Advertisement

Finite Mixture and Genetic Algorithm Segmentation in Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: Identification of Multiple Segments in Complex Path Models

  • Christian M. Ringle
  • Marko Sarstedt
  • Rainer Schlittgen
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Abstract

When applying structural equation modeling methods, such as partial least squares (PLS) path modeling, in empirical studies, the assumption that the data have been collected from a single homogeneous population is often unrealistic. Unobserved heterogeneity in the PLS estimates on the aggregate data level may result in misleading interpretations. Finite mixture partial least squares (FIMIX-PLS) and PLS genetic algorithm segmentation (PLS-GAS) allow the classification of data in variance-based structural equation modeling. This research presents an initial application and comparison of these two methods in a computational experiment in respect of a path model which includes multiple endogenous latent variables. The results of this analysis reveal particular advantages and disadvantages of the approaches. This study further substantiates the effectiveness of FIMIX-PLS and PLS-GAS and provides researchers and practitioners with additional information they need to proficiently evaluate their PLS path modeling results by applying a systematic means of analysis. If significant heterogeneity were to be uncovered by the procedures, the analysis may result in group-specific path modeling outcomes, thus allowing further differentiated and more precise conclusions to be formed.

Keywords

Finite mixture Genetic algorithm Heterogeneity PLS path modeling Segmentation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aptech. (2008). GAUSS for Windows Version 9.0. Black Diamond: Aptech Systems.Google Scholar
  2. Chin, W.W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G.A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–358). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. N. (2003). A partial least squares approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Esposito Vinzi, V., Ringle, C. M., Squillacciotti, S., & Trinchera, L. (2007). Capturing and treating unobserved heterogeneity by response based segmentation in PLS path modeling: A comparison of alternative methods by computational experiments (ESSEC Research Center Working Paper 07019). Paris: ESSEC Business School.Google Scholar
  5. Gudergan, S. F., Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2008). Confirmatory tetrad analysis in PLS path modeling. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1238–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hahn, C., Johnson, M. D., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2002). Capturing customer heterogeneity using a finite mixture PLS approach. Schmalenbach Business Review, 54(3), 243–269.Google Scholar
  7. Henseler, J. (2007). On the convergence of the partial least squares path modeling algorithm. In H. Martens, T. Næs, & M. Martens (Eds.), PLS’07 International Symposium on PLS and Related Methods – Causalities Explored by Indirect Observation (pp. 57–61). Matforsk, Ås.Google Scholar
  8. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing (Vol. 20, pp. 277–319). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
  9. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1999). PRELIS 2: User’s reference guide. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  10. Lohmöller, J.-B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Heidelberg: Physica.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Maulik, U., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2000). Genetic algorithm-based clustering technique. Pattern Recognition, 33(9), 1455–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Palumbo, F., Romano, R., & Esposito Vinzi, V. (2008). Fuzzy PLS path modeling: A new tool for handling sensory data. In C. Preisach, H. Burkhardt, L. Schmidt-Thieme, & R. Decker (Eds.), Data Analysis, Machine Learning and Applications. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft fur Klassifikation e.V., Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg, March 7–9, 2007 (pp. 689–696). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Ringle, C. M. (2006). Segmentation for path models and unobserved heterogeneity: The finite mixture partial least squares approach (Research Papers on Marketing and Retailing 35). University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  14. Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Mooi, E. A. (2009). Response-based segmentation using finite mixture partial least squares. Theoretical foundations and an application to American Customer Satisfaction Index data. Annals of Information Systems (Vol. 8). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Ringle, C. M., & Schlittgen, R. (2007). A genetic algorithm segmentation approach for uncovering and separating groups of data in PLS path modeling. In H. Martens, T. Næs, & M. Martens (Eds.), PLS’07 International Symposium on PLS and Related Methods – Causalities Explored by Indirect Observation (pp. 75–78). Matforsk, Ås.Google Scholar
  16. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 M3 (beta). Hamburg. Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.de.
  17. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2009). The finite mixture partial least squares approach: Methodology and application. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods, and applications, Computational Statistics (Vol. II). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Sánchez, G., & Aluja, T. (2007). A simulation study of PATHMOX (PLS path modeling segmentation tree) sensitivity. In H. Martens, T. Næs, & M. Martens (Eds.), PLS’07 International Symposium on PLS and Related Methods – Causalities Explored by Indirect Observation (pp. 33–36). Matforsk, Ås.Google Scholar
  19. Sarstedt, M. (2008). A review of recent approaches for capturing heterogeneity in partial least squares path modelling. Journal of Modelling in Management, 3(2), 140–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sarstedt, M., Schwaiger, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2009). Do we fully understand the critical success factors of customer satisfaction with industrial good? - Extending Festge and Schwaiger’s model to account for unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Business Market Management, 3.Google Scholar
  21. Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. (2000). Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Wold, H.O. (1982). Soft modeling: The basic design and some extensions. InK. G.Jöreskog, & H. O. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observations, Part II (pp. 1–54). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian M. Ringle
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marko Sarstedt
  • Rainer Schlittgen
  1. 1.Institute of Industrial ManagementUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Management and Organisation Studies (CMOS)University of Technology Sydney (UTS)HaymarketAustralia

Personalised recommendations