Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods

2,367 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A review of the methodological misconceptions and guidelines related to the application of structural equation modeling: A Malaysian scenario (2017, methodology): “As a rule of thumb, one cannot delete more than 20 percent of the total items in the model, be it CBSEM or PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2017a; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).”
The Interplay of Leadership Styles, Innovative Work Behavior, Organizational Culture, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (2020, background): “The square root of the AVE must be higher than the corresponding diagonal values of all the constructs while the HTMT ratio can be established when all the values fall under the range of 0.90 (Hair et al., 2017).”
An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research (2017, methodology): “In combination with a small sample size, highly skewed data can result in inflated standard bootstrap errors, which reduce the statistical power (Hair et al., 2017b).”
Psychological and Demographic Factors Affecting Household Energy-Saving Intentions: A TPB-Based Study in Northwest China (2020, methodology): “Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio is one of the widely employed methods for DV evaluation [74,75].”