Comparing maximum likelihood and PLS estimates for structural equation modeling with formative blocks

Comparing maximum likelihood and PLS estimates for structural equation modeling with formative... A common misunderstanding found in the literature is that only PLS-PM allows the estimation of SEM including formative blocks. However, if certain model specification conditions are satisfied the model is identified, and it is possible to estimate a covariance-based SEM with formative blocks. Due to the complexity of both SEM estimation methods, we studied their relative performance in the framework of the same simulation design. The simulation results showed that the effect of measurement model misspecification is much larger on the ML-SEM parameter estimates. For a model that includes a correctly specified formative block, we found that the inter-correlation level among formative MVs and the magnitude of the variance of the disturbance in the formative block have evident effects on the bias and the variability of the estimates. For high inter-correlation levels among formative MVs, PLS-PM outperforms ML-SEM, regardless of the magnitude of the disturbance variance. For a low inter-correlation level among formative MVs the performance of the two methods depends also on the magnitude of the disturbance variance. For a small disturbance variance, PLS-PM performs slightly better compared to ML-SEM. On the contrary, as the disturbance variance increases ML-SEM outperforms PLS-PM. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Quality & Quantity Springer Journals

Comparing maximum likelihood and PLS estimates for structural equation modeling with formative blocks

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/comparing-maximum-likelihood-and-pls-estimates-for-structural-equation-7XYJMlwQ24
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Subject
Social Sciences, general; Methodology of the Social Sciences; Social Sciences, general
ISSN
0033-5177
eISSN
1573-7845
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11135-014-0106-8
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

A common misunderstanding found in the literature is that only PLS-PM allows the estimation of SEM including formative blocks. However, if certain model specification conditions are satisfied the model is identified, and it is possible to estimate a covariance-based SEM with formative blocks. Due to the complexity of both SEM estimation methods, we studied their relative performance in the framework of the same simulation design. The simulation results showed that the effect of measurement model misspecification is much larger on the ML-SEM parameter estimates. For a model that includes a correctly specified formative block, we found that the inter-correlation level among formative MVs and the magnitude of the variance of the disturbance in the formative block have evident effects on the bias and the variability of the estimates. For high inter-correlation levels among formative MVs, PLS-PM outperforms ML-SEM, regardless of the magnitude of the disturbance variance. For a low inter-correlation level among formative MVs the performance of the two methods depends also on the magnitude of the disturbance variance. For a small disturbance variance, PLS-PM performs slightly better compared to ML-SEM. On the contrary, as the disturbance variance increases ML-SEM outperforms PLS-PM.

Journal

Quality & QuantitySpringer Journals

Published: Oct 5, 2014

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off