Fitting covariance models for theory generation

Journal of the Association for Information Systems

Volumn 12, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 632-661

  Evermann, Joerg ^a   Tate, Mary ^b  

^a MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

^b VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Data analysis; Quantitative analysis; Research methods; Structural equation modeling; Theory building

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; DATA REDUCTION; HARDWARE;

COVARIANCE MODELS; IS RESEARCHES; MODEL FIT; QUANTITATIVE DATA; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; TEST THEORIES; THEORY BUILDING;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 80054896194     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15369323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17705/1jais.00276     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R. & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 227-247.
2. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496-515.
3. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-824.
4. Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural equation models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825-829.
5. Blalock, H. (1982). Conceptualization and measurement in the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
6. Bollen, K. (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
7. Bollen, K. (1990). A comment on model evaluation and modification. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 181-185.
8. Bunge, M. A. (1962). Intuition and Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9. Bunge, M. A. (1963). The myth of simplicity: Problems of scientific philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10. Chen, W. S. & Hirschheim, R. (2004). A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal, 14(3), 197-235.
11. Cheung, M. W. L. & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling - A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 40-64.
12. Chin, W. W, Johnson, N., & Schwarz, A. (2008). A fast form approach to measuring technology acceptance and other constructs. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 687-703.
13. Chin, W. W. & Todd, P. A. (1995). On the use, ease of use, and usefulness of structural equation modeling in MIS research: A note of caution. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 237-246
14. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104.
15. Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., & Kirby, J. (2002). The noncentral chi-square distribution in misspecified structural equation models: Finite sample results from a Monte-Carlo study. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37(1), 1-36.
16. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
17. Dubin, R. (1969). Theory Building. New York, NY: Free Press.
18. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
19. Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M.E. (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, (50)1, 25-32.
20. Evermann, J. (2010). Multiple-group analysis using the sem package in the R system. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(4), 677-702.
21. Feest, U. (2005). Operationism in psychology: What the debate is about, what the debate should be about. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(2), 131-149.
22. Fox, J. (2006). Structural equation modeling with the sem package in R. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(3), 465-486.
23. Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the AIS, 4(7), 1-70.
24. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.
25. Goffin, R. D. (2007). Assessing the adequacy of structural equation models: Golden rules and editorial policies. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 831-839.
26. Grace, R. (2001). On the failure of operationism. Theory and Psychology, 11(1), 5-33.
27. Gray, P. H. & Cooper, W. H. (2010). Pursuing failure. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 620-643.
28. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
29. Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL - Essentials and Advances. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30. Hayduk, L. A. (1990). Should model modifications be oriented toward improving data fit or encouraging creative and analytical thinking? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 193-196.
31. Hayduk, L. A. (1996). LISREL Issues, Debates, and Strategies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
32. Hayduk, L. A., Cummings, G. C., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., & Boulianne, S. (2007). Testing! testing! One, two, three - testing the theory in structural equation models! Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 841-850.
33. Hayduk, L. A., Pazderka-Robinson, H., Cummings, G. C., Boadu, K., Verbeek, E. L. & Perks, T. A. (2007). The weird world, and equally weird measurement models: Reactive indicators and the validity revolution. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(2), 280-310.
34. 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.
35. Im, C. & Wang, J. (2007). A TETRAD-based approach for theory development in information systems research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 20(1), 322-345.
36. Jöreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Ed.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp.294-316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
37. Kaplan, D. (1990). Evaluating and modifying covariance structure models: A review and recommendations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 137-155.
38. Lee, B., Barua, A. & Whinston, A. B. (1997). Discovery and representation of causal relationships in MIS research: A methodological framework. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), 109-136.
39. Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U. & Nesselroade, J. R. (1999). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When "good" indicators Are bad and "bad" indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 4(2), 192-211.
40. Liu, L. (2009). Technology acceptance model: A replicated test using TETRAD. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 24(12), 1230-1242.
41. Lyytinen, K. (2009). Data matters in IS theory building. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(10), 715-720.
42. Maccallum, R. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 107-120.
43. Maccallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149.
44. Marcoulides, G. A. & Drezner, Z. (2003). Model specification searches using ant colony optimization algorithms. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(1), 154-164.
45. Marcoulides, G. A., Drezner, Z. & Schumacker, R. E. (1998). Model specification searches in structural equation models using Tabu search. Structural Equation Modeling, 5(4), 365-376.
46. Markland, D. (2007). The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary on Paul Barett's recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 851-858.
47. Mcintosh, C. N. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007). Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 859-867.
48. Medawar, P. B. (1969). Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society.
49. Miles, J. & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 869-874.
50. Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte-Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599-620.
51. Palvia, P., Leary, D., Mao, E., Midha, V., Pinjani, P. & Salam, A. F. (2004). Research methodologies in MIS: An update. Communications of the AIS, 14, 526-542.
52. Popper, K. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, UK: Hutchinson & Co.
53. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173-184.
54. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). Discovering. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55. Saris, W. E. & Sotorra, A. (1993). Power evaluations in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Ed.) Testing Structural Equation Models (pp.181-204). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
56. Satorra, A. & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye, A. & C. C. Clogg (Ed.) Latent variables analysis-Applications for developmental research (pp.399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
57. Scheines, R., Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., Meek C. & Richardson, T. (1998). The TETRAD project: Constraint based aids to causal model specification. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(1), 65-117.
58. Schumacker, R. E. (2006). Conducting specification searches with Amos. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1), 118-129.
59. Segars, A. H. & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease-of-use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 517-525.
60. Shah, S. K. & Corley, K. G. (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1821-1835.
61. Son, J. Y., Kim, S. S. & Riggins, F. J. (2006). Consumer adoption of net-enabled infomediaries: Theoretical explanations and an empirical test. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(7), 473-508.
62. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173-180.
63. Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893-898.
64. Thorngate, W. (1976). Possible Limits on a Science of Social Behavior. In L. H. Strickland, F. E. Aboud & K. J. Gergen (Ed.) Social Psychology in Transition (pp.121-139). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
65. Ting, K. (1998). The TETRAD approach to model respecification. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(1), 157-164.
66. Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H. & Myers, M. D. (2010). Putting the 'theory' back in grounded theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4), 357-381.
67. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., Sechrest, L. & Grove, J. B. (1981). Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
68. Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
69. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516-531.
70. Wilks, S. S. (1938). The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 9(1), 60-62.
71. Yuan, K. H. & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30(1), 165-200.