Author:
Hair Joe F.,Sarstedt Marko,Ringle Christian M.,Sharma Pratyush N.,Liengaard Benjamin Dybro
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to discuss recent criticism related to partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Design/methodology/approach
Using a combination of literature reviews, empirical examples, and simulation evidence, this research demonstrates that critical accounts of PLS-SEM paint an overly negative picture of PLS-SEM’s capabilities.
Findings
Criticisms of PLS-SEM often generalize from boundary conditions with little practical relevance to the method’s general performance, and disregard the metrics and analyses (e.g., Type I error assessment) that are important when assessing the method’s efficacy.
Research limitations/implications
We believe the alleged “fallacies” and “untold facts” have already been addressed in prior research and that the discussion should shift toward constructive avenues by exploring future research areas that are relevant to PLS-SEM applications.
Practical implications
All statistical methods, including PLS-SEM, have strengths and weaknesses. Researchers need to consider established guidelines and recent advancements when using the method, especially given the fast pace of developments in the field.
Originality/value
This research addresses criticisms of PLS-SEM and offers researchers, reviewers, and journal editors a more constructive view of its capabilities.
Reference135 articles.
1. A toolbox to evaluate the trustworthiness of published findings;Journal of Business Research,2023
2. Toward open science in PLS-SEM: assessing the state of the art and future perspectives;Journal of Business Research,2023
3. Why PLS-SEM is suitable for complex modelling? An empirical illustration in big data analytics quality;Production Planning and Control,2017
4. What constitutes a methodological contribution?;Journal of Management,2022
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献