Predictive model assessment and selection in composite-based modeling using PLS-SEM: extensions and guidelines for using CVPAT

Purpose Researchers often stress the predictive goals of their partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analyses. However, the method has long lacked a statistical test to compare different models in terms of their predictive accuracy and to establish whether a proposed model offers a significantly better out-of-sample predictive accuracy than a naïve benchmark. This paper aims to address this methodological research gap in predictive model assessment and selection in composite-based modeling. Design/methodology/approach Recent research has proposed the cross-validated predictive ability test (CVPAT) to compare theoretically established models. This paper proposes several extensions that broaden the scope of CVPAT and explains the key choices researchers must make when using them. A popular marketing model is used to illustrate the CVPAT extensions’ use and to make recommendations for the interpretation and benchmarking of the results. Findings This research asserts that prediction-oriented model assessments and comparisons are essential for theory development and validation. It recommends that researchers routinely consider the application of CVPAT and its extensions when analyzing their theoretical models. Research limitations/implications The findings offer several avenues for future research to extend and strengthen prediction-oriented model assessment and comparison in PLS-SEM. Practical implications Guidelines are provided for applying CVPAT extensions and reporting the results to help researchers substantiate their models’ predictive capabilities. Originality/value This research contributes to strengthening the predictive model validation practice in PLS-SEM, which is essential to derive managerial implications that are typically predictive in nature.

[1]  Mikko Rönkkö,et al.  Marketing or methodology? Exposing the fallacies of PLS with simple demonstrations , 2023, European Journal of Marketing.

[2]  Joseph F. Hair,et al.  Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade , 2022, Psychology & Marketing.

[3]  N. Danks The Piggy in the Middle , 2021, Data Base.

[4]  Joseph F. Hair,et al.  Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling , 2021, Handbook of Market Research.

[5]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Demystifying the role of causal-predictive modeling using partial least squares structural equation modeling in information systems research , 2020, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[6]  Pratyush Nidhi Sharma,et al.  Prediction: Coveted, Yet Forsaken? Introducing a Cross-Validated Predictive Ability Test in Partial Least Squares Path Modeling , 2020, Decis. Sci..

[7]  Pratyush Nidhi Sharma,et al.  Model selection uncertainty and multimodel inference in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) , 2020 .

[8]  H. Ting,et al.  Sampling weight adjustments in partial least squares structural equation modeling: guidelines and illustrations , 2020, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence.

[9]  Christian Nitzl,et al.  Beyond a tandem analysis of SEM and PROCESS: Use of PLS-SEM for mediation analyses! , 2020 .

[10]  Galit Shmueli,et al.  Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict , 2019, European Journal of Marketing.

[11]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Rethinking some of the rethinking of partial least squares , 2019, European Journal of Marketing.

[12]  Joseph F. Hair,et al.  When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM , 2019, European Business Review.

[13]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Addressing Endogeneity in International Marketing Applications of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling , 2018, Journal of International Marketing.

[14]  Pratyush Nidhi Sharma,et al.  Prediction-Oriented Model Selection in Partial Least Squares Path Modeling , 2018, Decis. Sci..

[15]  T. Yarkoni,et al.  Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning , 2017, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[16]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods , 2017, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.

[17]  Jake M. Hofman,et al.  Prediction and explanation in social systems , 2017, Science.

[18]  Joseph F. Hair,et al.  Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! ☆ , 2016 .

[19]  Galit Shmueli,et al.  The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models , 2016 .

[20]  Christian Nitzl,et al.  Mediation Analysis in Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: Helping Researchers Discuss More Sophisticated Models , 2016, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[21]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part II – A case study , 2016 .

[22]  T. C. Melewar,et al.  Measuring reputation in global markets—A comparison of reputation measures’ convergent and criterion validities , 2013 .

[23]  Manfred Schwaiger,et al.  A comparative study of corporate reputation between China and developed Western countries , 2012 .

[24]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2012, MIS Q..

[25]  Peter H. Gray,et al.  Pursuing Failure , 2010 .

[26]  Galit Shmueli,et al.  Predictive Analytics in Information Systems Research , 2010, MIS Q..

[27]  Kristin M. Bakke,et al.  The perils of policy by p-value: Predicting civil conflicts , 2010 .

[28]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  The Nature of Theory in Information Systems , 2006, MIS Q..

[29]  Dwayne A. Ball,et al.  The role of communication and trust in explaining customer loyalty: An extension to the ECSI model , 2004 .

[30]  Manfred Schwaiger Components and Parameters of Corporate Reputation — An Empirical Study , 2004 .

[31]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[32]  A. Westlund,et al.  The pan-European customer satisfaction index programme—current work and the way ahead , 2002 .

[33]  C. Fornell,et al.  Foundations of the American Customer Satisfaction Index , 2000 .

[34]  C. Fornell,et al.  The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings , 1996 .

[35]  Joseph F. Hair,et al.  Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: A Comment on “Recent Developments in PLS” , 2023, Communications of the Association for Information Systems.

[36]  Pratyush Nidhi Sharma,et al.  PLS-Based Model Selection: The Role of Alternative Explanations in Information Systems Research , 2019, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[37]  Markus Eberl,et al.  An Application of PLS in Multi-Group Analysis: The Need for Differentiated Corporate-Level Marketing in the Mobile Communications Industry , 2010 .

[38]  G. Shmueli To Explain or To Predict? , 2010, 1101.0891.