This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

On the Use of Formative Measurement Specifications in Structural Equation Modeling: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study to Compare Covariance-Based and Partial Least Squares Model Estimation Methodologies

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Ringle, Christian M.
Götz, Oliver
Wetzels, Martin
Wilson, Bradley

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The broader goal of this paper is to provide social researchers with some analytical guidelines when investigating structural equation models (SEM) with predominantly a formative specification. This research is the first to investigate the robustness and precision of parameter estimates of a formative SEM specification. Two distinctive scenarios (normal and non-normal data scenarios) are compared with the aid of a Monte Carlo simulation study for various covariance-based structural equation modeling (CBSEM) estimators and various partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM) weighting schemes. Thus, this research is also one of the first to compare CBSEM and PLS-PM within the same simulation study. We establish that the maximum likelihood (ML) covariance-based discrepancy function provides accurate and robust parameter estimates for the formative SEM model under investigation when the methodological assumptions are met (e.g., adequate sample size, distributional assumptions, etc.). Under these conditions, ML-CBSEM outperforms PLS-PM. We also demonstrate that the accuracy and robustness of CBSEM decreases considerably when methodological requirements are violated, whereas PLS-PM results remain comparatively robust, e.g. irrespective of the data distribution. These findings are important for researchers and practitioners when having to choose between CBSEM and PLS-PM methodologies to estimate formative SEM in their particular research situation.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15390/
File Format:
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 15390.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:15390

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).

Related research
Keywords: PLS; path modeling; covariance structure analysis; structural equation modeling; formative measurement; simulation study;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: General - - - General
C51 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Construction and Estimation
C30 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - General
C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. C. Vale & Vincent Maurelli, 1983. "Simulating multivariate nonnormal distributions," Psychometrika, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 465-471, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Claes Cassel, Peter Hackl, Anders H. Westlund, 1999. "Robustness of partial least-squares method for estimating latent variable quality structures," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 435-446, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Jarvis, Cheryl Burke & MacKenzie, Scott B & Podsakoff, Philip M, 2003. " A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(2), pages 199-218, September.
  4. Albert Satorra & Peter Bentler, 2001. "A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis," Psychometrika, Springer, vol. 66(4), pages 507-514, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Don Y. Lee, 2001. "The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and network activities on venture growth," Journal of Management Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 38(4), pages 583-602, 06. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Tenenhaus, Michel & Vinzi, Vincenzo Esposito & Chatelin, Yves-Marie & Lauro, Carlo, 2005. "PLS path modeling," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 159-205, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc also has a blog.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-28.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.