A PLS Model to Study Brand Preference: An Application to the Mobile Phone Market
By Paulo Duarte, Mário Lino Barata Raposo. 2010
443 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Marketing
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/eaa9bcebb3ec2b79be8d7f0c3355d642c96cbc02
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Marketing
- Marko Sarstedt
- Jörg Henseler
- G. Mortimer
- Lynda Andrews
- Jillian D. Martin
- Christian M. Ringle
- Roland Schegg
- Stuart J. Barnes
Citations in the corpus
- Technology Readiness and Customer Satisfaction with Travel Technologies: A Cross-Country Investigation (2017, unknown): “As the primary objective of PLS-PM is prediction, the goodness of a theoretical model is established by the strength of each structural path and the combined predictiveness (Duarte and Raposo 2010).”
- Re-examining online customer experience to include purchase frequency and perceived risk (2015, background): “loadings exceeding 0.70, as well as average variance extracted (AVE) scores above 0.5 (Duarte and Raposo, 2010; Henseler et al., 2009).”
- Understanding the Impact of Online Reviews on Hotel Performance (2017, methodology): “…of a theoretical model is not assessed using traditional metrics (e.g., goodness of fit in covariance-based structural equation modeling) but via the evaluation of the strength of each structural path and the combined predictiveness (R2) of exogenous constructs (Chin 1998; Duarte and Raposo 2010).”
- Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling (2013, methodology): “2010a; Chin 2010) and has also been used in empirical PLS path modeling applications (e.g., Sarstedt and Ringle 2010; Duarte and Raposo 2010).”
- The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices and Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Ethical Climates: An Employee Perspective (2013, background): “…of the endogenous latent variables R2 are equal to 0.156 for principles, 0.210 for benevolence and 0.051 for egoism; in literature, a value of the index R2 greater than 0.1 is acceptable (Duarte and Raposo 2010) and, for this reason, the model is not sufficiently good to explain egoism.”