Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 434

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Critical Examination of Common Beliefs About Partial Least Squares Path Modeling

Rönkkö, Mikko, Evermann, Joerg·2013·Organizational Research Methods
DOI 10.1177/1094428112474693
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Partial least squares path modeling (PLS) was developed in the 1960s and 1970s as a method for predictive modeling. In the succeeding years, applied disciplines, including organizational and management research, have developed beliefs about the capabilities of PLS and its suitability for different applications. On close examination, some of these beliefs prove to be unfounded and to bear little correspondence to the actual capabilities of PLS. In this article, we critically examine several of these commonly held beliefs. We describe their origins, and, using simple examples, we demonstrate that many of these beliefs are not true. We conclude that the method is widely misunderstood, and our results cast strong doubts on its effectiveness for building and testing theory in organizational research.

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 · 10.1177/1094428112474693

Cites

12 of 12 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 12 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rönkkö, M., & Evermann, J.
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-03-07
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
425-448
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
DOI
10.1177/1094428112474693
OpenAlex
W2326958296
Cited by
434
References
12
FWCI
31.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.