Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 303

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Partial least squares path modeling: Time for some serious second thoughts

Open access
Rönkkö, Mikko, McIntosh, Cameron N., Antonakis, John, Edwards, Jeffrey R.·2016·Journal of Operations Management
DOI 10.1016/j.jom.2016.05.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Partial least squares (PLS) path modeling is increasingly being promoted as a technique of choice for various analysis scenarios, despite the serious shortcomings of the method. The current lack of methodological justification for PLS prompted the editors of this journal to declare that research using this technique is likely to be desk‐rejected (Guide and Ketokivi, 2015). To provide clarification on the inappropriateness of PLS for applied research, we provide a non‐technical review and empirical demonstration of its inherent, intractable problems. We show that although the PLS technique is promoted as a structural equation modeling (SEM) technique, it is simply regression with scale scores and thus has very limited capabilities to handle the wide array of problems for which applied researchers use SEM. To that end, we explain why the use of PLS weights and many rules of thumb that are commonly employed with PLS are unjustifiable, followed by addressing why the touted advantages of the method are simply untenable.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jom.2016.05.002

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rönkkö, M., McIntosh, C. N., Antonakis, J., & Edwards, J. R.
Venue
Journal of Operations Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-06-22
Volume
47-48
Issue
1
Pages
9-27
ISSN
  • 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-1317
DOI
10.1016/j.jom.2016.05.002
OpenAlex
W2467386812
Cited by
303
References
25
FWCI
30.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.