The choice of structural equation modeling technique matters: A commentary on Dash and Paul (2021)

Florian Schuberth, Geoffrey Hubona, Ellen Roemer, Sam Zaza, Tamara Schamberger, Francis Chuah, Gabriel Cepeda-Carrión, Jörg Henseler*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/Letter to the editorAcademicpeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)
112 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Ganesh Dash and Justin Paul authored an article titled “CB-SEM vs. PLS-SEM methods for research in social science and technological forecasting” in a special issue of Technological Forecasting and Social Change, co-edited by Justin Paul. Unfortunately, the article’s central conclusion – “CB or PLS or PLSc do not matter” – is misleading and at odds with practically all extant conceptual and empirical research on this subject. This commentary identifies an unsuitable research design to be the major cause of the erroneous conclusion and aims to set the record straight. A Monte Carlo simulation demonstrates that the choice of the approach to structural equation modeling can have a substantial impact on the results and their validity. In general, analysts should choose a structural equation modeling approach that fits their conceptual model.
Original languageEnglish
Article number122665
JournalTechnological forecasting and social change
Volume194
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2023

Keywords

  • UT-Hybrid-D

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The choice of structural equation modeling technique matters: A commentary on Dash and Paul (2021)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this