Building theory from quantitative studies, or,how to fit sem models

ICIS 2009 Proceedings - Thirtieth International Conference on Information Systems

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages

  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

MODEL FIT; QUANTITATIVE DATA; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; THEORETICAL MODELS; THEORY BUILDING;

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; DATA REDUCTION; HARDWARE;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 84870958450     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (41)

1. Bacharach, S.B. 1989. "Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation," The Academy of Management Review, (14:4), pp. 496-516.
2. Barrett, P. 2007. "Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit," Personality and Individual Differences, (42), pp. 815-824.
3. Beauducel A. and Wittmann, W. 2005. "Simulation study on fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis based on data with slightly distorted simple structure," Structural Equation Modeling, (12:1), pp. 41-75.
4. Bentler, P. M. 2007. "On tests and indices for evaluating structural models," Personality and Individual Differences, (42), pp. 825-829.
5. Bentler, P. M. and Weeks, D. G. 1980. "Linear structural equations with latent variables," Psychometrika, (30:4),pp. 289-308.
6. Bollen, K. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
7. Boomsma, A. 2000. "Reporting analyses of covariance structures," Structural Equation Modeling, (7:3), pp. 461-483.
8. Chin, W. W., Johnson, N., and Schwarz, A. 2008. "A fast form approach to measuring technology acceptance and other constructs," MIS Quarterly, (32:4), pp. 687-703.
9. Davis, F.D. 1989. "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,"MIS Quarterly, (13:3), pp. 319-340.
10. Dubin, R. 1969. Theory Building. New York, NY: Free Press.
11. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. "Building theories from case study research," The Academy of Management Review, (14:4),pp. 532-550.
12. Fan, X. and Sivo, S.A. 2005. "Sensitivity of fit indices to misspecified structural or measurement model components: rationale of two-index strategy revisited," Structural Equation Modeling, (12:3), pp. 343-367.
13. Fox, J. 2006. "Structural equation modeling with the sem package in R," Structural Equation Modeling, (13:3), pp.465-486.
14. Gefen, D., Straub, D.W. and Boudreau, M.-C. 2000. "Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for research practice," Communications of the AIS, (4:7), pp 1-70.
15. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.
16. Goffin, R. D. 2007. "Assessing the adequacy of structural equation models: Golden rules and editorial policies," Personality and Individual Differences, (42), pp. 831-839.
17. Gregor, S. 2006. "The nature of theory in information systems," MIS Quarterly, (30:3), 611-642.
18. Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. 2005. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
19. Hardin, A. M., Chang, J. C.-J., and Fuller, M. A. 2008a. "Formative vs. reflective measurement: Comment on Marakas, Johnson, and Clay (2007)," Journal of the Association for Information Systems, (9:9), pp. 519-534.
20. Hardin, A. M., Chang, J. C.-J., and Fuller, M. A. 2008b. "Clarifying the use of formative measurement in the IS discipline: The case of the computer self-efficacy," Journal of the Association for Information Systems, (9:9),pp. 544-546.
21. Hayduk, L., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., and Boulianne, S. 2007. "Testing! testing! One, two, three - testing the theory in structural equation models!" Personality and Individual Differences, (42), pp. 841-850.
22. Hayduk, L. A. 1996. LISREL Issues, Debates, and Strategies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
23. MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. and Sugawara, H.M. 1996. "Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling," Psychological Methods, (1:2), pp. 130-149.
24. Marakas, G. M., Johnson, R. D., and Clay, P. F. 2007. "The evolving nature of the computer self-efficacy construct: An empirical investigation of measurement construction, validity, reliability and stability over time," Journal of the Association for Information Systems, (8:1), pp. 16-46.
25. Marakas, G. M., Johnson, R. D., and Clay, P. F. 2008. "Formative vs. reflective measurement: A reply to Hardin, Chang, and Fuller," Journal of the Association for Information Systems, (9:9), pp. 535-543.
26. Marcoulides, G. A. and Drezner, Z. 2003. "Model specification searches using ant colony optimization algorithms," Structural Equation Modeling, (10:1), pp. 154-164.
27. 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), pp. 851-858.
28. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.-T., and Wen, Z. 2004. "In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings," Structural Equation Modeling, (11:3), pp. 320-341.
29. McDonald, R.P. and Ho, M.-H.R. 2002. "Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses," Psychological Methods, (7:1), pp. 64-82.
30. McIntosh, C. N. 2007. "Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007)," Personality and Individual Differences, (42), pp. 859-867.
31. Miles, J. and Shevlin, M. 2007. "A time and a place for incremental fit indices," Personality and Individual Differences, (42), pp. 869-874.
32. Millsap, R. E. 2007. "Structural equation modeling made difficult," Personality and Individual Differences, (42), pp. 875-881.
33. Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. 2002 "How to use a Monte-Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power," Structural Equation Modeling, (9:4), pp. 599-620.
34. Petter, S., Straub, D., and Rai, A. 2007. "Specifying formative constructs in information systems research," MIS Quarterly, (31:4), pp. 623-656.
35. Popper, K. 1968. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
36. Saris, W.E. and Sotorra, A. 1993. "Power evaluations in structural equation models", in Testing Structural Equation Models, Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (Ed.), Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
37. Satorra, A. and Bentler, P. 1994. "Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis.," in Latent variable analysis: Applications to developmental research, pp. 399-419.
38. Schumacker, R. E. 2006. "Conducting specification searches with Amos," Structural Equation Modeling, (13:1), pp.118-129.
39. Steiger, J. H. 2007. "Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling,"Personality and Individual Differences, (42), pp. 893-898.
40. Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., and Myers, M. D. 2009 "Putting the 'theory' back in grounded theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems," Information Systems Journal, forthcoming, pp. 1-25.
41. Yuan, K.H. 2005. "Fit indices versus test statistics," Multivariate Behavioral Research, (40:1), pp. 115-148.