This paper resumes the discussion in information systems research on the use of partial least squares (PLS) path modeling and shows that the inconsistency of PLS path coefficient estimates in the case of reflective measurement can have adverse consequences for hypothesis testing. To remedy this, the study introduces a vital extension of PLS: consistent PLS (PLSc). PLSc provides a correction for estimates when PLS is applied to reflective constructs: The path coefficients, inter-construct correlations, and indicator loadings become consistent. The outcome of a Monte Carlo simulation reveals that the bias of PLSc parameter estimates is comparable to that of covariance-based structural equation modeling.Moreover, the outcome shows that PLSc has advantages when using non-normally distributed data. We discuss the implications for IS research and provide guidelines for choosing among structural equation modeling techniques.

This article addresses Rö nkkö and Evermann's criticisms of the partial least squares (PLS) approach to structural equation modeling. We contend that the alleged shortcomings of PLS are not due to problems with the technique, but instead to three problems with Rönkkö and Evermann's study: (a) the adherence to the common factor model, (b) a very limited simulation designs, and (c) overstretched generalizations of their findings. Whereas Rö nkkö and Evermann claim to be dispelling myths about PLS, they have in reality created new myths that we, in turn, debunk. By examining their claims, our article contributes to reestablishing a constructive discussion of the PLS method and its properties. We show that PLS does offer advantages for exploratory research and that it is a viable estimator for composite factor models. This can pose an interesting alternative if the common factor model does not hold. Therefore, we can conclude that PLS should continue to be used as an important statistical tool for management and organizational research, as well as other social science disciplines.

No abstract

This article introduces confirmatory composite analysis (CCA) as a structural equation modeling technique that aims at testing composite models. It facilitates the operationalization and assessment of design concepts, so-called artifacts. CCA entails the same steps as confirmatory factor analysis: model specification, model identification, model estimation, and model assessment. Composite models are specified such that they consist of a set of interrelated composites, all of which emerge as linear combinations of observable variables. Researchers must ensure theoretical identification of their specified model. For the estimation of the model, several estimators are available; in particular Kettenring's extensions of canonical correlation analysis provide consistent estimates. Model assessment mainly relies on the Bollen-Stine bootstrap to assess the discrepancy between the empirical and the estimated model-implied indicator covariance matrix. A Monte Carlo simulation examines the efficacy of CCA, and demonstrates that CCA is able to detect various forms of model misspecification.

No abstract