An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research

被引:12
作者
Joe F. Hair
Marko Sarstedt
Christian M. Ringle
Jeannette A. Mena
机构
[1] Kennesaw State University,
[2] KSU Center,undefined
[3] DBA Program,undefined
[4] Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (LMU),undefined
[5] Institute for Market-based Management (IMM),undefined
[6] University of Newcastle,undefined
[7] Faculty of Business and Law,undefined
[8] Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH),undefined
[9] Institute for Human Resource Management and Organizations (HRMO),undefined
[10] University of South Florida,undefined
[11] College of Business,undefined
来源
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science | 2012年 / 40卷
关键词
Empirical research methods; Partial least squares; Path modeling; Structural equation modeling;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Most methodological fields undertake regular critical reflections to ensure rigorous research and publication practices, and, consequently, acceptance in their domain. Interestingly, relatively little attention has been paid to assessing the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in marketing research—despite its increasing popularity in recent years. To fill this gap, we conducted an extensive search in the 30 top ranked marketing journals that allowed us to identify 204 PLS-SEM applications published in a 30-year period (1981 to 2010). A critical analysis of these articles addresses, amongst others, the following key methodological issues: reasons for using PLS-SEM, data and model characteristics, outer and inner model evaluations, and reporting. We also give an overview of the interdependencies between researchers’ choices, identify potential problem areas, and discuss their implications. On the basis of our findings, we provide comprehensive guidelines to aid researchers in avoiding common pitfalls in PLS-SEM use. This study is important for researchers and practitioners, as PLS-SEM requires several critical choices that, if not made correctly, can lead to improper findings, interpretations, and conclusions.
引用
收藏
页码:414 / 433
页数:19
相关论文
共 162 条
[1]  
Babakus E(1987)The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional assumptions Journal of Marketing Research 24 222-228
[2]  
Ferguson CE(2008)Publishing research in marketing journals using structural equation modeling Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice 16 279-285
[3]  
Jöreskog KG(1988)On the evaluation of structural equation models Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 74-94
[4]  
Babin BJ(1995)The partial least squares approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as illustration Technology Studies 2 285-309
[5]  
Hair JF(1996)Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: a review International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 139-161
[6]  
Boles JS(2003)The structural influence of marketing journals: a citation analysis of the discipline and its subareas over time Journal of Marketing 67 123-139
[7]  
Bagozzi RP(2007)The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs Journal of Marketing Research 44 175-184
[8]  
Yi Y(2009)Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly concrete constructs International Journal of Advertising 28 607-621
[9]  
Barclay DW(2011)Evaluating effect, composite, and causal indicators in structural equation models MIS Quarterly 35 359-372
[10]  
Higgins CA(2009)Causal indicator models: identification, estimation, and testing Structural Equation Modeling. An Interdisciplinary Journal 16 498-522