We have a client who would like to use this technique to do analysis. Before we can recommend it or not, we would like to learn about it. Does MPlus do it? Has anyone ever heard of it? Thanks.
bmuthen posted on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 1:19 am
No Mplus does not do Partial Least Squares. PLS is a technique championed by Herman Wold as an alternative to the LISREL ML approach by Joreskog (Wold's student). There is a literature on PLS - early writings include a 1982 North Holland 2-part volume called Systems Under Indirect Observation (Joreskog & Wold eds.). SEMNET members probably can be asked about more recent contributions.
Anonymous posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 4:42 am
If M-plus Version 3.11 connot handle PLS estimation what estimation method is recomended for SEM models with non-normal data (high skewed data)?
We have a few estimators that are robust to non-normality. I would recommend what we refer to as MLR. With this estimate, you obtain maximum likelihood parameter estimates with standard errors and a chi-square test statistic that is robust to non-normality. The standard errors are computed using a sandwich estimator. The chi-square test statistic is also referred to as the Yuan-Bentler T2 test statistic.
If your variables are censored, Mplus also has an option for dealing with censored data.
Since this thread seems to have ended quite some time ago, I was wondering if the current version of MPlus is capable of fitting path analysis models with latent variables? More specifically, I had someone ask me about fitting a path model that includes a single latent variable (Youth Human Capital in their words), a mediator (program participation), and several covariates (i.e., race, native language, etc...). Is is possible to fit models like this now?
Again, because this thread has not been updated in a while, is the newest version able to do PLS-SEM and/or able to deal with formative and/or reflective first- and second-order constructs?
The reason I ask is that I have read information along the lines of the following:
Traditional SEM programs (e.g., MPlus) are able to compute models including formative second-order constructs, however, they cannot handle formative first-order constructs. Therefore, PLS-SEM (e.g., using software like Smart PLS) is the only option to calculate models containing both formative first-order and second-order constructs.
The problem is that there is so much conflicting information in research articles (and related materials) published by authors who seemingly have formed into a number of different groups with potential financial conflicts of interest.
In your opinion, can Mplus be used to test SEM models with mediating constructs using bootstrapping procedures when formative measures/constructs exist at both the first- and second-order levels?
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
If we have a standard mediated model with three constructs (C1, C2 and C3), where
C1 -> C2 C2 -> C3 C1 -> C3
And, C1, C2 and C3 are all measured with formative indicators.
To give a little more background to ensure we are on the same page, Hair and colleagues have authored a growing number of articles in which they have put forward an argument that PLS-SEM methods (and alternative software) should be used for SEM research with (1) small sample size, (2) non-normal data, and (3) formative measures. It is this third point which I am most interested in trying to understand.
Traditional SEM is based on the covariances between constructs, which PLS-SEM seems to be more focused on trying to maximize the amount of variance which can be explained. Thus, there is a mathematical difference between how a traditional SEM model's results are calculated compared to a PLS-SEM model's results.
I am trying to understand if this difference in calculations would (really) affect a model if formative indicators were used (instead of reflective indicators).
I hope this information is more clear. Thanks again in advance.
Thank you for your response and the McIntosh et al. citation. The article provides some good information about PLS-SEM (aka PLS-PM) techniques. I was unable to find any recent (last few years) paper by Bollen about formative indicators and how they are best handled in SEM and/or PLS methods and techniques, however, Bollen has published some commentary on the issues in the last decade and beyond. Thank you for your consideration in responding so quickly to my queries.