The choice of structural equation modeling technique matters: A commentary on Dash and Paul (2021)

Ganesh Dash and Justin Paul authored an article titled “CB-SEM vs. PLS-SEM methods for research in social science and technological forecasting” in a special issue of Technological Forecasting and Social Change, co-edited by Justin Paul. Unfortunately, the article’s central conclusion – “CB or PLS o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	Technological forecasting & social change Jg. 194; S. 122665
Hauptverfasser:	Schuberth, Florian, Hubona, Geoffrey, Roemer, Ellen, Zaza, Sam, Schamberger, Tamara, Chuah, Francis, Cepeda-Carrión, Gabriel, Henseler, Jörg
Format:	Journal Article
Sprache:	Englisch
Veröffentlicht:	Elsevier Inc 01.09.2023
Schlagworte:	Consistent partial least squares (PLSc) Covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) Partial least squares based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) Structural equation modeling (SEM) Consistent partial least squares (PLSc) Covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) Partial least squares based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) Structural equation modeling (SEM)
ISSN:	0040-1625, 1873-5509
Online-Zugang:	Volltext
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:	Ganesh Dash and Justin Paul authored an article titled “CB-SEM vs. PLS-SEM methods for research in social science and technological forecasting” in a special issue of Technological Forecasting and Social Change, co-edited by Justin Paul. Unfortunately, the article’s central conclusion – “CB or PLS or PLSc do not matter” – is misleading and at odds with practically all extant conceptual and empirical research on this subject. This commentary identifies an unsuitable research design to be the major cause of the erroneous conclusion and aims to set the record straight. A Monte Carlo simulation demonstrates that the choice of the approach to structural equation modeling can have a substantial impact on the results and their validity. In general, analysts should choose a structural equation modeling approach that fits their conceptual model. •A Monte Carlo simulation compares CB-SEM, PLSc, and PLS.•CB-SEM and PLSc (but not PLS) can be used for reflective measurement models with latent variables.•CB-SEM with the H–O specification and PLS Mode B can be used for composite models.•The choice of structural equation modeling technique matters.
ISSN:	0040-1625 1873-5509
DOI:	10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122665