IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v34y2016i6p598-605.html

Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management research: A realist perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Rigdon, Edward E.

Abstract

Today, there is heightened controversy about the value of partial least squares (PLS) path modeling as a quantitative research method, including within the domain of European management research. Critical lines of argument within the management and psychology literature assert that there is no reason to use PLS path modeling at all. At the same time, authors using PLS path modeling continue to advance fallacious arguments to justify their choice of method. This paper identifies flaws on both sides—invalid arguments in favor of using PLS path modeling and invalid arguments opposing its use—within the context of a unifying framework and a realist philosophy of science.

Suggested Citation

  • Rigdon, Edward E., 2016. "Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management research: A realist perspective," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 598-605.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:34:y:2016:i:6:p:598-605
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.05.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237316300585
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2016.05.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Edward E. Rigdon & Jan-Michael Becker & Arun Rai & Christian M. Ringle & Adamantios Diamantopoulos & Elena Karahanna & Detmar W. Straub & Theo K. Dijkstra, 2014. "Conflating Antecedents and Formative Indicators: A Comment on Aguirre-Urreta and Marakas," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 780-784, December.
    3. P. Bentler, 1986. "Structural modeling and psychometrika: An historical perspective on growth and achievements," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 51(1), pages 35-51, March.
    4. Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2004. "Mindless statistics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 587-606, November.
    5. Niels Waller & Jeff Jones, 2010. "Correlation Weights in Multiple Regression," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 58-69, March.
    6. John Antonakis & Samuel Bendahan & Philippe Jacquart & Rafael Lalive, 2010. "On making causal claims : A review and recommendations," Post-Print hal-02313119, HAL.
    7. Saunders, Mark N.K. & Bezzina, Frank, 2015. "Reflections on conceptions of research methodology among management academics," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 297-304.
    8. Wickens, Michael R, 1972. "A Note on the Use of Proxy Variables," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 40(4), pages 759-761, July.
    9. Ronald L. Wasserstein & Nicole A. Lazar, 2016. "The ASA's Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(2), pages 129-133, May.
    10. James Steiger, 1979. "The relationship between external variables and common factors," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 44(1), pages 93-97, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicolas Vallois & Dorian Jullien, 2017. "Estimating Rationality in Economics: A History of Statistical Methods in Experimental Economics," Working Papers halshs-01651070, HAL.
    2. Sarstedt, Marko & Hair, Joseph F. & Ringle, Christian M. & Thiele, Kai O. & Gudergan, Siegfried P., 2016. "Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies!," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 3998-4010.
    3. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    4. Uwe Hassler & Marc‐Oliver Pohle, 2022. "Unlucky Number 13? Manipulating Evidence Subject to Snooping," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 90(2), pages 397-410, August.
    5. Michaelides, Michael, 2021. "Large sample size bias in empirical finance," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. David Spiegelhalter, 2017. "Trust in numbers," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(4), pages 948-965, October.
    7. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    8. Robert Rieg, 2018. "Tasks, interaction and role perception of management accountants: evidence from Germany," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 183-220, August.
    9. Anderson, Brian S. & Wennberg, Karl & McMullen, Jeffery S., 2019. "Editorial: Enhancing quantitative theory-testing entrepreneurship research," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1-1.
    10. Herman Carstens & Xiaohua Xia & Sarma Yadavalli, 2018. "Bayesian Energy Measurement and Verification Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    11. Stephan B. Bruns & David I. Stern, 2019. "Lag length selection and p-hacking in Granger causality testing: prevalence and performance of meta-regression models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 797-830, March.
    12. Alberto Abadie, 2020. "Statistical Nonsignificance in Empirical Economics," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 193-208, June.
    13. Jeremy Arkes, 2020. "Teaching Graduate (and Undergraduate) Econometrics: Some Sensible Shifts to Improve Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Usefulness," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-23, September.
    14. Charles F. Manski, 2017. "Improving Clinical Guidelines and Decisions under Uncertainty," NBER Working Papers 23915, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Kellner, Ralf & Rösch, Daniel, 2021. "A Bayesian Re-Interpretation of “significant” empirical financial research," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    16. Nosek, Brian A. & Ebersole, Charles R. & DeHaven, Alexander Carl & Mellor, David Thomas, 2018. "The Preregistration Revolution," OSF Preprints 2dxu5, Center for Open Science.
    17. Bruns, Stephan B. & Asanov, Igor & Bode, Rasmus & Dunger, Melanie & Funk, Christoph & Hassan, Sherif M. & Hauschildt, Julia & Heinisch, Dominik & Kempa, Karol & König, Johannes & Lips, Johannes & Verb, 2019. "Reporting errors and biases in published empirical findings: Evidence from innovation research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    18. Mayo, Deborah & Morey, Richard Donald, 2017. "A Poor Prognosis for the Diagnostic Screening Critique of Statistical Tests," OSF Preprints ps38b, Center for Open Science.
    19. Klaus E Meyer & Arjen Witteloostuijn & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk, 2017. "What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(5), pages 535-551, July.
    20. Mantas Radzvilas & Francesco De Pretis & William Peden & Daniele Tortoli & Barbara Osimani, 2020. "Double blind vs. open review: an evolutionary game logit-simulating the behavior of authors and reviewers," Papers 2011.07797, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:34:y:2016:i:6:p:598-605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.