A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling

Traditionally, two approaches have been employed for structural equation modeling: covariance structure analysis and partial least squares. A third alternative, generalized structured component analysis, was introduced recently in the psychometric literature. The authors conduct a simulation study t...

全面介紹

Saved in:
書目詳細資料
Main Authors: Malhotra, Naresh K., Tomiuk, Marc A., Hwang, Heungsun, Kim, Youngchan, Hong, Sungjin
其他作者: Nanyang Business School
格式: Article
語言:English
出版: 2013
主題:
在線閱讀:https://hdl.handle.net/10356/100278
http://hdl.handle.net/10220/16229
標簽: 添加標簽
沒有標簽, 成為第一個標記此記錄!
id sg-ntu-dr.10356-100278
record_format dspace
spelling sg-ntu-dr.10356-1002782023-05-19T06:44:40Z A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling Malhotra, Naresh K. Tomiuk, Marc A. Hwang, Heungsun Kim, Youngchan Hong, Sungjin Nanyang Business School DRNTU::Business Traditionally, two approaches have been employed for structural equation modeling: covariance structure analysis and partial least squares. A third alternative, generalized structured component analysis, was introduced recently in the psychometric literature. The authors conduct a simulation study to evaluate the relative performance of these three approaches in terms of parameter recovery under different experimental conditions of sample size, data distribution, and model specification. In this study, model specification is the only meaningful condition in differentiating the performance of the three approaches in parameter recovery. Specifically, when the model is correctly specified, covariance structure analysis tends to recover parameters better than the other two approaches. Conversely, when the model is misspecified, generalized structured component analysis tends to recover parameters better. Finally, partial least squares exhibits inferior performance in parameter recovery compared with the other approaches. In particular, this tendency is salient when the model involves cross-loadings. Thus, generalized structured component analysis may be a good alternative to partial least squares for structural equation modeling and is recommended over covariance structure analysis unless correct model specification is ensured. Published version 2013-10-03T03:16:10Z 2019-12-06T20:19:33Z 2013-10-03T03:16:10Z 2019-12-06T20:19:33Z 2010 2010 Journal Article Hwang, H., Malhotra, N. K., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M. A., & Hong, S. (2010). A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling. Journal of marketing research, 47(4), 699-712. 0022-2437 https://hdl.handle.net/10356/100278 http://hdl.handle.net/10220/16229 10.1509/jmkr.47.4.699 en Journal of marketing research © 2010 American Marketing Association. This paper was published in Journal of Marketing Research and is made available as an electronic reprint (preprint) with permission of American Marketing Association. The paper can be found at the following official DOI: [http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.4.699].  One print or electronic copy may be made for personal use only. Systematic or multiple reproduction, distribution to multiple locations via electronic or other means, duplication of any material in this paper for a fee or for commercial purposes, or modification of the content of the paper is prohibited and is subject to penalties under law. application/pdf
institution Nanyang Technological University
building NTU Library
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider NTU Library
collection DR-NTU
language English
topic DRNTU::Business
spellingShingle DRNTU::Business
Malhotra, Naresh K.
Tomiuk, Marc A.
Hwang, Heungsun
Kim, Youngchan
Hong, Sungjin
A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling
description Traditionally, two approaches have been employed for structural equation modeling: covariance structure analysis and partial least squares. A third alternative, generalized structured component analysis, was introduced recently in the psychometric literature. The authors conduct a simulation study to evaluate the relative performance of these three approaches in terms of parameter recovery under different experimental conditions of sample size, data distribution, and model specification. In this study, model specification is the only meaningful condition in differentiating the performance of the three approaches in parameter recovery. Specifically, when the model is correctly specified, covariance structure analysis tends to recover parameters better than the other two approaches. Conversely, when the model is misspecified, generalized structured component analysis tends to recover parameters better. Finally, partial least squares exhibits inferior performance in parameter recovery compared with the other approaches. In particular, this tendency is salient when the model involves cross-loadings. Thus, generalized structured component analysis may be a good alternative to partial least squares for structural equation modeling and is recommended over covariance structure analysis unless correct model specification is ensured.
author2 Nanyang Business School
author_facet Nanyang Business School
Malhotra, Naresh K.
Tomiuk, Marc A.
Hwang, Heungsun
Kim, Youngchan
Hong, Sungjin
format Article
author Malhotra, Naresh K.
Tomiuk, Marc A.
Hwang, Heungsun
Kim, Youngchan
Hong, Sungjin
author_sort Malhotra, Naresh K.
title A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling
title_short A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling
title_full A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling
title_fullStr A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling
title_full_unstemmed A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling
title_sort comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling
publishDate 2013
url https://hdl.handle.net/10356/100278
http://hdl.handle.net/10220/16229
_version_ 1770567163579465728