A comparative study of the predictive power of component-based approaches to structural equation modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Generalized structured component analysis (GSCA) and partial least squares path modeling (PLSPM) are two key component-based approaches to structural equation modeling that facilitate the analysis of theoretically established models in terms of both explanation and prediction. This study aims to offer a comparative evaluation of GSCA and PLSPM in a predictive modeling framework. Design/methodology/approach A simulation study compares the predictive performance of GSCA and PLSPM under various simulation conditions and different prediction types of correctly specified and misspecified models. Findings The results suggest that GSCA with reflective composite indicators (GSCA R ) is the most versatile approach. For observed prediction, which uses the component scores to generate prediction for the indicators, GSCA R performs slightly better than PLSPM with mode A. For operative prediction, which considers all parameter estimates to generate predictions, both methods perform equally well. GSCA with formative composite indicators and PLSPM with mode B generally lag behind the other methods. Research limitations/implications Future research may further assess the methods’ prediction precision, considering more experimental factors with a wider range of levels, including more extreme ones. Practical implications When prediction is the primary study aim, researchers should generally revert to GSCA R , considering its performance for observed and operative prediction together. Originality/value This research is the first to compare the relative efficacy of GSCA and PLSPM in terms of predictive power.
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 | 0.079 | 0.224 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".