On the Adoption of Partial Least Squares in Psychological Research: Caveat Emptor

Details

Ressource 1Download: BIB_A3B57A94AA9C.P001.pdf (2281.15 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: author
Serval ID
serval:BIB_A3B57A94AA9C
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
On the Adoption of Partial Least Squares in Psychological Research: Caveat Emptor
Journal
Personality and Individual Differences
Author(s)
Rönkkö M., McIntosh C. N., Antonakis J.
ISSN
0191-8869
Publication state
Published
Issued date
07/2015
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
87
Pages
76-84
Language
english
Abstract
The partial least squares technique (PLS) has been touted as a viable alternative to latent variable structural equation modeling (SEM) for evaluating theoretical models in the differential psychology domain. We bring some balance to the discussion by reviewing the broader methodological literature to highlight: (1) the misleading characterization of PLS as an SEM method; (2) limitations of PLS for global model testing; (3) problems in testing the significance of path coefficients; (4) extremely high false positive rates when using empirical confidence intervals in conjunction with a new "sign change correction" for path coefficients; (5) misconceptions surrounding the supposedly superior ability of PLS to handle small sample sizes and non-normality; and (6) conceptual and statistical problems with formative measurement and the application of PLS to such models. Additionally, we also reanalyze the dataset provided by Willaby et al. (2015; doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.008) to highlight the limitations of PLS. Our broader review and analysis of the available evidence makes it clear that PLS is not useful for statistical estimation and testing.
Keywords
Partial least squares, Structural equation modeling, Capitalization on chance, Significance testing, Model fit
Web of science
Open Access
Yes
Create date
16/07/2015 14:16
Last modification date
20/08/2019 16:09
Usage data