Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 478

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why PLS-SEM is suitable for complex modelling? An empirical illustration in big data analytics quality

Open access
Akter, Shahriar, Fosso Wamba, Samuel, Dewan, Saifullah·2017·Production Planning & Control

Abstract

The emergence of multivariate analysis techniques transforms empirical validation of theoretical concepts in social science and business research. In this context, structural equation modelling (SEM) has emerged as a powerful tool to estimate conceptual models linking two or more latent constructs. This paper shows the suitability of the partial least squares (PLS) approach to SEM (PLS-SEM) in estimating a complex model drawing on the philosophy of verisimilitude and the methodology of soft modelling assumptions. The results confirm the utility of PLS-SEM as a promising tool to estimate a complex, hierarchical model in the domain of big data analytics quality.

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 · 10.1080/09537287.2016.1267411

Cites

103 of 103 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 103 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. 10.1002/asi.v62.1 · doi:10.1002/asi.v62.1
  2. Barclay Donald, 1995, Technology Studies, 2, 285
  3. Barton D., 2012, Harvard Business Review, 90, 78
  4. 10.1080/09537287.2011.642486 · doi:10.1080/09537287.2011.642486
  5. Chin Wynne W., 1998, Management Information Systems Quarterly
  6. 10.1145/217278 · doi:10.1145/217278
  7. Davenport Thomas H., 2012, MIT Sloan Management Review, 54, 43
  8. 10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1002/asmb.v24:5 · DOI
  11. 10.2307/3151312 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.2307/3151566 · doi:10.2307/3151566 · Paper page
  13. 10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1086/jcr.2003.30.issue-2 · doi:10.1086/jcr.2003.30.issue-2
  15. Kiron David, 2014, MIT Sloan Management Review, 55, 1
  16. Lavalle S., 2011, MIT Sloan Management Review, 52, 21
  17. McAfee A., 2012, Harvard Business Review, 90, 60
  18. McAfee Andrew, 2012, Harvard Business Review, 90, 60
  19. Pyke Steve, 2011, Philosophers
  20. Ransbotham Sam, 2016, MIT Sloan Management Review, 57, 1
  21. Ray Gautam, 2005, MIS Quarterly, 625
  22. Ringle Christian, 2012, MIS Quarterly (MISQ), 36, iii, 10.2307/41410402 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1108/aim · doi:10.1108/aim
  24. 10.2307/3151679 · DOI
  25. Stafford T. F., 2011, Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35, xv, 10.2307/23044043 · doi:10.2307/23044043
  26. Wold Herman, 1975, Perspectives in Probability and Statistics, in Honor of MS Bartlett, 117
  27. 10.1007/978-1-4613-8171-6 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-8171-6

Cited by

See all 478

Metadata

Authors
Akter, S., Fosso Wamba, S., & Dewan, S.
Venue
Production Planning & Control
Published
2017-07-11
Volume
28
Issue
11-12
Pages
1011-1021
ISSN
  • 0953-7287 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5871
OpenAlex
W2735855334
Cited by
478
References
103
FWCI
13.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why PLS-SEM is suitable for complex modelling? An empirical illustration in big data analytics quality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09537287.2016.1267411
The paper
Akter, S., Fosso Wamba, S., & Dewan, S. (2017). Why PLS-SEM is suitable for complex modelling? An empirical illustration in big data analytics quality. Production Planning & Control. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1267411

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.