nach oben

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Erschienen in:

16.02.2017 | Original Empirical Research

Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods

verfasst von: Joseph F. Hair, G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, Marko Sarstedt, Kai Oliver Thiele

Erschienen in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science | Ausgabe 5/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Composite-based structural equation modeling (SEM), and especially partial least squares path modeling (PLS), has gained increasing dissemination in marketing. To fully exploit the potential of these methods, researchers must know about their relative performance and the settings that favor each method’s use. While numerous simulation studies have aimed to evaluate the performance of composite-based SEM methods, practically all of them defined populations using common factor models, thereby assessing the methods on erroneous grounds. This study is the first to offer a comprehensive assessment of composite-based SEM techniques on the basis of composite model data, considering a broad range of model constellations. Results of a large-scale simulation study substantiate that PLS and generalized structured component analysis are consistent estimators when the underlying population is composite model-based. While both methods outperform sum scores regression in terms of parameter recovery, PLS achieves slightly greater statistical power.

Vorheriger Artikel Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications, and an agenda for future research

Nächster Artikel Me, myself, and I: influence of CEO narcissism on firms’ innovation strategy and the likelihood of product-harm crises

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Note that researchers frequently distinguish between latent variables/constructs and composites. We use the term latent variable/construct to refer to the entities that represent conceptual variables in a structural equation model.

Our comparison does not consider consistent PLS (PLSc; Dijkstra 2014; Dijkstra and Henseler 2015) that corrects the PLS estimates for attenuation to mimic common factor models. As our objective is to compare composite-based SEM techniques on the basis of composite model data, PLSc is not relevant to our study.

Note that constructs in factor-based SEM are also proxies for the conceptual variables under investigation (Rigdon 2012).

Table A1 in the Online Appendix shows the indicator weights for different numbers of indicators.

For further details about the non-normal data, see the additional information on the data generation in the Online Appendix.

As the analyses show only marginal differences between normal and non-normal data, the following results presentations use the joint outcomes of the different data distribution types considered in this simulation study.

For example, for the condition with 500 observations, two indicators with equal weights of 0.625, PLS yields a MAE value of 0.05814 in the measurement models, which translates into an MARE value of 0.093. On the contrary, a very similar MAE value of 0.06029 for the condition with 500 observations, eight indicators with equal weights of 0.25 translates into a MARE value of 0.241.

Note that the MARE is not defined for the two null paths γ ₄ and γ ₅ (Fig. 2). Hence, we did not include these two paths in the MARE computations.

Anderson, E. W., & Fornell, C. G. (2000). Foundations of the American customer satisfaction index. Total Quality Management, 11(7), 869–882.CrossRef

Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C. G., & Mazvancheryl, S. K. (2004). Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 172–185.CrossRef

Angulo-Ruiz, F., Donthu, N., Prior, D., & Rialp, J. (2014). The financial contribution of customer-oriented marketing capability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(4), 380–399.CrossRef

Atinc, G., Simmering, M. J., & Kroll, M. J. (2012). Control variable use and reporting in macro and micro management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1), 57–74.CrossRef

Babin, B. J., Hair, J. F., & Boles, J. S. (2008). Publishing research in marketing journals using structural equation modeling. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(4), 279–285.CrossRef

Barroso, C., Carrión, G. C., & Roldán, J. L. (2010). Applying maximum likelihood and PLS on different sample sizes: studies on SERVQUAL model and employee behavior model. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications (pp. 427–447). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Becker, J. M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 359–394.CrossRef

Becker, J. M., Rai, A., & Rigdon, E. E. (2013a). Predictive validity and formative measurement in structural equation modeling: Embracing practical relevance. In 2013a Proceedings of the international conference on information systems. Milan.

Becker, J. M., Rai, A., Ringle, C. M., & Völckner, F. (2013b). Discovering unobserved heterogeneity in structural equation models to avert validity threats. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 665–694.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.CrossRef

Brady, M. K., Voorhees, C. M., & Brusco, M. J. (2012). Service sweethearting: its antecedents and customer consequences. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 81–98.CrossRef

Burke, S. J. (2011). Competitive positioning strength: market measurement. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(5), 421–428.CrossRef

Cassel, C., Hackl, P., & Westlund, A. H. (1999). Robustness of partial least-squares method for estimating latent variable quality structures. Journal of Applied Statistics, 26(4), 435–446.CrossRef

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–358). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Chin, W. W. (2010). Bootstrap cross-validation indices for PLS path model assessment. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 83–97). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307–341). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.CrossRef

Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(1), 115–126.CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Core Team, R. (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRef

Dellande, S., Gilly, M. C., & Graham, J. L. (2004). Gaining compliance and losing weight: the role of the service provider in health care services. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 78–91.CrossRef

Diamantopoulos, A., & Riefler, P. (2011). Using formative measures in international marketing models: a cautionary tale using consumer animosity as an example. In M. Sarstedt, M. Schwaiger, & C. R. Taylor (Eds.), Advances in international marketing (Vol. 22, pp. 11–30). Bingley: Emerald.

Dijkstra, T. K. (2010). Latent variables and indices: Herman Wold’s basic design and partial least squares. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications (pp. 23–46). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Dijkstra, T. K. (2014). PLS' Janus face – response to professor Rigdon's ‘rethinking partial least squares modeling: in praise of simple methods’. Long Range Planning, 47(3), 146–153.CrossRef

Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2011). Linear indices in nonlinear structural equation models: best fitting proper indices and other composites. Quality & Quantity, 45(6), 1505–1518.CrossRef

Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297–316.CrossRef

Eklöf, J. A., & Westlund, A. H. (2002). The pan-European customer satisfaction index program: current work and the way ahead. Total Quality Management, 13(8), 1099–1106.CrossRef

Evermann, J., & Tate, M. (2016). Assessing the predictive performance of structural equation model estimators. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4565–4582.CrossRef

Fornell, C. G., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 7–18.CrossRef

Fornell, C., Morgeson, F. V., & Hult, G. T. M. (2016). Stock returns on customer satisfaction do beat the market: gauging the effect of a marketing intangible. Journal of Marketing, 80(5), 92–107.CrossRef

Gelbrich, K. (2010). Anger, frustration, and helplessness after service failure: coping strategies and effective informational support. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(5), 567–585.CrossRef

Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2012a). Does PLS have advantages for small sample size or non-normal data? MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 981–1001.

Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2012b). Comparing PLS to regression and LISREL: a response to Marcoulides, Chin, and Saunders. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 703–716.

Green, D. H., Donald, W. B., & Ryans, A. B. (1995). Entry strategy and long-term performance: conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 59(4), 1–16.CrossRef

Habel, J., & Klarmann, M. (2015). Customer reactions to downsizing: when and how is satisfaction affected? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(6), 768–789.CrossRef

Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. M. (2004). A beginner's guide to partial least squares analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283–297.CrossRef

Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. M. (2011). The influence of observed heterogeneity on path coefficient significance: technology acceptance within the marketing discipline. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 153–168.CrossRef

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151.CrossRef

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012a). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.CrossRef

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2012b). The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: a review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 320–340.CrossRef

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12.CrossRef

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heidenreich, S., Wittkowski, K., Handrich, M., & Falk, T. (2015). The dark side of customer co-creation: exploring the consequences of failed co-created services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(3), 279–296.CrossRef

Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Are all smiles created equal? How emotional contagion and emotional labor affect service relationships. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 58–73.CrossRef

Henseler, J. (2010). On the convergence of the partial least squares path modeling algorithm. Computational Statistics, 25(1), 107–120.CrossRef

Henseler, J. (2012). Why generalized structured component analysis is not universally preferable to structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 402–413.CrossRef

Henseler, J., & Fassott, G. (2010). Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an illustration of available procedures. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications (pp. 713–735). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Henseler, J., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Computational Statistics, 28(2), 565–580.CrossRef

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances in international marketing (Vol. 20, pp. 277–320). Bingley: Emerald.CrossRef

Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about partial least squares: comments on Rönkkö & Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209.CrossRef

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.CrossRef

Henseler, J., Hubona, G. S., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 1–19.CrossRef

Hui, B. S., & Wold, H. O. A. (1982). Consistency and consistency at large of partial least squares estimates. In K. G. Jöreskog & H. O. A. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation, part II (pp. 119–130). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Hulland, J., Ryan, M. J., & Rayner, R. K. (2010). Modeling customer satisfaction: a comparative performance evaluation of covariance structure analysis versus partial least squares. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications (pp. 307–325). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Hult, G. T. M., Morgeson III, F. V., Morgan, N. A., Mithas, S., & Fornell, C. (2017). Do managers know what their customers think and why? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(1), 37–54.CrossRef

Hwang, H. (2009). Regularized generalized structured component analysis. Psychometrika, 74(3), 517–530.CrossRef

Hwang, H., Malhotra, N. K., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M. A., & Hong, S. (2010). A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 699–712.CrossRef

Jöreskog, K. G. (1973). A general method for estimating a linear structural equation system. In A. S. Goldberger & O. D. Duncan (Eds.), Structural equation models in the social sciences (pp. 255–284). New York, NJ: Seminar Press.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Wold, H. O. A. (1982). The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables: historical and comparative aspects. In H. O. A. Wold & K. G. Jöreskog (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation, part I (pp. 263–270). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Kaplan, A. M., Schoder, D., & Haenlein, M. (2007). Factors influencing the adoption of mass customization: the impact of base category consumption frequency and need satisfaction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(2), 101–116.CrossRef

Kaufmann, L., & Gaeckler, J. (2015). A structured review of partial least squares in supply chain management research. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(4), 259–272.CrossRef

Knaus, J. (2013). R package snowfall: Easier cluster computing (version: 1.84–6). cran.r-project.org/web/packages/snowfall/.

Lee, N., & Cadogan, J. W. (2013). Problems with formative and higher-order reflective variables. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 242–247.CrossRef

Lohmöller, J.-B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg: Physica.CrossRef

Marcoulides, G. A., & Chin, W. W. (2013). You write, but others read: common methodological misunderstandings in PLS and related methods. In H. Abdi, W. W. Chin, V. Esposito Vinzi, G. Russolillo, & L. Trinchera (Eds.), New perspectives in partial least squares and related methods (pp. 31–64). New York, NJ: Springer.CrossRef

Marcoulides, G. A., Chin, W. W., & Saunders, C. (2012). When imprecise statistical statements become problematic: a response to Goodhue, Lewis, and Thompson. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 717–728.

McDonald, R. P. (1996). Path analysis with composite variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31(2), 239–270.CrossRef

McIntosh, C. N., Edwards, J. R., & Antonakis, J. (2014). Reflections on partial least squares path modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 210–251.CrossRef

Monecke, A., & Leisch, F. (2012). semPLS: structural equation modeling using partial least squares. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(3), 1–32.CrossRef

Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Chen, F. (2001). Monte Carlo experiments: design and implementation. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(2), 287–312.CrossRef

Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 290–315.CrossRef

Rego, L. L., Morgan, N. A., & Fornell, C. (2013). Reexamining the market share–customer satisfaction relationship. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 1–20.CrossRef

Reinartz, W. J., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332–344.CrossRef

Rigdon, E. E. (1998). Structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 251–294). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Rigdon, E. E. (2012). Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: in praise of simple methods. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 341–358.CrossRef

Rigdon, E. E. (2014). Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: breaking chains and forging ahead. Long Range Planning, 47(3), 161–167.CrossRef

Rigdon, E. E. (2016). Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management research: a realist perspective. European Management Journal, 34(6), 598–605.CrossRef

Rigdon, E. E., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2010). Structural modeling of heterogeneous data with partial least squares. In N. K. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research (pp. 255–296). Armonk: Sharpe.CrossRef

Rigdon, E. E., Becker, J.-M., Rai, A., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Dijkstra, T. K. (2014). Conflating antecedents and formative indicators: a comment on Aguirre-Urreta and Marakas. Information Systems Research, 25(4), 780–784.CrossRef

Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: the importance-performance map analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1865–1886.CrossRef

Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, S., & Straub, D. W. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.

Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Schlittgen, R. (2014). Genetic algorithm segmentation in partial least squares structural equation modeling. OR Spectrum, 36(1), 251–276.CrossRef

Romdhani, H., Grinek, S., Hwang, H., & Labbe, A. (2014). R package ASGSCA: Association studies for multiple SNPs and multiple traits using generalized structured equation models (Version 1.4.0), http://bioconductor.org/packages/ASGSCA/.

Rönkkö, M., & Evermann, J. (2013). A critical examination of common beliefs about partial least squares path modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 425–448.CrossRef

Rönkkö, M., McIntosh, C. N., & Antonakis, J. (2015). On the adoption of partial least squares in psychological research: caveat emptor. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 76–84.CrossRef

Rönkkö, M., McIntosh, C. N., Antonakis, J., & Edwards, J. R. (2016). Partial least squares path modeling: time for some serious second thoughts. Journal of Operations Management, 47-48(November), 9–27.CrossRef

Rubera, G., Chandrasekaran, D., & Ordanini, A. (2016). Open innovation, product portfolio innovativeness and firm performance: the dual role of new product development capabilities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(2), 166–184.CrossRef

Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Henseler, J., & Hair, J. F. (2014). On the emancipation of PLS-SEM: a commentary on Rigdon (2012). Long Range Planning, 47(3), 154–160.CrossRef

Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Thiele, K. O., & Gudergan, S. P. (2016). Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: where the bias lies! Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3998–4010.CrossRef

Schneeweiß, H. (1991). Models with latent variables: LISREL versus PLS. Statistica Neerlandica, 45(2), 145–157.CrossRef

Schönemann, P. H., & Steiger, J. H. (1978). On the validity of indeterminate factor scores. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12(4), 287–290.CrossRef

Schönemann, P. H., & Wang, M.-M. (1972). Some new results on factor indeterminacy. Psychometrika, 37(1), 61–91.CrossRef

Schuberth, F., Henseler, J., & Dijkstra, T. K. (2016). Partial least squares path modeling using ordinal categorical indicators. Quality & Quantity, forthcoming.

Schubring, S., Lorscheid, I., Meyer, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). The PLS agent: predictive modeling with PLS-SEM and agent-based simulation. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4604–4612.CrossRef

Shmueli, G. (2010). To explain or to predict? Statistical Science, 25(3), 289–310.CrossRef

Shmueli, G., Ray, D., Manuel, J., Estrada, V., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant in the room: evaluating the predictive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552–4564.CrossRef

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. London: MacMillan.

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (2000). On the use of structural equation models for marketing modeling. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(2/3), 195–202.CrossRef

Sundaram, S., Schwarz, A., Jones, E., & Chin, W. W. (2007). Technology use on the front line: how information technology enhances individual performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 101–112.CrossRef

Tenenhaus, M. (2008). Component-based structural equation modelling. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19(7–8), 871–886.CrossRef

Tenenhaus, A., & Tenenhaus, M. (2011). Regularized generalized canonical correlation analysis. Psychometrika, 76(2), 257–284.CrossRef

Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.CrossRef

Thurstone, L, L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Treiblmaier, H., Bentler, P. M., & Mair, P. (2011). Formative constructs implemented via common factors. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(1), 1–17.CrossRef

van der Heijden, G. A. H., Schepers, J. J. L., Nijssen, E. J., & Ordanini, A. (2013). Don’t just fix it, make it better! Using frontline service employees to improve recovery performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 515–530.CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

Vilares, M. J., & Coelho, P. S. (2013). Likelihood and PLS estimators for structural equation modeling: an assessment of sample size, skewness and model misspecification effects. In J. Lita da Silva, F. Caeiro, I. Natário, & C. A. Braumann (Eds.), Advances in regression, survival analysis, extreme values, Markov processes and other statistical applications (pp. 11–33). Berlin: Springer.

Wold, H. O. A. (1974). Causal flows with latent variables: partings of ways in the light of NIPALS modelling. European Economic Review, 5(1), 67–86.CrossRef

Wold, H. O. A. (1980). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce: theory and application of PLS. In J. Kmenta & J. B. Ramsey (Eds.), Evaluation of econometric models (pp. 47–74). New York, NJ: Academic Press.CrossRef

Wold, H. O. A. (1982). Soft modeling: the basic design and some extensions. In K. G. Jöreskog & H. O. A. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observations, part II (pp. 1–54). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Wold, S., Sjöström, M., & Eriksson, L. (2001). PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 58(2), 109–130.CrossRef

Wolter, J. S., & Cronin, J. J. (2016). Re-conceptualizing cognitive and affective customer-company identification: the role of self-motives and different customer-based outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 397–413.CrossRef

Titel: Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods
verfasst von: Joseph F. Hair
G. Tomas M. Hult
Christian M. Ringle
Marko Sarstedt
Kai Oliver Thiele
Publikationsdatum: 16.02.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science / Ausgabe 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0092-0703
Elektronische ISSN: 1552-7824
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0517-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2017

Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications, and an agenda for future research

Me, myself, and I: influence of CEO narcissism on firms’ innovation strategy and the likelihood of product-harm crises

The role and impact of reviewers on the marketing discipline

Effects of work–family interface conflicts on salesperson behaviors: a double-edged sword

Frontline employees’ nonverbal cues in service encounters: a double-edged sword

The relationship between consumer shopping stress and purchase abandonment in task-oriented and recreation-oriented consumers