Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

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

Dolce, Pasquale; Lauro, Natale
Quality & Quantity , Volume 49 (3) – Oct 5, 2014
Download PDF
12 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/comparing-maximum-likelihood-and-pls-estimates-for-structural-equation-7XYJMlwQ24

References (25)

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
DOI
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 & Quantity – Springer Journals

Published: Oct 5, 2014

There are no references for this article.