 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 57 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 123 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 146 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000337135400004 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0361-1434 | - |