A comparative analysis of multivariate approaches for data analysis in management sciences

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorAhmed, Rizwan Raheem
dc.contributor.authorStreimikiene, Dalia
dc.contributor.authorStreimikis, Justas
dc.contributor.authorSiksnelyte-Butkiene, Indre
dc.contributor.otherEkonomická fakultacs
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-05T10:28:06Z
dc.date.available2024-03-05T10:28:06Z
dc.description.abstractThe researchers use the SEM-based multivariate approach to analyze the data in different fields, including management sciences and economics. Partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) are powerful data analysis techniques. This paper aims to compare both models, their efficiencies and deficiencies, methodologies, procedures, and how to employ the models. The outcomes of this paper exhibited that the PLS-SEM is a technique that combines the strengths of structural equation modeling and partial least squares. It is imperative to know that the PLS-SEM is a powerful technique that can handle measurement error at the highest levels, trim and unbalanced datasets, and latent variables. It is beneficial for analyzing relationships among latent constructs that may not be candidly witnessed and might not be applied in situations where traditional SEM would be infeasible. However, the CB-SEM approach is a procedure that pools the strengths of both structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis. The CB-SEM is a dominant multivariate technique that can grip multiple groups and indicators; it is beneficial for analyzing relationships among latent variables and multiple manifest variables, which can be directly observed. The paper concluded that the PLS-SEM is a more suitable technique for analyzing relations among latent constructs, generally for a small dataset, and the measurement error is high. However, the CB-SEM is suitable for analyzing compound latent and manifest constructs, mainly when the goal is to generalize results to specific population subgroups. The PLS-SEM and CB-SEM have specific efficiencies and deficiencies that determine which technique to use depending on resource availability, the research question, the dataset, and the available time.en
dc.formattext
dc.identifier.doi10.15240/tul/001/2024-5-001
dc.identifier.eissn2336-5604
dc.identifier.issn1212-3609
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.tul.cz/handle/15240/174719
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTechnická Univerzita v Libercics
dc.publisherTechnical university of Liberec, Czech Republicen
dc.publisher.abbreviationTUL
dc.relation.isbasedonAhmed, R. R., Hussain, S., Pahi, M. H., Usas, A., & Jasinskas, E. (2019). Social media handling and extended technology acceptance model (ETAM): Evidence from SEM-based multivariate approach. Transformations in Business & Economics, 18(3), 246–271. Ahmed, R. R., Streimikiene, D., Channar, Z. A., Soomro, R. H., & Streimikis, J. (2021). E-banking customer satisfaction and loyalty: Evidence from serial mediation through modified E-S-QUAL model and second-order PLS-SEM. Engineering Economics, 32(5), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.32.5.28997 Ahmed, R. R., Štreimikienė, D., Rolle, J. A., & Due, P. A. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and the antecedents for the impulse buying behavior of US citizens. Journal of Competitiveness, 12(3), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2020.03.01 Ahmed, R. R., Štreimikienė, D., & Streimikis, J. (2022). The extended UTAUT model and learning management system during COVID-19: Evidence from PLS-SEM and conditional process modeling. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23(1), 82–104. https://doi.org/ 10.3846/jbem.2021.15664 Arminger, G., & Schoenberg, R. J. (1989). Pseudo maximum likelihood estimation and a test for misspecification in mean and covariance structure models. Psychometrika, 54(3), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294626 Ashraf, M., Vveinhardt, J., Ahmed, R. R., Štreimikienė, D., & Mangi, R. A. (2018). Exploring intervening influence of interactional justice between procedural justice and job performance: Evidence from South Asian countries. Amfiteatru Economic, 20(47), 169–184. https:// doi.org/10.24818/ea/2018/47/169 Astrachan, C. B., Patel, V. K., & Wanzenried, G. (2014). A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM for theory development in family firm research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs. 2013.12.002 Barbić, D., Lučić, A., & Chen, J. M. (2019). Measuring responsible financial consumption behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 43(1), 102–112. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ijcs.12489 Becker, J.-M., Proksch, D., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Revisiting Gaussian copulas to handle endogenous regressors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(1), 46–66. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00805-y Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-2909.107.2.238 Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2001). Consumer behavior. Harcourt College Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250212 Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9781118619179 Bollen, K. A., & Davis, W. R. (2009). Causal indicator models: Identification, estimation, and testing. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 498–522. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10705510903008253 Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805534 Chan, J. Y.-L., Leow, S. M. H., Bea, K. T., Cheng, W. K., Phoong, S. W., Hong, Z.-W., & Chen, Y.-L. (2022). Mitigating the multicollinearity problem and its machine learning approach: A review. Mathematics, 10(8), 1283. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10081283 Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Ramayah, T., Memon, M. A., Cham, T. H., & Ciavolino, E. (2019). A comparison of five reflective-formative estimation approaches: Reconsideration and recommendations for tourism research. Quality & Quantity, 53(3), 1421–1458. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0821-7 Chin, W. W. (2010). Bootstrap crossvalidation indices for PLS path model assessment. In V. W. W. Esposito Vinzi, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics Series) (Vol. 2, pp. 83–97). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_4 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313 Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430–447. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/intr-12-2017-0515 Grewal, R., Cote, J. A., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Science, 23(4), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0070 Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson Education. Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., & Krey, N. (2017). Covariance- based structural equation modeling in the Journal of Advertising: Review and recommendations. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017. 1281777 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate data analysis. Cengage. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall. Hair, J. F., Hult, T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202 Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/ ebr-11-2018-0203 Hair, J. F., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). Explanation plus prediction: The logical focus of project management research. Project Management Journal, 52(4), 319–322. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/8756972821999945 Hayes, A. F., Montoya, A. K., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25(1), 76–81. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.02.001 Henseler, J. (2021). Composite-based structural equation modeling: Analyzing latent and emergent variables. Guilford Press. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. (2001). The abuse of power. The American Statistician, 55(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1198/ 000313001300339897 Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Hult, G. T. M., Hair, J. F., Proksch, D., Sarstedt, M., Pinkwart, A., & Ringle, C. M. (2018). Addressing endogeneity in international marketing applications of partial least squares structural equation modeling. Journal of International Marketing, 26(3), 1–21. https://doi. org/10.1509/jim.17.0151 Hussain, S., & Ahmed, R. R. (2020). Smartphone buying behaviors in a framework of brand experience and brand equity. Transformations in Business & Economics, 19(2), 220–242. Hussain, S., Ahmed, R. R., & Shamsi, A. F. (2021). Technology confirmation is associated to improved psychological well-being: Evidence from an experimental design. Transformations in Business & Economics, 20(53), 177–196. Hwang, H., Sarstedt, M., Cheah, J. H., & Ringle, C. M. (2020). A concept analysis of methodological research on composite-based structural equation modeling: Bridging PLSPM and GSCA. Behaviormetrika, 47(1), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-019-00085-5 Kang, H. (2021). Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 18, 17. https://doi. org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17 Kaufmann, L., & Gaeckler, J. (2015). A structured review of partial least squares in supply chain management research. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(4), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2015. 04.005 Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press. Kroese, D. P., Brereton, T., Taimre, T., & Botev, Z. I. (2014). Why the Monte Carlo method is so important today. WIREs Computational Statistics, 6(6), 386–392. https://doi. org/10.1002/wics.1314 Legate, A. E., Hair, J. F., Chretien, J. L., & Risher, J. J. (2022). PLS-SEM: Predictionoriented solutions for HRD researchers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 34(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21466 Liengaard, B. D., Sharma, P. N., Hult, G. T. M., Jensen, M. B., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2021). Prediction: Coveted, yet forsaken? Introducing a crossvalidated predictive ability test in partial least squares path modeling. Decision Sciences, 52(2), 362–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/ deci.12445 Lu, J., Ren, L., Zhang, C., Rong, D., Ahmed, R. R., & Streimikis, J. (2020). Modified Carroll’s pyramid of corporate social responsibility to enhance organizational performance of SME industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 271, 122456. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2020.122456 Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0597 Matthews, L. (2017). Applying multi-group analysis in PLS-SEM: A step-by-step process. In H. Latan & R. Noonan (Eds.), Partial least squares path modeling (pp. 219–243). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-64069-3_10 Maydeu-Olivares, A., Shi, D., & Rosseel, Y. (2018). Assessing fit in structural equation models: A Monte-Carlo evaluation of RMSEA versus SRMR confidence intervals and tests of close fit. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3), 389–402. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/ 10705511.2017.1389611 McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting statistical equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 1082-989x.7.1.64 Memon, M. A., Cheah, J.-H., Ramayah, T., Ting, H., Chuah, F., & Cham, T. H. (2019). Moderation analysis: Issues and guidelines. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 3(1), i–xi. https://doi.org/10.47263/jasem.3(1)01 Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 869–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.022 Mouri, N. (2005). A consumer-based assessment of alliance performance: An examination of consumer value, satisfaction and post-purchase behavior. University of Central Florida. Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2018). Structural equation modeling. The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge. Nunkoo, R., Teeroovengadum, V., Ringle, C. M., & Sunnassee, V. (2020). Service quality and customer satisfaction: The moderating effects of hotel star rating. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 91, 102414. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102414 Oliver, R. L. (2014). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315700892 Parmar, V., Channar, Z. A., Ahmed, R. R., Štreimikienė, D., Pahi, M. H., & Streimikis, J. (2022). Assessing the organizational commitment, subjective vitality and burnout effects on turnover intention in private universities. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(1), 251–286. https://doi. org/10.24136/oc.2022.008 Raza, S. A., Qazi, W., Khan, K. A., & Salam, J. (2021). Social isolation and acceptance of the learning management system (LMS) in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: An expansion of the UTAUT model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(2), 183–208. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0735633120960421 Richter, N. F., Schubring, S., Hauff, S., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2020). When predictors of outcomes are necessary: Guidelines for the combined use of PLS-SEM and NCA. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 120(12), 2243–2267. https://doi.org/10.1108/ imds-11-2019-0638 Rigdon, E. E. (2016). Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European management research: A realist perspective. European Management Journal, 34(6), 598–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.05.006 Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH Boenningstedt. Ringle C. M., Wende, S., & Becker J. M. (2022). SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS Oststeinbek. Sarstedt, M., & Cheah, J.-H. (2019). Partial least squares structural equation modeling using Smart-PLS: A software review. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 7(3), 196–202. https://doi. org/10.1057/s41270-019-00058-3 Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Becker, J.-M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ausmj.2019.05.003 Sarstedt, M., Radomir, L., Moisescu, O. I., & Ringle, C. M. (2022). Latent class analysis in PLS-SEM: A review and recommendations for future applications. Journal of Business Research, 138, 398–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusres.2021.08.051 Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. E. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of market research (pp. 1–47). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-2 Sharma, P. N., Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N., & Ray, S. (2021). Prediction-oriented model selection in partial least squares path modeling. Decision Sciences, 52(3), 567–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12329 Shi, D., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2020). The effect of estimation methods on SEM fit indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 80(3), 421–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013164419885164 Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322–2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/ ejm-02-2019-0189 Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Sage Publications. Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1–2), 225–250. https://doi. org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8 Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. https:// doi.org/10.1007/bf02291170 Wondola, D. W., Aulele, S. N., & Lembang, F. K. (2020). Partial least square (PLS) method of addressing multicollinearity problems in multiple linear regressions (Case studies: Cost of electricity bills and factors affecting it). Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1463, The 5th International Conference on Basic Sciences, 1463(1), 012006. https://doi. org/10.1088/1742-6596/1463/1/012006 Zaidi, E. Z., Ahmed, R. R., & Raza, S. (2022). Role of social media marketing in SME sector performance. Transformations in Business & Economics, 21(56), 275–304. Zhang, M. F., Dawson, J. F., & Kline, R. B. (2020). Evaluating the use of covariancebased structural equation modelling with reflective measurement in organizational and management research: A review and recommendations for best practice. British Journal of Management, 32(2), 257–272. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8551.12415
dc.relation.ispartofEkonomie a Managementcs
dc.relation.ispartofEconomics and Managementen
dc.relation.isrefereedtrue
dc.rightsCC BY-NC
dc.subjectPartial least square-SEM (PLS-SEM)en
dc.subjectcovariance-based-SEM (CB-SEM)en
dc.subjectSEM-based multivariate approachen
dc.subjectmultiple manifest variablesen
dc.subjectPLS-SEM vs. CB-SEM modelingen
dc.subject.classificationC8
dc.subject.classificationC42
dc.subject.classificationC52
dc.titleA comparative analysis of multivariate approaches for data analysis in management sciencesen
dc.typeArticleen
local.accessopen
local.citation.epage210
local.citation.spage192
local.facultyFaculty of Economics
local.filenameEM_1_2024_12
local.fulltextyes
local.relation.abbreviationE+Mcs
local.relation.abbreviationE&Men
local.relation.issue1
local.relation.volume27
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
EM_1_2024_12_ea_1.pdf
Size:
1.62 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
článek
Download
Collections
Číslo 1