A Comparison of PLS and ML Bootstrapping Techniques in SEM: A Monte Carlo Study

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques have been extensively used in business and social science research to model complex relationships. The two most widely used estimation methods in SEM are the Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Partial Least Square (PLS). Both the estimation methods rely on Bootstrap re-sampling to a large extent. While PLS relies completely on Bootstrapping to obtain standard errors for hypothesis testing, ML relies on Bootstrapping under conditions in violation of the distributional assumptions. Even though Bootstrapping has several advantages, it may fail under certain conditions. In this Monte Carlo study, we compare the accuracy and efficiency of ML and PLS based Bootstrapping in SEM, while recovering the true estimates under various conditions of sample size and distributional assumptions. Our results suggest that researchers might benefit by using PLS based bootstrapping with smaller sample sizes. However, at larger sample sizes the use of ML based bootstrapping is recommended.

[1]  Allen I. Fleishman A method for simulating non-normal distributions , 1978 .

[2]  C. D. Vale,et al.  Simulating multivariate nonnormal distributions , 1983 .

[3]  G. Hancock,et al.  Performance of Bootstrapping Approaches to Model Test Statistics and Parameter Standard Error Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling , 2001 .

[4]  Friedrich Leisch,et al.  semPLS: Structural Equation Modeling Using Partial Least Squares , 2012 .

[5]  C. Mooney Bootstrap Statistical Inference: Examples and Evaluations for Political Science , 1996 .

[6]  D. Straub,et al.  Editor's comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly , 2012 .

[7]  E. Ziegel,et al.  Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference , 1993 .

[8]  William Lewis,et al.  PLS, Small Sample Size, and Statistical Power in MIS Research , 2006, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06).

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

[10]  R. Stine,et al.  Bootstrapping Goodness-of-Fit Measures in Structural Equation Models , 1992 .

[11]  Judy A. Siguaw,et al.  Formative versus Reflective Indicators in Organizational Measure Development: A Comparison and Empirical Illustration , 2006 .

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

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

[14]  Sadanori Konishi,et al.  Application of the bootstrap methods in factor analysis , 1995 .

[15]  P M Bentler,et al.  Bootstrap-corrected ADF test statistics in covariance structure analysis. , 1994, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[16]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet , 2011 .

[17]  John Fox,et al.  TEACHER'S CORNER: Structural Equation Modeling With the sem Package in R , 2006 .

[18]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  Reconceptualizing Compatibility Beliefs , 2006 .

[19]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A critical look at partial least squares modeling , 2009 .

[20]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. , 2000, Annual review of psychology.