How to Write Up and Report PLS Analyses

  • Wynne W. ChinEmail author
Part of the Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics book series (SHCS)


The objective of this paper is to provide a basic framework for researchers interested in reporting the results of their PLS analyses. Since the dominant paradigm in reporting Structural Equation Modeling results is covariance based, this paper begins by providing a discussion of key differences and rationale that researchers can use to support their use of PLS. This is followed by two examples from the discipline of Information Systems. The first consists of constructs with reflective indicators (mode A). This is followed up with a model that includes a construct with formative indicators (mode B).


Order Factor Formative Indicator Structural Path Average Variance Extract Database Package 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1964). Causal inferences in nonexperimental research. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1979). The presidential address: measurement and conceptualization problems: the major obstacle to integrating theory and research. American Sociological Review,44, 881–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1986). Multiple causation, indirect measurement and generalizability in the social sciences. Synthese, 68, 13–36.Google Scholar
  4. Chin, W. W. (1998a). Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly,22, vii–xvi.Google Scholar
  5. Chin, W. W. (1998b). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems,26(2&3), 42–64.Google Scholar
  7. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (1996). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a monte carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study. In J. I. DeGross, S. Jarvenpaa, & A. Srinivasan (Eds.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 21–41).Google Scholar
  8. Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307–341). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Chin, W. W., Peterson, R. A., Brown, S. P. (2008). Structural equation modeling in marketing: some practical reminders. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,16(4), 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cudeck, R., & Henley, J. J. (2003). A realistic perspective on pattern representation in growth data: Comment on Bauer and Curran (2003). Psychological Methods, 8, 378–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. George, B., Hinson, S., & Chin, W. W. (2000). Modeling the Technology Adoption Decision: The Impact and Generalizability of the Perceived Characteristics Of Innovating Inventory On Email Adoption. Paper presented at the Diffusion Interest Group in Information Technology (DIGIT), – December 10, 2000. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45(12), 1304–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Marchi, M., & Velez, C. N. (1990). Problems in the measurement of latent variables in structural equations causal models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diggins, J. P. (1994). The promise of pragmatism: modernism and the crisis of knowledge and authority. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap (monographs on statistics and applied probability, #57). New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris, R. J. (1989). A canonical cautionary. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24(1), 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Geisser, S. (1975). The predictive sample reuse method with applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 320–328.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gray, H. L., & Schucany, W. R. (1972). The generalized jackknife statistic. New York: Marcel Dekker.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lohmöller, J.-B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Working with imperfect models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 113–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacCallum, R. C., & Browne, M. W. (1993). The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: Some practical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Majchrak, A., Beath, C., Lim, R., & Chin, W. W. (2005). Managing client dialogues during information systems design to facilitate client learning. MIS Quarterly, 29(4), 653–672.Google Scholar
  28. Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. W. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of perceived user resources. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 32(3), 86–112.Google Scholar
  29. McDonald, R. P., & Moon-Ho R. H. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meehl, P. E. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1(2), 108–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Menand, L. (2002). The metaphysical club: A story of ideas in America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  32. Rozeboom, W. W. (2005). Meehl on metatheory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 1317–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schneeweiss, H. (1990). Models with latent variables: LISREL versus PLS, Contemporary Mathematics, 112, 33–40.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Shah, R., & Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: looking back and forward. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 148–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steiger, J. H. (1979). Factor indeterminacy in the 1930’s and the 1970’s – some interesting parallels. Psychometrika, 44, 157–167.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Steiger, J. H. (1988). Aspects of person-machine communication in structural modeling of correlations and covariances. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steiger, J. H. (2001). Driving fast in reverse, the relationship between software development, theory, and education in structural equation modeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 36(2), 111–133.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S., & Esposito Vinzi, V. (2004). A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS structural equation modelling, In Proceedings of the XLII SIS Scientific Meeting (pp. 739–742). Vol. Contributed Papers, CLEUP, Padova.Google Scholar
  40. Tukey, J. W. (1958). Bias and confidence in not-quite large samples. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29, 614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 23–51.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. Wold, H. (1980). Model construction and evaluation when theoretical knowledge is scarce: Theory and application of partial least squares. In J. Kmenta & J. B. Ramsey (Eds.), Evaluation of econometric models. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wold, H. O. A. (1982). Soft modeling: The basic design and some extensions. In K. G. Jöreskog & H. O. A. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observations: Causality, structure, prediction, Part 2 (pp. 1–54). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  45. Wold, H. (1988). Specification, predictor. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (Vol. 8), New York: Wiley, 587–599.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Decision and Information SciencesBauer College of Business, University of HoustonHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations