2017
DOI: 10.47263/jasem.1(1)01
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Review of the Methodological Misconceptions and Guidelines Related to the Application of Structural Equation Modeling: A Malaysian Scenario

Abstract: Although structural equation modeling (SEM) is a powerful statistical technique, understanding its methodological assumptions before data analyses is essential to attaining more robust results. In this editorial, we outline four major methodological issues which are related to the application of SEM in Malaysia along with their respective guidelines. These issues include 1) probability and non-probability sampling, 2) pre-testing and pilot study, 3) CB-SEM and PLS-SEM, and 4) exploratory and confirmatory facto… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
156
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 173 publications
(157 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
156
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The quality of samples selected by using this approach depends on the accuracy of subjective interpretations which constitutes a typical sample ( Valliant and Dever, 2018 ). We employed this technique following the goal of this research is to achieve theory generalization, as the complete sampling frame is not available in the given context ( Memon et al, 2017 ; Hulland et al, 2018 ). The questionnaire was shared in Facebook messenger group, WhatsApp group, the LinkedIn group with a request to fill those out.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The quality of samples selected by using this approach depends on the accuracy of subjective interpretations which constitutes a typical sample ( Valliant and Dever, 2018 ). We employed this technique following the goal of this research is to achieve theory generalization, as the complete sampling frame is not available in the given context ( Memon et al, 2017 ; Hulland et al, 2018 ). The questionnaire was shared in Facebook messenger group, WhatsApp group, the LinkedIn group with a request to fill those out.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The tests for reliability and convergent validity are presented in Table 1 . This research employed composite reliability to assess reliability, and values more than 0.7 were considered sufficient [ 67 , 68 ]. Convergent validity evaluates the degree to which items are related to the construct as theoretically conceptualised.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Convergent validity evaluates the degree to which items are related to the construct as theoretically conceptualised. Convergent validity was tested using the item loadings and the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct [ 67 , 68 ]. Table 1 shows the results of the measurement model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first part was the respondent's profile, while the second part consisted of six 7-point Likert scales adapted from previous studies including image fit, community services, physical appearance, social environment, entertainment services, and QOL [8,9,17]. Before data collection, we adopted a back translation process and invited experts to examine the questionnaire to establish face validity, and conducted a pre-test to check semantics to make sure it was easy for residents to understand the meaning of the scales [56].…”
Section: Data Collection and Instrumentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The AVE values of all constructs were above 0.50. In Table 2, the HTMT of each construct were from 0.553 to 0.802, all under the requirement of 0.9 [56].…”
Section: Measurement Model Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%