Cited by 3,280Psychometric Methodologies and TestingBusiness Strategies and Management ResearchStatistical Methods and Applications

A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: tutorial and annotated example

Open access
Gefen, David, Straub, Detmar·2005·Communications of the Association for Information Systems

Abstract

This tutorial explains in detail what factorial validity is and how to run its various aspects in PLS. The tutorial is written as a teaching aid for doctoral seminars that may cover PLS and for researchers interested in learning PLS. An annotated example with data is provided as an additional tool to assist the reader in reconstructing the detailed example.

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 · 10.17705/1cais.01605

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Indicators AUTH5, PSR5, and PGE4 with loadings below 0.50 were removed for both overall and country-specific data.

    “By following these rules and using (Gefen and Straub, 2005) decision logic, the model was cleaned up by getting rid of AUTH5, PSR5, and PGE4 (loadings <0.50) for both overall and country-specific data.”

    From Cross-national evidence on influencer-driven green choice: a moderated-mediation model of authenticity, parasocial ties, and greenwashing exposure (2026) · cites this paper as Gefen and Straub, 2005

    The discussion of PCA and EFA says that items that do not load properly may be dropped to purify an instrument, which supports the general decision to remove weak indicators. But the PLS Factorial Validity section says there is no established loading threshold and does not prescribe removal below 0.50. The named indicators and the overall and country-specific analyses are the citing authors’ own results, not findings attributed to Gefen and Straub. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Composite reliability values for all focal constructs met or came close to the 0.70 benchmark, indicating satisfactory internal consistency.

    “The CR values for all focal constructs (AUTH, INTENT, PGE, PGR, PSR, TRUST) met or came close to the 0.70 benchmark, which indicates that the internal consistency was satisfactory (Gefen and Straub, 2005;Henseler et al., 2015).”

    From Cross-national evidence on influencer-driven green choice: a moderated-mediation model of authenticity, parasocial ties, and greenwashing exposure (2026) · cites this paper as Gefen and Straub, 2005

    Figure 5 in “Discriminant Validity: Procedure 1” reports composite reliability for the tutorial’s own constructs (Buy Tick, PU, and PEOU), not the six focal constructs in the citing sentence. Searches for a 0.70 composite-reliability benchmark and internal consistency found no passage in our copy establishing that benchmark or the claimed assessment. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Bagozzi, R. P. (1977) "Structural Equation Models in Experimental Research," Journal of Marketing Research (14) pp. 209-236.
  2. Barclay, D., R. Thompson, and C. Higgins (1995) "The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Causal Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use an Illustration," Technology Studies (2)2, pp. 285-309.
  3. Chin, W. W. (1998a) "Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling," MIS Quarterly (22)1, March, pp. vii-xvi.
  4. Chin, W. W. (1998b) "The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling," in G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.) Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahway, New Jersey pp. 295-336.
  5. Diamantopoulos, A. and H. M. Winklhofer (2001) "Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development," Journal of Marketing Research (38)2, pp. 269-277.
  6. Fornell, C. and F. L. Bookstein (1982) "Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory," Journal of Marketing Research (19)4, pp. 440- 452.
  7. Gefen, D. (2003) "Unidimensional Validity: An Explanation and Example," CAIS (12)2, pp. 23-47.
  8. Gefen, D. and D. Straub (2000) "The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease-of-Use in IS Adoption: A Study of e-Commerce Adoption," JAIS (1)8, pp. 1-30.
  9. Gefen, D., D. Straub, and M. Boudreau (2000) "Structural Equation Modeling Techniques and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice," Communications of the Association for Information Systems (7)7 August,, pp. 1-78.
  10. Gerbing, D. W. and J. C. Anderson (1988) "An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment," Journal of Marketing Research (25) May, pp. 186-192.
  11. Hair, J. F., Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings, 5th Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  12. House, R. J., W. D. Spangler, and J. Woycke (1991) "Personality and Charisma in the U.S. Presidency: A Psychological Theory of Leader Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly (36)3, pp. 364-396.
  13. MacCallum, R. C. and J. T. Austin (2000) "Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Psychological Research," Annual Review of Psychology (51) pp. 201-226.
  14. Siegel, S. and N. J. Castellan (1988) Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. SPSS (2003) SPSS 12 Help Manual. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS.
  15. Straub, D., M.-C. Boudreau, and D. Gefen (2004) "Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research," Communications of the Association for Information Systems (14) pp. 380-426.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gefen, D., & Straub, D.
Affiliations
  • Drexel University (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
Venue
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
Published
2005
Volume
16
ISSN
1529-3181 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1496783311
Cited by
3,280
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 167 · 2024: 176 · 2023: 216 · 2022: 235 · 2021: 231 · 2020: 219 · 2019: 208 · 2018: 182 · 2017: 184 · 2016: 182 · 2015: 207 · 2014: 224 · 2013: 182 · 2012: 163
FWCI
60.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Communications of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
factorial validity, partial least squares, construct validity, structural equation modeling, PLS-SEM

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