Nonlinear structural equation modeling: is partial least squares an alternative?

Nonlinear structural equation modeling provides many advantages over analyses based on manifest variables only. Several approaches for the analysis of latent interaction effects have been developed within the last 15 years, including the partial least squares product indicator approach (PLS-PI), the constrained product indicator approach using the LISREL software (LISREL-PI), and the distribution-analytic latent moderated structural equations approach (LMS) using the Mplus program. An assumed advantage of PLS-PI is that it is able to deal with very large numbers of indicators, while LISREL-PI and LMS have not been investigated under such conditions. In a Monte Carlo study, the performance of LISREL-PI and LMS was compared to PLS-PI results previously reported in Chin et al. (2003) and Goodhue et al. (2007) for identical conditions. The latent interaction model included six indicator variables for the measurement of each latent predictor variable and the latent criterion, and sample size was N=100. The results showed that PLS-PI’s linear and interaction parameter estimates were downward biased, while parameter estimates were unbiased for LISREL-PI and LMS. True standard errors were smallest for PLS-PI, while the power to detect the latent interaction effect was higher for LISREL-PI and LMS. Compared to the symmetric distributions of interaction parameter estimates for LISREL-PI and LMS, PLS-PI showed a distribution that was symmetric for positive values, but included outlying negative estimates. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed.

[1]  R NewstedPeter,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects , 2003 .

[2]  Xin-Yuan Song,et al.  Model comparison of nonlinear structural equation models with fixed covariates , 2003 .

[3]  Fan Yang,et al.  Nonlinear structural equation models: The Kenny-Judd model with Interaction effects , 1996 .

[4]  James Algina,et al.  Comparison of Methods for Estimating and Testing Latent Variable Interactions , 2002 .

[5]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic - Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  Frans J. Oort,et al.  Using restricted factor analysis with latent moderated structures to detect uniform and nonuniform measurement bias; a simulation study , 2010 .

[7]  Fan Yang Jonsson Non-linear structural equation models : simulation studies of the Kenny-Judd model , 1997 .

[8]  Jörg Henseler,et al.  On the convergence of the partial least squares path modeling algorithm , 2010, Comput. Stat..

[9]  Michel Tenenhaus,et al.  PLS path modeling , 2005, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[10]  Helfried Moosbrugger,et al.  Challenges in Nonlinear Structural Equation Modeling , 2007 .

[11]  Sik-Yum Lee,et al.  Bayesian analysis of latent variable models with non-ignorable missing outcomes from exponential family. , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  H. Marsh,et al.  Structural equation models of latent interactions: evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. , 2004, Psychological methods.

[13]  D. Zapf,et al.  Customer-related social stressors and burnout. , 2004, Journal of occupational health psychology.

[14]  Herman Wold,et al.  Soft modelling: The Basic Design and Some Extensions , 1982 .

[15]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares , 1999 .

[16]  Evangelia Demerouti,et al.  Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. , 2005, Journal of occupational health psychology.

[17]  Leo A. Aroian,et al.  The probability function of the product of two normally distributed variables. , 1947 .

[18]  G. A. Marcoulides,et al.  Advanced structural equation modeling : issues and techniques , 1996 .

[19]  John P. Meyer,et al.  Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model , 2001 .

[20]  David A. Cole,et al.  Multitrait-multimethod change modelling , 2010 .

[21]  A. Kelava,et al.  6. TESTING MULTIPLE NONLINEAR EFFECTS IN STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING: A COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATION APPROACHES , 2009 .

[22]  Helfried Moosbrugger,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method , 2000 .

[23]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Path Analysis with Composite Variables. , 1996, Multivariate behavioral research.

[24]  George A. Marcoulides,et al.  Modern methods for business research , 1998 .

[25]  Bengt O. Muthén,et al.  Quasi-Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Structural Equation Models With Multiple Interaction and Quadratic Effects , 2007 .

[26]  Wynne W. Chin The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. , 1998 .

[27]  Helfried Moosbrugger,et al.  Multicollinearity and missing constraints: A comparison of three approaches for the analysis of latent nonlinear effects. , 2008 .

[28]  Kenneth A. Bollen,et al.  An alternative two stage least squares (2SLS) estimator for latent variable equations , 1996 .

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

[30]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[31]  Ike-Elechi Ogba,et al.  Commitment in the workplace: The impact of income and age on employee commitment in Nigerian banking sector , 2008 .

[32]  Carol Saunders,et al.  PLS: A Silver Bullet? , 2006 .

[33]  Timothy Teo,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling in Educational Research: Concepts and Applications , 2009 .

[34]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and Voice Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 1996, ICIS.

[35]  James Algina,et al.  A Note on Estimating the Jöreskog-Yang Model for Latent Variable Interaction Using LISREL 8.3 , 2001 .

[36]  Suzanne Jak,et al.  Measurement bias and multidimensionality; an illustration of bias detection in multidimensional measurement models , 2010 .

[37]  George A. Marcoulides,et al.  Interaction and Nonlinear Effects in Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[38]  C. Saunders,et al.  Editor's comments: PLS: a silver bullet? , 2006 .

[39]  R. Hoyle Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research , 1999 .

[40]  William Lewis,et al.  Research Note - Statistical Power in Analyzing Interaction Effects: Questioning the Advantage of PLS with Product Indicators , 2007, Inf. Syst. Res..

[41]  H. Wold Soft Modelling by Latent Variables: The Non-Linear Iterative Partial Least Squares (NIPALS) Approach , 1975, Journal of Applied Probability.

[42]  Andreas G. Klein,et al.  Introduction of a new measure for detecting poor fit due to omitted nonlinear terms in SEM , 2010 .

[43]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: User's Reference Guide , 1997 .

[44]  F. Oort,et al.  Using structural equation modelling to detect measurement bias and response shift in longitudinal data , 2010 .

[45]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Estimating the nonlinear and interactive effects of latent variables. , 1984 .

[46]  James Jaccard,et al.  Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effects between continuous predictors using multiple regression: Multiple indicator and structural equation approaches. , 1995 .

[47]  J. Sinacore Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions , 1993 .

[48]  L. E. Jones,et al.  Analysis of multiplicative combination rules when the causal variables are measured with error. , 1983 .