The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparative Study on Parameter Recovery of Three Approaches to Structural Equation Modeling
Open accessAbstract
Traditionally, two approaches have been employed for structural equation modeling: covariance structure analysis and partial least squares. A third alternative, generalized structured component analysis, was introduced recently in the psychometric literature. The authors conduct a simulation study to evaluate the relative performance of these three approaches in terms of parameter recovery under different experimental conditions of sample size, data distribution, and model specification. In this study, model specification is the only meaningful condition in differentiating the performance of the three approaches in parameter recovery. Specifically, when the model is correctly specified, covariance structure analysis tends to recover parameters better than the other two approaches. Conversely, when the model is misspecified, generalized structured component analysis tends to recover parameters better. Finally, partial least squares exhibits inferior performance in parameter recovery compared with the other approaches. In particular, this tendency is salient when the model involves cross-loadings. Thus, generalized structured component analysis may be a good alternative to partial least squares for structural equation modeling and is recommended over covariance structure analysis unless correct model specification is ensured.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Friedman, J., & Tibshirani, R. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5 · Cited by 24,162
The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans
Efron, B. (1982) · Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics eBooks · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970319 · Cited by 8,120
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018 · Cited by 6,479
Cited by
A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 · Cited by 38,459
An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6 · Cited by 8,088
Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013)
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114526928 · Cited by 3,332
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Thiele, K. O. (2017) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-017-0517-x · Cited by 2,712
On making causal claims: A review and recommendations
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010 · Cited by 2,441
Metadata
- Authors
- Hwang, H., Malhotra, N. K., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M. A., & Hong, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 699-712
- ISSN
- 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7193
- OpenAlex
- W2088859781
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 16.13
- 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: A Comparative Study on Parameter Recovery of Three Approaches to Structural Equation Modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1509/jmkr.47.4.699
- The paper
- Hwang, H., Malhotra, N. K., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M. A., & Hong, S. (2010). A Comparative Study on Parameter Recovery of Three Approaches to Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.4.699
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.