Why generalized structured component analysis is not universally preferable to structural equation modeling

Generalized structured component analysis has emerged in marketing and psychometric literature as an alternative to structural equation modeling. A recent simulation study recommends that, in most cases, this analysis is preferable to structural equation modeling because it outperforms the latter when the model is misspecified. This article examines the characteristics of generalized structured component analysis and reveals that the surprising previous findings are attributable to an incomplete experimental design and an error incurred during the software implementation of generalized structured component analysis. Simulated data show that generalized structured component analysis provides inconsistent estimates. In some instances, model misspecification can nearly neutralize this inconsistency, but in others it will reinforce the inconsistency. Moreover, generalized structured component analysis is hardly suitable for mediation analysis because it substantially overestimates the direct effect. Thus, generalized structured component analysis cannot be recommended universally over structural equation modeling.

[1]  Paul Horst,et al.  Relations amongm sets of measures , 1961 .

[2]  M. Bunge,et al.  Scientific Research I: The Search for System , 1967 .

[3]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  A unified treatment of the weighting problem , 1968, Psychometrika.

[4]  Forrest W. Young,et al.  Additive structure in qualitative data: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features , 1976 .

[5]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[6]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. , 1982 .

[7]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory , 1982 .

[8]  T. Dijkstra.  Some comments on maximum likelihood and partial least squares methods , 1983 .

[9]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Some algebraic properties of the Reticular Action Model for moment structures. , 1984, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[10]  Roger E. Millsap,et al.  On component analyses , 1985 .

[11]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  On the evaluation of structural equation models , 1988 .

[12]  Influence of sample size, estimation method, and model specification on goodness-of-fit assessments in structural equation models. , 1989 .

[13]  K. Widaman.  Bias in Pattern Loadings Represented by Common Factor Analysis and Component Analysis. , 1990, Multivariate behavioral research.

[14]  M. Browne,et al.  Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit , 1992 .

[15]  J. S. Long,et al.  Testing Structural Equation Models , 1993 .

[16]  Christian Homburg,et al.  Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review , 1996 .

[17]  P. Bentler,et al.  Fit indices in covariance structure modeling : Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification , 1998 .

[18]  H. Winklhofer,et al.  Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development , 2001 .

[19]  M. Croon.  Using Predicted Latent Scores in General Latent Struc­ ture M odels , 2002 .

[20]  George A. Marcoulides,et al.  Latent variable and latent structure models , 2002 .

[21]  Rajesh Chandy.  Research as innovation: Rewards, perils, and guideposts for research and reviews in marketing , 2003 .

[22]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[23]  David J. Ketchen,et al.  AN ASSESSMENT OF THE USE OF STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH , 2004 .

[24]  Y. Takane,et al.  Generalized structured component analysis , 2004 .

[25]  Heungsun Hwang,et al.  Fuzzy Clusterwise Generalized Structured Component Analysis , 2007 .

[26]  Y. Takane,et al.  MULTILEVEL GENERALIZED STRUCTURED COMPONENT ANALYSIS , 2007 .

[27]  M. Tenenhaus.  Component-based Structural Equation Modelling , 2008 .

[28]  Peter S. Fader,et al.  Understanding Service Retention within and across Cohorts using Limited Information , 2008 .

[29]  W. Reinartz,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of the Efficacy of Covariance-Based and Variance-Based SEM , 2009 .

[30]  Heungsun Hwang,et al.  Regularized Generalized Structured Component Analysis , 2009 .

[31]  Jörg Henseler,et al.  A Comparative Study on Parameter Recovery of Three Approaches to Structural Equation Modeling: A Rejoinder , 2010 .

[32]  Heungsun Hwang,et al.  Generalized Structured Component Analysis with Latent Interactions , 2010 .

[33]  Marc A. Tomiuk,et al.  A Comparative Study on Parameter Recovery of Three Approaches to Structural Equation Modeling , 2010 .

[34]  Irene R. R. Lu,et al.  Two new methods for estimating structural equation models: An illustration and a comparison with two established methods , 2011 .

[35]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research , 2012 .