A comparative study on the performance of maximum likelihood, generalized least square, scale-free least square, partial least square and consistent partial least square estimators in structural equation modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural equation modeling offers various estimation methods for estimating parameters. The most used method in covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) is the maximum likelihood (ML) estimator. The ML estimator is typically used when fitting models with normally distributed data. The growth of partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM), including consistent partial least squares (PLSc), has also been noticed by researchers in the SEM fields. The PLSc has elevated interest in the scholastic setting in measuring the performance of various estimation methods in structural equation modeling. The choice of estimation methods has substantial impact in yielding parameter estimates. There could be a trade-off among the estimation methods’ ability to deal with different types of data based on the model tested. Accordingly, this study aims to compare the performance of ML, generalized least squares (GLS), and scale-free least squares (SFLS) for CB-SEM as well as partial least squares (PLS) and consistent partial least squares (PLSc). Multivariate normal data were generated using Monte Carlo simulation with pre-determined population parameters and sample sizes using R Programming packages. To produce the estimated values, data analysis was performed using AMOS and SmartPLS for CB-SEM and PLS-SEM, respectively. The findings illustrate notable similarities between CB-SEM (ML) and PLS-SEM results when the true indicator loading is certainly high.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".