569779

research-article2015
JTRXXX10.1177/0047287515569779Journal of Travel ResearchValle and Assaker

Empirical Research Articles

Journal of Travel Research

Using Partial Least Squares Structural

1­–14
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Equation Modeling in Tourism sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047287515569779

Research: A Review of Past Research jtr.sagepub.com

and Recommendations for Future

Applications

Patrícia Oom do Valle1 and Guy Assaker2

Abstract
Although the number of empirical applications of partial least–squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in tourism
has increased in the last two years, Assaker, Huang, and Hallak have conducted the only assessment on the use of PLS-SEM
in four studies and with a limited number of criteria. Thus, this study aims to critically analyze how the PLS-SEM method
has been applied in 44 articles published in 11 leading tourism journals from 2000 to 2014 in terms of four key criteria: (1)
themes explored and main motivations for using PLS-SEM; (2) characteristics of proposed models; (3) how the models were
evaluated; and (4) the use of more advanced analyses within the method. The findings revealed that although applications in
tourism have improved in recent years, problematic aspects in the application of PLS-SEM in tourism research still exist. The
article provides suggestions on how to improve the use of PLS-SEM in future tourism applications.

Keywords
structural equation modeling (SEM), partial least squares–structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), tourism research, SSCI

Introduction (2) minimum sample size; (3) reflective constructs (i.e.,

Structural equation models (SEMs) with latent variables
emerged from the need to measure multidimensional con-
cepts that are not directly observable (constructs or latent
variables), as well as test the relationships among them
(Bollen 1989). In recent years, the use of SEM has become
widespread in diverse fields of knowledge, including tour-
ism. Indeed, in this field of knowledge the application of the
method is already quite extensive. We can find it in empirical
studies on the image of tourist destinations, destination loy-
alty, the quality and competitiveness of destinations, and per-
ceptions about the impacts of tourism, and/or residents’
attitudes toward tourism development (Nunkoo and
Ramkissoon 2011; Nunkoo, Ramkissoon, and Gursoy 2013).
However, when applying SEM, two approaches need to
be considered. The first is based on the concept of covariance
(which leads us to covariance-based SEM or, in its abbrevi-
ated form, CB-SEM) (Jöreskog 1973, 1978). The second
approach relies on the concept of variance and is referred to as
variance-based SEM or, more commonly, partial least squares–
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (Wold 1982, 1985).
Although both methods share the same roots (Jöreskog and
Wold 1982), the CB-SEM involves strict rules and assump-
tions that, if not met, can compromise the validity of the
results. These include (1) the multivariate normality of data;
directional arrows progress from the constructs to the indica-
tors); and (4) strong theoretical knowledge about the model
being tested (i.e., composition of the latent constructs and the
causal relationships among the constructs must be directed
by theory). PLS-SEM differs from CB-SEM in that it is not
restricted by the same stringent assumptions that character-
ize CB-SEM. As such, variance-based PLS-SEM emerges as
the suggested alternative for dealing with causality problems
among latent variables when CB-SEM assumptions cannot
be met. PLS-SEM can thus present further flexibility in mod-
eling various phenomena in business disciplines in general,
and in the tourism discipline in particular, that could not be
modeled otherwise because of violations of the assumptions
of traditional CB-SEM.
Typical tourism examples where PLS-SEM would be
appropriate include grouping supply-side indicators into a
smaller number of destination factors/constituents (e.g., the
1
University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal
2
Lebanese American University, Byblos, Lebanon
Corresponding Author:
Patrícia Oom do Valle, Faculty of Economics, Research Member of Center
for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics (CIEO), University of Algarve.
Edifício 9, Campus de Gambelas, Faro, 8005-139, Portugal.
Email: pvalle@ualg.pt

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015

2 Journal of Travel Research 
economy, infrastructure, and environment factors at the des-
tination), on an empirical basis, without any theory behind
the authors’ assertions in terms of how these indicators are to
be grouped in order to predict tourism demand (see, e.g.,
Mazanec and Ring 2011).
Another example involves using formative constructs
(i.e., relationship progresses from the indicators to the con-
struct, suggesting that indicators used to measure the con-
struct are not correlated and thus contribute differently to
form their underlying construct) to model tourism variables/
constructs, such as in the case of loyalty (see Song et al.
2011). For example, three indicators are typically used to
measure loyalty: positive word of mouth, revisit intention,
and recommendation to acquaintances. These indicators do
not move together and are assumed to form the loyalty con-
struct, given that a tourist could say positive things about his/
her stay in the destination. Nevertheless, this does not neces-
sarily mean that he/she will return to the destination in the
future, as this depends on other factors as well, such as avail-
able time or money. A final example of PLS-SEM use is in
the case of complex models where the number of indicators
compared with the sample size is large. This is the case in
tourism studies carried out at the macro/country level, where
the number of observations is limited because of the number
of countries and lack of data available for each country
(Assaker and Hallak 2012).
Despite the appropriateness of PLS-SEM to advance
research in tourism studies (because of PLS-SEM’s features
and modeling flexibility, as previously mentioned), the
number of studies using PLS-SEM in tourism has grown in
recent years but is still considerably smaller than in other
disciplines in the business field, such as marketing (Hair,
Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011), strategic management (Hair et
al. 2012a), and management information systems (MIS)
(Ringle, Sarstedt, and Straub 2012). Researchers in the tour-
ism field still seem to rely predominantly on CB-SEM in
their empirical studies and thus might miss opportunities
frequently exploited in other disciplines by using the PLS-
SEM technique. Potential reasons for the still-limited use of
PLS-SEM in tourism, which tends to apply this method cau-
tiously, might stem from researchers’—though well-
equipped with a basic understanding of CB-SEM
models—lack of understanding and familiarity with PLS-
SEM. Indeed, textbooks on multivariate data analysis tend
not to discuss PLS-SEM (e.g., Churchill and Iacobucci
2010) or address it only superficially (e.g., Hair et al. 2010).
In addition, the topic is seldom found in research methodol-
ogy course syllabi, where the focus is still on traditional
CB-SEM because of the popularity of this method and the
widespread availability of CB-SEM software (e.g., Lisrel,
AMOS, Mplus; Chin 1998).
In fact, as with other statistical methods, PLS-SEM is a
complex technique requiring several choices that, if not duly
considered, can mislead researchers into improper findings,
interpretations, and conclusions (Hair et al. 2012b). Thus,
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015
users (researchers) in tourism can only benefit from the
unique properties of PLS-SEM if they understand its under-
lying principles, apply them properly, and report the results
correctly. Because of the complexities involved in using
PLS-SEM, systematic assessments of how PLS-SEM was
applied in prior tourism studies can help disseminate rigor-
ous research and publication practices in the field. They can
also provide important guidance and, if necessary, opportu-
nities for course correction in future applications. Although
PLS-SEM usage reviews have been carried out across many
disciplines in business research, including marketing (e.g.,
Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011), strategic management
(e.g., Hair et al. 2012a; Hulland 1999), and MIS (e.g.,
Ringle, Sarstedt, and Straub 2012; Urbrach and Ahlemann
2010), corresponding assessments of PLS-SEM in tourism
are still limited. Assaker, Huang, and Hallak(2012) provided
the only assessment so far, assessing four studies in tourism.
They showed that the PLS-SEM technique had been applied
with considerable variability in terms of appropriately han-
dling conceptual and methodological issues. In this context,
an update and extension of the Assaker, Huang, and Hallak
(2012) case study–based assessment of PLS-SEM specific
to the tourism discipline seems timely and warranted.
Therefore, the objective of this article is to critically ana-
lyze the use of PLS-SEM in tourism and to provide recom-
mendations for the use of the technique in future tourism
research (for explanations of the PLS-SEM method itself,
see, e.g., Chin 2010; Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt, 2011;
Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics 2009; Henseler, Ringle, and
Sarstedt 2012). In particular, this study analyzes 44 empirical
studies following the PLS-SEM approach that were pub-
lished in indexed journals in the Social Sciences Citation
Index (SSCI) (Web of Science) from 2000 to 2014 (Thomson
Reuters 2014). These studies were divided into two groups:
pre-2012 and post-2012. Year 2012 was when the first article
assessing PLS-SEM in four tourism articles was published
(Assaker, Huang, and Hallak 2012) and when several reviews
of PLS-SEM in marketing and strategic management and
MIS were published (see Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011;
Hair et al. 2012a; Hair et al. 2012b; Ringle, Sarstedt, and
Straub 2012). The studies are analyzed according to four key
dimensions: reasons for using PLS-SEM, characteristics of
the proposed models, model evaluation and possible use of
more advanced applications, and reporting. Where possible,
we also indicated best practices as guidelines for future
applications and suggested avenues for further research. The
current study thus helps identify how the application of PLS-
SEM has changed, if at all, over time (i.e., before and after
2012). More importantly, it helps identify which aspects of
the method have been more carefully considered and which
need to be improved to ensure more rigorous application in
the field. Such information can be used to provide sugges-
tions for researchers interested in applying PLS-SEM to
future tourism applications by highlighting current areas of
concerns.
Valle and Assaker 3
Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling
Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling
(Wold 1982, 1985) is an alternative to traditional SEM that
can be applied to model the relationships of causality among
the variables. In this partial information method, rather than
using the model to explain covariations among indicators
(i.e., modeling the measurement errors, as SEM does), PLS
maximizes the explained variance of all dependent variables
based on how these variables relate to their neighboring con-
structs. It uses an iterative algorithm in which the parameters
are calculated with a series of least squares regressions after
explicitly creating construct scores by weighting the sums of
items underlying each construct (Chin 1998 ). The term par-
tial thus stems from the idea that the iterative procedure
involves separating the parameters rather than estimating
them simultaneously (Hulland 1999).
PLS follows a two-step process that starts with an itera-
tive estimation of latent variables scores. The method uses
the PLS algorithm to estimate outer and inner weights based
on how the structural and measurement models are specified.
This requires an iterative procedure in which two kinds of
approximations for the latent variables are estimated until
the weight estimates converge. The two weight calcula-
tions—inside and outside—relate to the inner relations and
outer relations. The algorithm starts with an arbitrary initial
weight used to calculate an outside approximation of the
latent variables. The inner relations among latent variables
are then considered to calculate the inside approximations.
To perform this approximation, the researcher can choose
among three possible scenarios, called weighting schemes:
(1) centroid, (2) factor, or (3) path scheme. After the inside
approximations are obtained, the algorithm turns again to the
outer relations, and new weights are calculated considering
how the indicators are related to their constructs: by Mode A
(reflective) or Mode B (formative). Mode A implies simple
linear regressions between the construct and its reflecting
indicators as the construct is assumed to affect each indicator
separately. Mode B implies multiple linear regressions
between the construct and the set of indicators as the indica-
tors are assumed to affect the construct on a collective basis.
The simple or multiple regression coefficients are then used
as new weights for the outside approximation. This process
continues iteratively until the weights converge—that is,
until the change in the outer weights between two iterations
drops below a predefined limit. This limit is usually preset
within the PLS-SEM software (Henseler, Ringle, and
Sinkovics 2009).
After the weights converge and latent variables are esti-
mated, the second step of the process calculates the parame-
ters of the structural and the measurement models. The
structural coefficients, also known as path coefficients, are
calculated using ordinary least squares regression between
latent variables (LVs). There are as many regressions as there
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015
are endogenous latent variables. The parameters of a mea-
surement model, known as the loading coefficients, are also
estimated by least squares regressions by taking into account
the mode used (A = reflective or B = formative).
As previously discussed, PLS-SEM can be used to achieve
four major purposes. First, PLS is advantageous when the
researcher is trying to explore, rather than confirm, theory. It
is useful when the phenomenon being investigated is rela-
tively new and the measurement models are at the explor-
atory stage (Wold 1985). Second, PLS can be used to examine
structural models in cases of small samples and when the
multivariate normality of the data cannot be supported (Chin
and Newsted 1999). Third, PLS modeling allows the unre-
stricted computation of models composed of “reflective” and
“formative” measurement models (Diamantopoulos and
Winklhofer 2001). Finally, PLS can examine large, complex
models comprising several latent and manifest variables as
well as hierarchical models with first-order and second-order
latent constructs (Wold 1985). Thus, PLS can overcome
identification issues, nonconvergence, limitations, and
assumptions associated with CB-SEM (see Vinzi, Trinchera,
and Amato 2010).
PLS-SEM Studies in Tourism Research:
Journals and themes
Our review focused on the use of PLS-SEM articles in 11
tourism journals: Journal of Travel Research, Annals of
Tourism Research, Tourism Management, Journal of Travel
and Tourism Marketing, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, International
Journal of Tourism Research, Current Issues in Tourism,
Tourism Geographies, Tourism Economics, and Tourism
Analysis. These journals (except Tourism Analysis) were
selected because they were included in the Social Sciences
Citation Index (SSCI) (Web of Science) (Thomson Reuters
2014) as leading journals in the field of tourism. Tourism
Analysis was included as it is another high-impact journal in
the field that publishes significant quantitative research in
tourism, making it important to consider this journal when
reviewing the use of an advanced statistical technique in
tourism (e.g., PLS-SEM) (Nunkoo et al. 2013 ).
In addition to being the leading publication outlets for
tourism research, these journals have different foci, aims,
and objectives, thereby ensuring that SEM-based articles
with different tourism orientations (e.g., marketing, plan-
ning, psychology, and economics) were included in this
review study. All issues between 2000 (the first year an
application was found) and 2014 (March 2014, the time
when this article was written) were searched for empirical-
based applications of PLS-SEM. We conducted a full-text
search in the Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge and
EBSCO Business Source Premier databases using the key-
words partial least squares structural equation modeling,
4 Journal of Travel Research 

Table 1.  Publications in Tourism Using PLS-SEM.

Journals
Annals of Tourism Research
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research
Current Issues in Tourism
International Journal of Tourism Research
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing
Journal of Travel Research
Tourism Economics
Tourism Management
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Tourism Analysis
Tourism Geographies
Number of
Publications Studies
1 Song et al. (2012)
5 Huang et al. (2009); Kim et al. (2011); Kim, Ahn, and Chung (2013) ; Guan
and Jones (2014); Chang, Shu, and King (2013)
4 López-Bonilla and López-Bonilla (2012a, 2012b); Blazquez-Resino, Molina,
and Esteban-Talaya (2013); Tan and Kuo (2013)
3 Song et al. (2011); Gómez and Molina (2012); Ku (2014)
10 Loureiro and González (2008); Mistilis and D’ambra (2008); Conze et al.
(2010); Loureiro (2010); Zach and Racherla (2011); Battour, Battor, and
Ismail (2012); Kim, Chung, Lee, and Kim (2012) ; Regan, Carlson, and
Rosenberger III (2012); Agapito, Valle, and Mendes (2013); Cheng and
Loi (2014)
8 Hernández-Maestro, Muñoz-Gallego, and Santos-Requejo (2009); Pike,
Murdy, and Lings (2011); Ayeh, Au, and Law (2013a); Gardiner, King,
and Grace (2013); Kim, Lee, Chung, and Kim (2013); Stienmetz,
Levy, and Boo (2013); Assaker et al. (2014); Hernández-Maestro and
González-Benito (2014)
1 Mazanec and Ring (2011)
11 Murphy, Pritchard, and Smith (2000); Lai and Youcheng (2009);
Camarero, Garrido, and Vicente (2010); Alexander et al. (2012); Ayeh,
Au, and Law (2013b); Casanueva, Gallego, and Sancho (2013); García,
Gómez, and Molina (2012); Prayag, Nunkoo, and Alders (2013); Roxas
and Chadee (2013) ; Taheri, Jafari, and O’Gorman (2014); Chiu, Lee,
and Chen (2014)
0  
1 Assaker and Hallak (2012)
0  

partial least squares path modeling, PLS-SEM, and PLSPM.
We also looked into the online versions of the journals in
order to double-check that we had captured all PLS-SEM
articles in the targeted tourism journals. Ultimately, the
search resulted in a total of 44 articles from the 11 journals,
after removing conceptual articles on PLS-SEM and research
articles from the review (see Table 1).
In particular, Tourism Management, Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, and Journal of Travel Research pub-
lished the largest number of PLS-SEM studies among the
reviewed journals (all 3 altogether published 29 articles,
accounting for 65.9% of the total publications). In contrast,
the Journal of Sustainable Tourism and Tourism Geographies
did not include a single PLS-SEM study in the period of
time reviewed. Figure 1 shows the (cumulative) number of
studies between 2000 (the first year an application was
found) and 2014. It is apparent that the use of PLS-SEM has
substantially increased over time. Approximately 31.8% (n
= 14) of articles were published before 2012, compared to
68.2% (n = 30) between 2012 and 2014 (see Table 1).
Regressing the number of studies on the linear effects of
time yields a significant model (F = 23.71; p < 0.000) in
which the time effect is significant (t = 4.86; p < 0.000), sug-
gesting that the use of PLS-SEM in tourism has accelerated
significantly over time.
The identified studies explored several themes, which can
be grouped into 10 categories. As shown in Table 2, “loyalty
and/or satisfaction regarding a destination or tourism organi-
zation” is the main theme studied using this method and is
clearly more prevalent than the others, being analyzed in 15
(34.1%) of the publications identified. The focus on this
theme is stronger in studies before 2012 compared with later
studies (57.1% vs. 23.3%). “Perceived quality of organiza-
tions, tourist products, or services” occupies the next posi-
tion in the set of themes and is analyzed in 7 articles (15.9%).
“Tourism organizations management” ranks third, being
explored in 5 (11.4%) publications. Finally, it is interesting
to note that articles published between 2012 and 2014 cover
a broader range of themes (all 10 themes) compared to those
published prior to 2012 (which only cover 5 of the 10
themes), suggesting more variety in the recent applications
of PLS-SEM in tourism and the prevalent use of PLS-SEM
to investigate different phenomena within tourism as com-
pared to early applications in tourism (prior to 2012).
Reasons for Using PLS-SEM in Tourism
Research
Given that PLS-SEM is an alternative approach to traditional
CB-SEM when the latter reaches its limitations and cannot

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015

Valle and Assaker 5

50

45

40

35

30

25 nb of publicaons per year

20 cumulave nb of publicaons
15

10

Figure 1.  Number of PLS-SEM Publications in Tourism Journals over Time.

Table 2.  Main Themes in Tourism Research Applying PLS-SEM.

Number and Percentage of Studies Reporting

  Before 2012 2012 and After Total

  (n = 14) (n = 30) (n = 44)

Themes n % n % n %
•• Loyalty and/or satisfaction regarding a destination or tourism organization 8 57.1 7 23.3 15 34.1
•• Tourist organizations’ management 2 14.3 3 10.0 5 11.4
•• Brand management 1  7.1 2  6.7 3 6.8
•• Perceived quality of organizations, tourist products, or services 2 14.3 5 16.7 7 15.9
•• Travel intention 0 0 3 10.0 3 6.8
•• Intention to use media in travel planning 0 0 3 10.0 3 6.8
•• Destinations’ competitiveness 1  7.1 2  6.7 3 6.8
•• Residents’ attitudes toward tourism 0 0 1  3.3 1 2.3
•• Tourists’ environmental orientation 0 0 2  6.7 2 4.6
•• Competencies in higher education in tourism 0 0 2  6.7 2 4.6

be used, studies applying PLS-SEM in tourism need to pres-
ent the rationale behind the selection of this method rather
than CB-SEM when this is the case. Of the 44 studies identi-
fied, only 2 (4.5%) did not provide such justification. Both of
these articles were published in the period before 2012, sug-
gesting that users/researchers in recent years (2012 and
onward) are more aware of the features that make the PLS-
SEM technique suitable for the model/study at hand; they
find it easier now to report their reason for using PLS-SEM,
which seems to not always have been the case in earlier years
(prior to 2012) when the technique was adopted.
Table 3 displays the main reasons for using the PLS-SEM
approach: the predictive focus of the method (31 studies,
70.5%), small sample size (21 studies, 47.7%), nonnormal
data (21 studies, 47.7%), and formative nature of the model
(15 studies, 34.1%). All of these characteristics have been
extensively discussed in the methodological literature on
PLS-SEM (see Vinzi, Trinchera, and Amato 2010; Lohmöller
1989). The sample size argument in particular has been the
subject of much debate (e.g., Marcoulides and Saunders
2006). A rule of thumb for robust PLS path modeling estima-
tions suggests that the sample size should be equal to the
larger of the following: (1) 10 times the number of indicators
of the scale with the largest number of formative indicators,
or (2) 10 times the largest number of structural paths directed
at a particular construct in the inner path model (Chin and
Newsted 1999). This represents the largest number of regres-
sions performed during the PLS-SEM iterative process; as

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015

6 Journal of Travel Research 

Table 3.  Motivations for Using PLS-SEM in Tourism Research. (p ≤ 0.01) smaller samples (mean = 451), in terms of sample
mean, than later studies (mean = 562), suggesting that
Number and Percentage of Studies
Reporting researchers have become more aware of the sample size limi-
tations; as such, they are using larger sample sizes to avoid
Before 2012 and compromising the sample representativeness and to accu-
  2012 After Total rately achieve statistical power.
Moreover, a comparison of studies published before 2012
  (n = 14) (n = 30) (n = 44) with those published in 2012 and onward shows a fairly con-
sistent pattern, with a focus on prediction, small sample size,
Motivations n % n % n %
nonnormal data, and formative measures being the most
•• Nature of the method 11 78.6 20 66.7 31 70.5 prevalent reasons in recent years. This observation is consis-
•• Sample size 7 50.0 14 46.7 21 47.7 tent with patterns observed in other business disciplines,
•• Data characteristics 6 42.9 15 50.0 21 47.7 although with a different order in relevance, including mar-
•• Type of outer model 4 28.6 11 36.7 15 34.1 keting research (Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011), strategic
•• Model complexity 1  7.1  4 13.3  5 11.4 management (Hair et al. 2012a), and management informa-
•• Other 2 14.3  4 13.3  6 13.6 tion systems (Ringle, Sarstedt, and Straub 2012), suggesting
a similar understanding and applicability of the PLS-SEM
method by tourism researchers compared with researchers
such, it would be the logical threshold for sample size to applying PLS-SEM in other disciplines.
ensure the accuracy and statistical power of the model.
Nonetheless, several authors (e.g., Hair et al. 2012b) have
argued that very small samples can be a problem when per- Model Characteristics in Tourism
forming PLS-SEM for two reasons. First, they rarely capture
more heterogeneous populations (i.e., they fail to capture the
Research
heterogeneity in the population from which the sample is Table 4 shows the main features of models using PLS-SEM
drawn), thereby resulting in a larger sampling error. Second, in tourism research. The first aspects to be highlighted con-
if the sample is too small and the data are asymmetrical, the cern the number of latent variables in the inner model and the
bootstrap standard errors will be too large, thereby reducing number of indicators used to measure these variables. On
the method’s statistical power. Thus, to be on the safe side in average, the number of latent variables per model is 6.02,
terms of sample size, one might recommend 100 cases with and the average number of indicators per model is 24.93.
the objective of improving accuracy (see, e.g., Assaker, Although both figures are less than the average number of
Huang, and Hallak 2012). Indeed, few studies have system- latent variables and indicators in path models reported in
atically evaluated PLS-SEM’s performance when the sample other business disciplines, including marketing (7.9 and
size is small (e.g., Chin and Newsted 1999). More recently, 29.55, respectively), strategic management (7.5 and 27,
Reinartz, Haenlein, and Henseler (2009) showed that PLS- respectively), and management information systems (8.12
SEM achieves high levels of statistical power—compared to and 27.42), they still suggest a relatively high level of model
its covariance-based counterpart—even if the sample size is complexity compared with studies in the CB-SEM context
relatively small (i.e., 100 observations). Similarly, Boomsma (e.g., Shah and Goldstein review of CB-SEM reported an
and Hoogland’s (2001) study underscored the CB-SEM’s average number of latent variables of 4.70, with an average
need for relatively large sample sizes to achieve robust number of indicators of 16.30).
parameter estimates. PLS-SEM is therefore generally more Table 4 also shows that the average number of latent vari-
favorable with smaller sample sizes and more complex mod- ables per model is significantly (p ≤ 0.05) larger in articles
els. However, as noted by Marcoulides and Saunders (2006) published before 2012 than in 2012 onward (6.9 vs. 5.6,
as well as Sosik, Kahai, and Piovoso (2009), PLS-SEM is not respectively); however, the average number of indicators
a silver bullet for use with samples of any size, nor is it a remained almost the same in articles published before and
panacea for dealing with empirical research challenges. after 2012 (25.3 vs. 23.9, respectively). Taking these results
Researchers need to consider the effects of size, reliability, jointly, we can argue that model complexity did not decrease
total number of indicators, data characteristics, and other over time, given that the average number of indicators used
issues likely to affect the statistical power of the PLS-SEM to measure each construct significantly increased (p ≤ 0.05)
method (Hair et al. 2012b). In the present article, 42 of the 44 between articles published before 2012 and articles pub-
analyzed studies fulfill these conditions of using a sample of lished in 2012 onward (3.7 vs. 4.3 indicators on average per
100 cases or more, and only two use samples smaller than construct for the period after 2012). The same can be said
100 (Pike et al. 2011; Zach and Racherla 2011). The average about the number of inner model relationships being ana-
and median sample sizes are 487 and 321 observations, lyzed, which remained more or less the same over time (7.23
respectively, and studies prior to 2012 use significantly vs. 8.21 for the periods before and after 2012, respectively),

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015

Valle and Assaker 7

Table 4.  Model Characteristics in Tourism Research. observations suggest that, overall, researchers in tourism are
still not capitalizing on the full features of PLS-SEM in terms
Number and Percentage of Studies
Reporting of allowing the assessment of reflective and formative mod-
els, although this trend seems to have started changing in
2012 and recent years, with researchers significantly applying more
  Before 2012 After Total formative measurement schemes in their models.
Another aspect to note is that 6 studies (13.6%; see Table
  (n = 14) (n = 30) (n = 44) 4) proposed models with at least one construct measured
using a single indicator, with no significant difference (p ≥
Aspect to Report n % n % n %
0.05) in the number of articles that have used a single indica-
Number of latent variables tor across the two time periods (3 prior to 2012 and 3 in 2012
 Mean  6.93 5.60 6.02   onward). While single-indicator constructs in CB-SEM gen-
 Median  6  6  6   erally lead to unidentified models, this problem does not
 Range 3, 17 1, 13 1, 17   occur when PLS-SEM is used. However, Reinartz, Haenlein,
Number of structural paths and Henseler (2009) showed that PLS-SEM estimates are
 Mean  8.21 7.23 7.55   only “consistent at large” in smaller samples if multiple indi-
 Median  8.50  7  7   cators per construct are available. Otherwise, the tendency is
 Range 3, 16 0, 15 0, 16   to underestimate the relationships in the inner model and
Type of outer model overestimate the relationships in the outer model (Chin
  Only reflective  9 64.3 18 60.0 27 61.4
1998). Thus, authors such as Hair et al. (2012a) have advised
  Only formative  0 0  1 3.3  1 2.3
caution in using this type of construct in PLS-SEM, and
  Reflective and  5 35.7 11 36.7 16 36.4
formative
researchers in tourism should be aware of this limitation in
Total number of indicators future works, as it appears that the use of single-indicator
 Mean 25.29 23.93 24.93   constructs is still a common pitfall within tourism studies.
 Median 23 22.5 23  
 Range 14, 55 8, 65 8, 65  
Number of models  3.00 21.4 3.00 10.0 6.00 13.6 Evaluating PLS-SEM in Tourism
with single-item Research
constructs
PLS-SEM does not offer a universal goodness-of-fit index.
In this regard, Chin (1998) proposed assessing the model by
suggesting again that fewer constructs have been used in applying various criteria at two moments. The first moment
PLS-SEM studies in recent years. These studies still incorpo- is the evaluation of the outer model—that is, the part of the
rated large numbers of inner model relationships and higher model describing the relationships between the latent vari-
numbers of indicators, thereby adding to the complexity of ables and their indicators. The second moment is the evalua-
the model being analyzed. tion of the inner model—that is, the part of the model
Moreover, an important feature of PLS-SEM is its ability describing the relationships across the latent variables that
to incorporate both reflective (the relationship progresses make up the model. As pointed out by Henseler, Ringle, and
from the construct to the indicators, suggesting that indica- Sinkovics (2009, p. 298), “It only makes sense to evaluate
tors are correlated or move together in the same direction) the inner path model estimates when the calculated latent
and formative measures (relationship progresses from the variable scores show evidence of sufficient reliability and
indicators to the construct, suggesting that indicators used to validity.” Underlying this statement is the assumption that it
measure the construct are not correlated and thus contribute is only worth analyzing the relationships between the latent
differently to forming their underlying construct) of the variables if the researcher feels confident that the indicators
latent variables. In this perspective, Table 4 also shows that properly represent these variables. We proceed by analyzing
27 (61.4%) studies still analyze the causal relationships the forms of outer model (reflective or formative) and inner
between constructs with the reflective measurement model model validation in the identified empirical studies in
only, while 16 (36.4%) articles used a combination of both tourism.
reflective and formative measurement models, and only one
article used solely a formatively measured latent construct.
Reflective Outer Model Evaluation
Moreover, of the 16 articles involving formative and reflec-
tive measurement models, a significantly (p ≤ 0.05) higher The evaluation of a reflective outer model should observe the
number (i.e., 11) were published after 2012. The only articles aspects listed in Table 5, that is, examine the reliability (indi-
involving solely a formative measurement model were pub- vidual and composite) and the validity (convergent and dis-
lished in this time period as well (2012 onward). These criminant) of the constructs.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015

8 Journal of Travel Research 

Table 5.  Reflective Outer Model Evaluation in Tourism measuring different constructs). In tourism research, dis-
Research. criminant validity has been evaluated by applying the Fornell
Number and Percentage of Studies and Larcker (1981) criterion, whereby a latent variable
Reporting should share more variance with its indicators than with indi-
cators of other latent variables. This aspect can be observed
2012 and if the AVE of each latent variable is greater than the highest
  Before 2012 After Total squared correlation between this and the remaining latent
variable. This form of discriminant validity assessment was
  (n = 14) (n = 30) (n = 44) observed in 41 (93.2%) of the identified studies. Again, the
Aspect to Report n % n % n %
use of this approach is equally prevalent in both periods
under analysis. Only rarely does discriminant validity analy-
Indicator reliability sis consider the observation of the cross-loadings—namely,
  Indicator loadings 5 35.7 30 100 35 79.6 the loadings of each indicator in the other latent variables.
(Bootstrap) Table 5 shows that only 9 (20.5%) of the studies (all from
Composite reliability 2012 onward) provided results of the cross-loadings in their
  Composite reliability 13 92.9 30 100 43 97.7
analyses, indicative of a significant (p ≤ 0.01) increase in the
index (Goldstein rho)
use of a cross-loading indicator in recent years. In summary,
Convergent validity
  Indicators’ significance 14 100 30 100 44 100.0
all of the results presented thus far suggest that tourism
 AVE 13 92.9 29 96.7 42 95.5 researchers demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the
Discriminant validity reliability and validity measures of the reflective constructs
  AVEs compared with 13 92.86 28 93.33 41 93.18 in PLS-SEM.
squared correlations
between constructs
 Cross-loadings 0 0  9 30.00  9 20.45
Formative Outer Model Evaluation
In a formative outer model, the indicators represent indepen-
Note: AVE = average variance extracted.
dent causes of a theoretical concept (a latent variable) and do
not need to be correlated. Thus, in evaluating a formative
The individual reliability analysis, by observing loadings’ outer model, there is no need, nor does it make sense, to eval-
magnitude (i.e., the correlation coefficients between the indi- uate the reliability and validity, as in reflective outer models.
cators and the corresponding latent variable), is reported in Rather, in evaluating these models, the first aspect that mat-
35 (79.6%) of the 44 studies identified. All the studies con- ters is its theoretical rationality and the expert’s opinion
ducted in 2012 onward used this analysis, while it was per- (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001). Second, it is neces-
formed in only 5 (35.7%) of the articles prior to this date, sary to observe some statistical criteria, as shown in Table 6.
suggesting significant (p ≤ 0.05) improvement in the applica- Of the 44 studies analyzed, 17 (38.6%) include at least
tion of individual reliability measures in recent years. one formative construct. As can be seen, all the studies are
Overall, regarding the composite reliability, the Goldstein concerned with analyzing the weights and/or the loadings of
rho index (as proposed by Werts, Linn, and Jöreskog 1974) the indicators, while 14 (82.35%) of those 17 studies reported
should be observed. This index corresponds to a measure of as well loadings/weights statistical significance using the
overall correlation between a construct and its indicators, bootstrap procedure. Moreover, the issue of multicollinearity
and it was found in all 30 articles (100%) published in 2012 was reported in only 11 of the published articles (64.7%),
onward and in almost all articles (13 of 14 or 92.9% of the with significant prevalence (p ≤ 0.01) during 2012 (9 studies
total) published prior to 2012, suggesting the nonsignificant reporting multicollinearity). Both statistical significance and
and consistent use of this composite reliability measure multicollinearity measures are important when assessing for-
across time. mative models because, if the outer loading or weights are
Moreover, all the analyzed studies assess convergent insignificant, it means there is no empirical support for the
validity (i.e., the degree of connection between the indicators indicator’s relevance regarding providing content to the for-
and their construct, or whether they represent one and the mative index; in this case, it should be considered a strong
same latent concept), by observing indicators’ statistical sig- candidate for removal. The analysis of multicollinearity in a
nificance, and 42 of the articles (95.5% of the total) analyze set of indicators linked to a formative construct is also impor-
the average variance extracted (AVE), that is, the variance tant because it can produce a lack of statistical significance
shared between the indicators and the construct. The use of in the weight estimate of a formative indicator (Grewal,
this approach is quite similar in both periods under analysis. Cote, and Baumgartner 2004).
Regarding discriminant validity, the aim is to assess the Thus, the above observations suggest that, overall, a forma-
extent to which different theoretical concepts are sufficiently tive outer model assessment in tourism discipline leaves much
measured by distinct indicators (therefore, they are indeed to be desired. Researchers neglect fundamental principles of

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015

Valle and Assaker 9

Table 6.  Formative Outer Model Evaluation in Tourism Table 7.  Structural Model Evaluation in Tourism Research.
Research.
Number and Percentage of Studies
Number and % of Studies Reporting
Reporting
Before 2012 and
Before 2012 and   2012 After Total
  2012 After Total
  (n = 14) (n = 30) (n = 44)
  (n = 5) (n = 12) (n = 17)
Aspect to Report n % n % n %
Aspect to Report n % n % n %
Explained variance of each endogenous latent variable
Indicator’s contribution to the latent variable (indicator validity)   R 2 for endogenous latent 12 85.7 29 96.7 41 93.2
Indicators’ weight and loading 5 100 12 100 17 100 variables
ts (bootstrap) 5 100 9  75 14 82.35   Effect size ( f 2 ) 0 0  5 16.7  5 11.4
Construct validity Path coefficient estimates
R2 for endogenous latent 0   0  0   0  0 0   Sign, magnitude, and t 12 92.9 30 100 42 95.5
variables bootstrap of each path
Multicollinearity coefficient
Indicator’s variance inflation 2  40  9   75 11 64.71 Predictive relevance for each endogenous latent variable
2
method or tolerance factor   Stone–Geisser índex ( Q ) 3 21.4 11 36.7 14 31.8
2
  Effect size ( q ) 0 0  0 0  0 0

outer model evaluation such as significance testing and mul-

ticollinearity assessment, casting doubts onto measurement
quality and thus the studies’ findings. This could be explained
by the fact that, unlike PLS-SEM, CB-SEM does not entail
the use of formative constructs in causal modeling. With
CB-SEM, formative constructs are modeled rarely and
require that specific conditions be met. As such, the authors
are not fully aware of the methodological analysis of models
that encompasses the use of formative constructs (Assaker,
Huang, and Hallak 2012). Furthermore, it is important to
note that eliminating formative indicators that do not meet
threshold levels in terms of their contribution has, from an
empirical perspective, almost no effect on the parameter esti-
mates when reestimating the model. Nevertheless, formative
indicators should never be discarded simply on the basis of
statistical outcomes. In this context, Einhorn’s (1972, p. 87)
conclusion that “just as the alchemists were not successful in
turning base metal into gold, the modern researcher cannot
rely on the ‘computer’ to turn his data into meaningful and
valuable scientific information” still holds true today.
Therefore, before removing an indicator from the formative
outer model, researchers need to carefully check its relevance
from a content validity point of view, which was not pro-
vided in any of the 17 reviewed articles that used formative
models in their analyses.
Inner Model Evaluation
As indicated by Hair et al. (2012b), the PLS-SEM approach
focuses on the discrepancy between the observed and the
approximated values for the dependent variables and the val-
ues predicted by the corresponding models, which implies
that the assessment of the quality of the model should be
based on the observation of their prediction capacity. Table 7
shows that not all studies addressed the evaluation of the
outer model. There are two studies that do not perform this
analysis because the models proposed do not contemplate a
structural component. The first case concerns the estimation
of a second-order hierarchical construct; in the second case,
it is a model of confirmatory factor analysis.
In the remaining studies (42), the structural model is
assessed by observing the signal, magnitude, and bootstrap
associated with each path coefficient. The coefficient of
determination, R2, is shown and discussed in 41 of those 42
studies (93.2% of all articles). The significance, magnitude,
and bootstrap of each path coefficient are shown and dis-
cussed in all 42 studies (95.5% of all articles). With respect
to the other values that must be observed in a structural
model, Table 7 shows that their use in tourism research has
been sparse and, in some cases, nonexistent, although there
has been significant improvement (p ≤ 0.01) in recent years,
as the Stone–Geisser index (Q2, used to measure predictive
relevance in terms of the indicators, not just the constructs)
was reported in 11 (36.7%) of the articles published in 2012
onward compared to 3 (21.40%) of the articles published
prior to 2012.
Although the goodness-of-fit (GoF) index is not included
in the table (because it is not a universally usable index in the
evaluation of a structural model), it is worth mentioning sig-
nificant differences (p ≤ 0.05) in the reporting of this index
over time, with two studies prior to 2012 and four studies
published later reporting this index for models with reflec-
tive constructs. Overall, these observations suggest that a
sounder understanding of the PLS-SEM inner model estima-
tion is needed among tourism researchers, especially in terms

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015

10 Journal of Travel Research 
of advanced criteria that could further help support the valid-
ity of the model.
Reporting and Advanced Analyses
Using PLS-SEM
According to Chin (2010), studies that use PLS-SEM should
report information about the target population and sample,
data distribution, conceptual model (inner and outer),
research hypotheses, and results that allow the validation of
the model and testing of the hypotheses. As can be seen, the
majority of studies examined in the tourism field report this
information except for the analysis of the data distribution.
Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2011) add that studies should
also mention the more technical aspects, such as the resam-
pling technique (e.g., bootstrapping procedure or blindfold-
ing), the number of iterations, and the weighting schemes
(centroid, factor, or path-weighting scheme for inner model;
mode A or B for outer models) used in the estimation proce-
dure. However, none of the studies analyzed provided all this
information, although some of them indicated the resampling
technique (7 or 15.9% of the total studies), the number of
bootstrap samples (6 or 13.6% of the total articles), and the
weighting scheme (2 or 4.5% of the total articles). All of
these previous articles were published in 2012 and onward,
suggesting a significant improvement (p ≤ 0.01) in reporting
PLS-SEM results in recent years.
The same authors also stress the importance of reporting
the software used to estimate the model. On this point, most
of these publications (25 or 56.8% of the total studies) used
the software SmartPLS (Ringle, Wende, and Will 2005), 6
(13.6%) used the PLSgraph (Chin 2003), 2 (4.5%) each used
the software XLSTAT-PLSPM (Addinsoft 2013) and
VisualPLS (Fu 2006), and 1 (2.3%) used the software
WarpPLS (Kock 2011). In the remaining articles (8 studies or
18.2% of total), no indication is given on the software used.
Another notable aspect relates to the type of analysis pre-
sented: standard or advanced. In general, the studies conduct
a standard analysis in the sense that a structural model with
latent variables is proposed, with a formative or reflective
outer model, and a set of research hypotheses is tested.
However, more advanced analyses were identified in 14
(31.8%) studies, including the analysis of observed heteroge-
neity by testing moderating effects through the product of
indicators method (4 studies, 9.1%) or via multigroup analy-
sis (3 studies, 6.8%), the estimation of hierarchical models (5
studies, 11.4%), and the detection of unobserved heterogene-
ity by using PLS-FIMIX (2 studies, 4.5%). Table 8 shows the
distribution of these articles in the two periods with the major-
ity (10 of 14 published in 2012 onward), suggesting that
although the use of such advanced applications has signifi-
cantly grown in recent years (p ≤ 0.01), researchers in tourism
still do not exploit the fully advanced potential of PLS-SEM
and thus miss opportunities to further substantiate the appro-
priateness of findings and to improve their analyses.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015
Table 8.  Advanced Analyses Using PLS-SEM in Tourism
Research.
Number and Percentage of Studies
Reporting
Before 2012 and
  2012 After Total
  (n = 14) (n = 30) (n = 44)
Aspect to Report n % n % n %
Moderator (Interaction) 0  7.10 4 13.3 4  9.1
effects
Multigroup analysis 1 0 2  6.7 3  6.8
Hierarchical models 2 14.30 3 10.0 5 11.4
Unobserved 1  7.10 1  3.3 2  4.5
heterogeneity (FIMIX-
PLS and REBUS)
Conclusion
The use of PLS-SEM has increased in business and tourism
research. PLS-SEM, as an alternative technique to traditional
CB-SEM, offers greater flexibility with regard to data
assumptions, sample size, analyzing complex models that
have both “formative” and “reflective” constructs, and test-
ing predictive relationships between constructs. These char-
acteristics make PLS-SEM particularly useful for tourism
researchers and could be better harnessed by tourism
researchers as a research tool. However, as with any statisti-
cal technique, PLS-SEM requires researchers to make sev-
eral choices, which, if made incorrectly, can have substantial
consequences on the validity of the results. Although reviews
of PLS-SEM usage have been carried out across many disci-
plines in business research (e.g., Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt
2011, 2012; Hulland 1999; Urbrach and Ahlemann 2010;
Ringle, Sarstedt, and Straub 2012), corresponding assess-
ments of PLS-SEM in tourism are still limited. To fill this
gap, this study reviewed 44 articles that implemented the
PLS-SEM approach to SEM in the field of tourism and were
published in journals indexed in the SSCI and in Tourism
Analysis for the period of 2000 and 2014 in terms of four key
areas of the technique (as noted earlier in the text) to make
recommendations for future use of PLS-SEM in tourism.
Review of the above-mentioned articles demonstrated that
the use of this approach has accelerated in recent years, with
30 of the 44 articles (68.2% of the total articles) published in
2012 or 2014 suggesting that, while there may have been some
initial unawareness or even apprehension of the use of PLS-
SEM compared with the traditional CB-SEM approach, cur-
rently it is well accepted in the most important journals in the
field (e.g., Tourism Management, Journal of Travel Research,
and the Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing); moreover,
the technique is increasingly being applied to examine a large
variety of themes in tourism in comparison to earlier years.
Valle and Assaker 11
Second, the review also demonstrated consistent under-
standing of the reasons behind using PLS-SEM, with focus
on prediction, small sample size, non-normal data, and for-
mative measures being the most prevalent reasons over time;
suggesting that tourism researchers show full awareness of
the basic features of the PLS-SEM technique, and, in recent
years, they have even become aware of more advanced fea-
tures/types of analyses that are available within PLS-SEM
software such as multigroup analysis, interaction effects, and
response-based segmentation using FIXMIX that helps cope
with data heterogeneity.
Third, a review of the model characteristics suggests that
researchers in tourism should pay closer attention to model-
specification issues, particularly when using formatively
measured constructs in PLS-SEM. In formative constructs,
indicators are assumed to capture the entire construct domain
(or at least major parts of it). This issue needs to be further
stressed in future applications, as it was not identified in any
of the 17 articles that used either formative only or a combi-
nation of formative and measurement models in our review.
Similarly, researchers in tourism should be careful when
using single-item measures, which likely lag behind multi-
item scales in terms of predictive validity. Their use should
be avoided in PLS-SEM in most situations, especially in
light of the technique’s predictive focus. Again this issue was
not brought up in any of the six articles that used single-item
latent variables. More careful thought should also be given to
data characteristics. Although PLS-SEM performs well with
small samples and nonnormal data, researchers should not be
careless in implementing these advantages. Small sample
sizes and skewed data easily increase sampling error, yield-
ing inflated bootstrap standard errors. When this occurs, the
technique’s statistical power is reduced, offsetting one of
PLS-SEM’s major advantages. However, as shown in our
review, recent articles have relied on larger sample sizes with
a mean sample size of 562 for articles published in 2012
onward compared with a mean of 451 for articles published
prior to 2012, thereby showing tourism researchers’ greater
awareness with respect to this issue.
Fourth, researchers should make greater use of model-
evaluation criteria, especially when assessing the quality of
formatively measured constructs and the quality of inner
models. Our review showed that current practice still indi-
cate gaps in this regard, casting doubt on the validity of some
of the measures. Similarly, researchers should make use of
the full range of criteria available to assess the model’s pre-
dictive capabilities, such as the cross-loading measures,
effect size redundancy index (f2) or the Stone–Geisser index
(Q2). Tourism researchers need to understand that these mea-
sures are by definition not indicative of model fit in a covari-
ance-based sense, and any effort to interpret them as such
should clearly be rejected.
Finally, besides basic PLS-SEM analyses, our review
demonstrated that researchers still have to take further
advantage of a much larger set of methodological extensions
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015
of the PLS-SEM method, ranging from evaluation tech-
niques such as blindfolding (e.g., Chin 1998) and confirma-
tory tetrad analysis (e.g., Gudergan et al. 2008) to interaction
effects and PLS-SEM multigroup analyses (e.g., Sarstedt,
Henseler, and Ringle 2011) and response-based segmenta-
tion approaches, such as finite mixture-PLS (e.g., Rigdon,
Ringle, and Sarstedt 2010). Results from this study showed
that the majority of research articles in the discipline still do
not fully exploit such potentials and thus miss opportunities
to further substantiate the appropriateness of findings and
improve their analyses. Although results show that the use of
such advanced applications (10 of the 14 advanced analyses
articles were published in 2012–2014) has significantly
grown in recent years, it is important for tourism researchers
to stay updated in terms of the latest developments in PLS-
SEM by consulting statistical journals (e.g., Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal;
Multivariate Behavioral Research) that frequently publish
innovations on this technique. Tourism scholars should also
refer to recently available textbooks on PLS-SEM (see, e.g.,
A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling [PLS-SEM] by Hair et al. 2014), which contain
further comprehensive and detailed explanation of the differ-
ent types of analyses available within PLS-SEM. The present
review and identified recommendations on the use of PLS-
SEM in tourism should be particularly useful for tourism
researchers adopting PLS-SEM in their studies in the future.
Hopefully, these recommendations will help enhance the
quality of empirical research in tourism and advance theory
and practices in the future.
Limitations and Future Research
As with all research, the present study is not without limita-
tions; for example, it assessed applying PLS-SEM based on
information reported in published articles. In some cases, the
authors of the reviewed articles may have made appropriate
decisions and discussed decisions with referees during the
review process but did not include such material in their arti-
cles, especially with regard to the suitability of PLS-SEM as
it related to their work and model evaluation. This informa-
tion, however, cannot be known just by reviewing the article.
Another limitation is the small number of articles (44) exam-
ined as compared with the number of articles examined in
other disciplines (e.g., 204 in marketing; 109 in management
information systems). As the use of PLS-SEM becomes
more common in tourism studies, a more comprehensive
review can be prepared, and the rationale for using PLS-
SEM and assessing its use in the context of tourism research
will be more effective.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
12 Journal of Travel Research 
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
article was partially financed by FCT–Foundation for Science and
Technology.
References
Addinsoft. (2013). XLSTAT-PLSPM Module, XLSTAT Software.
Paris: Addinsoft.
Agapito, D., P. Valle, and J. Mendes. (2013). “The Cognitive-
Affective-Conative Model of Destination Image: A
Confirmatory Analysis.” Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 13 (5): 471-81.
Alexander, M., A. MacLaren, K. O’Gorman, and B. Taheri. (2012).
“‘He Just Didn’t Seem to Understand the Banter’: Bullying or
Simply Establishing Social Cohesion?” Tourism Management,
33 (5): 1245-55.
Assaker, G., and R. Hallak. (2012). “Examining a Supply-Side
Predictive Model in Tourism Using Partial Least Squares Path
Modeling: An Empirical Analysis at the Country Aggregate
Level.” Tourism Analysis, 17 (5): 587-99.
Assaker, G., R. Hallak, V. Vinzi, and P. O’Connor. (2014). “An
Empirical Operationalization of Countries’ Destination
Competitiveness Using Partial Least Squares Modeling.”
Journal of Travel Research, 53 (1): 26-43.
Assaker, G., S. Huang, and R. Hallak. (2012). “Applications of
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Tourism
Research: A Methodological Review.” Tourism Analysis, 17
(5): 679-86.
Ayeh, J., N. Au, and R. Law. (2013a). “Do We Believe in
TripAdvisor? Examining Credibility Perceptions and Online
Travelers’ Attitude toward Using User-Generated Content.”
Journal of Travel Research, 52 (4): 437-52.
Ayeh, J., N. Au, and R. Law. (2013b). “Predicting the Intention
to Use Consumer-Generated Media for Travel Planning.”
Tourism Management, 35:132-43.
Battour, M. M., M. M. Battor, and M. Ismail. (2012). “The Mediating
Role of Tourist Satisfaction: A Study of Muslim Tourists in
Malaysia.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 29 (3):
279-97.
Blazquez-Resino, J. J., A. Molina, and A. Esteban-Talaya.
(2013). “Service-Dominant Logic in Tourism: The Way to
Loyalty.” Current Issues in Tourism. DOI:10.1080/13683500.
2013.863853.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
New York: John Wiley.
Boomsma, A., and J. J. Hoogland. (2001). “The Robustness
of LISREL Modeling Revisited.” In Structural Equation
Modeling: Present and Future, edited by R. Cudeck, S. du Toit,
and D. Sörbom. Chicago: Scientific Software International,
pp. 139-68.
Camarero, C., M. J. Garrido, and E. Vicente. (2010). “Components
of Art Exhibition Brand Equity for Internal and External
Visitors.” Tourism Management, 31 (4): 495-504.
Casanueva, C., A. Gallego, and M. Sancho. (2013). “Network
Resources and Social Capital in Airline Alliance Portfolios.”
Tourism Management, 36 (June): 441-53.
Chang, C. H., S. Shu, and B. King. (2013). “Novelty in Theme
Park Physical Surroundings: An Application of the Stimulus–
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015
Organism–Response Paradigm.” Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 19 (6): 680-99.
Cheng, V., and M. K. Loi. (2014). “Handling Negative Online
Customer Reviews: The Effects of Elaboration Likelihood
Model and Distributive Justice.” Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 31 (1): 1-15.
Chin, W. W. (1998). “The Partial Least Squares Approach for
Structural Equation Modeling.” In Modern Methods for
Business Research, edited by G. A. Marcoulides. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 295-336.
Chin, W. W. (2003). PLS Graph 3.0. Houston: Soft Modeling.
Chin, W. W. (2010). “How to Write Up and Report PLS Analyses.”
In Handbook of Partial Least Squares, edited by V. E. Vinzi,
W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, and H. Wang. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag, pp. 655-90.
Chin, W. W., and P. R. Newsted. (1999). “Structural Equation
Modelling Analysis with Small Samples Using Partial Least
Squares.” In Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research,
edited by R. H. Hoyle. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 307-41.
Chiu, Y. H., W. Lee, and T. H. Chen. (2014). “Environmentally
Responsible Behavior in Ecotourism: Antecedents and
Implications.” Tourism Management, 40:321-29.
Churchill, G. A., and D. Iacobucci. (2010). Marketing Research:
Methodological Foundations. Mason: South-Western Cengage
Learning.
Conze, O., T. Bieger, C. Laesser, and T. Riklin. (2010).
“Relationship Intention as a Mediator between Relational
Benefits and Customer Loyalty in the Tour Operator Industry.”
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 27 (1): 51-62.
Diamantopoulos, A., and H. M. Winklhofer. (2001). “Index
Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to
Scale Development.” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2):
269-77.
Einhorn, H. J. (1972). “Expert Measurement and Mechanical
Combination.” Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 7 (1): 86-106.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. (1981). “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1):
39-50.
Fu, J. R. (2006). VisualPLS—Partial Least Square (PLS)
Regression—An Enhanced Guide for Lvpls (PLS 1.8 PC)
Version 1.04. Taiwan, ROC: National Kaohsiung University
of Applied Sciences.
García, J. A., M. Gómez, and A. Molina. (2012). “A Destination-
Branding Model: An Empirical Analysis Based on
Stakeholders.” Tourism Management, 33 (3): 646-61.
Gardiner, S., C. King, and D. Grace. (2013). “Travel Decision
Making: An Empirical Examination of Generational Values,
Attitudes, and Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (3):
310-24.
Gómez, M., and A. Molina. (2012). “Wine Tourism in Spain:
Denomination of Origin Effects on Brand Equity.” International
Journal of Tourism Research, 14 (4): 353-68.
Grewal, R., J. A. Cote, and H. Baumgartner. (2004).
“Multicollinearity and Measurement Error in Structural
Equation Models: Implications for Theory Testing.” Marketing
Science, 23 (4): 519-29.
Guan, J., and D. L. Jones. (2014). “The Contribution of Local
Cuisine to Destination Attractiveness: An Analysis Involving
Valle and Assaker 13
Chinese Tourists’ Heterogeneous Preferences.” Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research. DOI:10.1080/10941665.2014.
889727.
Gudergan, S. P., C. M. Ringle, S. Wende, and A. Will. (2008).
“Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis in PLS Path Modeling.”
Journal of Business Research, 61 (12): 1238-49.
Hair, J. F., B. Black, B. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham.
(2010). Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edition. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. (2014). A
Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling
(PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hair, J. F., C. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. (2011). “PLS-SEM: Indeed
a Silver Bullet.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19
(2): 139-51.
Hair, J. F., M. Sarstedt, T. M. Pieper, and C. R. Ringle. (2012a).
“The Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling in Strategic Management: A Review of Past Practices
End Recommendations for Future Applications.” Long Range
Planning, 45 (5-6): 320-40.
Hair, J. F., M. Sarstedt, C. Ringle, and J. A. Mena. (2012b). “An
Assessment of the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling in Marketing Research.” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 40:414-33.
Henseler, J., C. Ringle, and R. R. Sinkovics. (2009). “The Use
of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International
Marketing.” Advances in International Marketing, 20:277-319.
Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. (2012). “Using Partial
Least Squares Path Modeling in International Advertising
Research: Basic Concepts and Recent Issues.” In Handbook of
Research in International Advertising, edited by S. Okazaki.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 252-76.
Hernández-Maestro, R., and O. González-Benito. (2014). “Rural
Lodging Establishments as Drivers of Rural Development.”
Journal of Travel Research, 53 (1): 83-95.
Hernández-Maestro, R. M., P. A. Muñoz-Gallego, and L. Santos-
Requejo. (2009). “Small-Business Owners’ Knowledge and
Rural Tourism Establishment Performance in Spain.” Journal
of Travel Research, 48 (1): 58-77.
Huang, Y., F. Huang, M. Hsu, and F. Chang. (2009). “Determinants
and Outcomes of Relationship Quality: An Empirical
Investigation on the Chinese Travel Industry.” Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research, 14 (1): 59-75.
Hulland, J. (1999). “Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic
Management Research: A Review of Recent Studies.” Strategic
Management Journal, 20 (2): 195-204.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1973). “A General Method for Estimating a Linear
Structural Equation System.” In Structural Equation Models
in the Social Sciences, edited by A. S. Goldberger and O. D.
Duncan. New York: Academic Press, pp. 85-112.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1978). “Structural Analysis of Covariance and
Correlation Matrices.” Psychometrika, 43 (4): 443-77.
Jöreskog, K. G., and H. Wold. (1982). “The ML and PLS
Techniques for Modeling with Latent Variables: Historical and
Comparative Aspects.” In Systems under Indirect Observation:
Part I, edited by K. G. Jöreskog and H. Wold. Amsterdam:
North-Holland, pp. 263-70.
Kim, I., K. Ahn, and N. Chung. (2013). “Examining the Factors
Affecting Perceived Enjoyment and Usage Intention of
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015
Ubiquitous Tour Information Services: A Service Quality
Perspective.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18
(6): 598-617.
Kim, M., N. Chung, C. Lee, and J. Kim. (2012). “Do Loyalty
Groups Differ in the Role of Trust in Online Tourism
Shopping? A Process Perspective.” Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, 29 (4): 352-68.
Kim, M., C. Lee, N. Chung, and W. Kim. (2013). “Factors Affecting
Online Tourism Group Buying and the Moderating Role of
Loyalty.” Journal of Travel Research, 53 (3): 380-94.
Kim, M., M. Lee, C. Lee, and H. Song. (2011). “Does Gender
Affect Korean Tourists’ Overseas Travel? Applying the Model
of Goal-Directed Behavior.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 14 (1): 59-75.
Kock, N. (2011). “Using WarpPLS in e-Collaboration Studies:
Mediating Effects, Control and Second Order Variables, and
Algorithm Choices.” International Journal of e-Collaboration,
7 (3): 1-13.
Ku, E. (2014). “Distributed Fascinating Knowledge Over an
Online Travel Community.” International Journal of Tourism
Research, 16 (1): 33-43.
Lai, H., and F. Youcheng. (2009). “Understanding the Relationships
of Quality, Value, Equity, Satisfaction, and Behavioral
Intentions among Golf Travelers.” Tourism Management, 30
(2): 298-308.
Lohmöller, J. B. (1989). Latent Variable Path Modeling with
Partial Least Squares. Heidelberg: Physica.
López-Bonilla, J. M., and L. M. López-Bonilla. (2012a).
“Environmental Orientation in Tourism: The RTEO Scale.”
Current Issues in Tourism, 15 (6): 591-96.
López-Bonilla, J., and L. M. López-Bonilla. (2012b). “Holistic
Competence Approach in Tourism Higher Education: An
Exploratory Study in Spain.” Current Issues in Tourism, 17
(4): 312-26.
Loureiro, S. M. (2010). “Satisfying and Delighting the Rural
Tourists.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 27 (4):
396-408.
Loureiro, S. M., and F. J. González. (2008). “The Importance of
Quality, Satisfaction, Trust, and Image in Relation to Rural
Tourist Loyalty.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
25 (2): 117-36.
Marcoulides, G. A., and C. Saunders. (2006). “PLS: A Silver
Bullet?” Management Information Systems Quarterly, 30 (2):
iii-ix.
Mazanec, J. A., and A. Ring. (2011). “Tourism Destination
Competitiveness: Second Thoughts on the World Economic
Forum Reports.” Tourism Economics, 17 (4): 725-51.
Mistilis, N., and J. D’ambra. (2008). “The Visitor Experience
and Perception of Information. Quality at the Sydney Visitor
Information Centre.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
24 (1): 35-47.
Murphy, P., M. P. Pritchard, and B. Smith. (2000). “The Destination
Product and Its Impact on Traveller Perceptions.” Tourism
Management, 21 (1): 43-52.
Nunkoo, R., and H. Ramkissoon. (2011). “Structural Equation
Modelling and Regression Analysis in Tourism Research.”
Current Issues in Tourism, 15 (8): 1-26.
Nunkoo, R., H. Ramkissoon, and D. Gursoy. (2013). “Use of
Structural Equation Modeling in Tourism Research: Past,
14 Journal of Travel Research 
Present, and Future.” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (6): 759-
71.
Pike, S., S. Hosany, S. Murdy, and I. Lings. (2011). “Visitor
Relationship Orientation of Destination Marketing
Organizations.” Journal of Travel Research, 50 (4): 443-53.
Prayag, G., R. Nunkoo, and T. Alders. (2013). “London Residents’
Support for the 2012 Olympic Games: The Mediating Effect
of Overall Attitude.” Tourism Management, 36 (June):
629-40.
Regan, N., J. Carlson, and P. J. Rosenberger, III. (2012). “Factors
Affecting Group-Oriented Travel Intention to Major Events.”
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 29 (2): 185-204.
Reinartz, W. J., M. Haenlein, and J. Henseler. (2009). “An Empirical
Comparison of the Efficacy of Covariance-Based and Variance
Based SEM.” International Journal of Market Research, 26
(4): 332-44.
Rigdon, E. E., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. (2010). “Structural
Modeling of Heterogeneous Data with Partial Least Squares.”
In Review of Marketing Research, edited by N. K. Malhotra.
Armonk, Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe, pp. 255-96.
Ringle, C. M., M. Sarstedt, and W. W. Straub. (2012). “A Critical
Look at the Use of PLS-SEM in MIS Quarterly.” MIS
Quarterly, 36 (1): 1-19.
Ringle, C. M., S. Wende, and A. Will. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (Beta),
SmartPLS. Hamburg (www.smartpls.de).
Roxas, B., and D. Chadee. (2013). “Effects of Formal Institutions
on the Performance of the Tourism Sector in the Philippines:
The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation.” Tourism
Management, 36:629-40.
Sarstedt, M., J. Henseler, and C. Ringle. (2011). “Multi-Group
Analysis in Partial Least Squares (PLS) Path Modeling:
Alternative Methods and Empirical Results.” Advances in
International Marketing, 22:195-218.
Song, H., G. Li, R. Van der Veen, and J. L. Chen. (2011). “Assessing
Mainland Chinese Tourists’ Satisfaction with Hong Kong
Using Tourist Satisfaction Index.” International Journal of
Tourism Research, 13 (1): 82-96.
Song, H., R. Van der Veen, G. Li, and J. L. Chen. (2012). “The
Hong Kong Tourist Satisfaction Index.” Annals of Tourism
Research, 39 (1): 459-79.
Sosik, J. J., S. S. Kahai, and M. J. Piovoso. (2009). “Silver Bullet
or Voodoo Statistics? A Primer for Using Partial Least Squares
Data Analytic Technique in Group and Organization Research.”
Group and Organization Management, 34 (1): 5-36.
Stienmetz, J., S. Levy, and S. Boo. (2013). “Factors Influencing
the Usability of Mobile Destination Management Organization
Websites.” Journal of Travel Research, 52 (4): 453-64.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 27, 2015
Taheri, B., A. Jafari, and K. O’Gorman. (2014). “Keeping Your
Audience: Presenting a Visitor Engagement Scale.” Tourism
Management, 42:321-29.
Tan, W., and C. Kuo. (2013) “The Effect of Aesthetic-Image
Value of Travel Expert Blogs on the Intention to Travel: An
Exploratory Study.” Current Issues in Tourism. DOI:10.1080/
13683500.2013. 840270.
Thomson Reuters. (2014). Web of Knowledge. thomsonreuters.
com/journal-citation-reports/. (accessed June 20, 2014).
Urbrach, N., and F. Ahlemann. (2010). “Structural Equation
Modeling in Information Systems Research Using Partial
Least Squares.” Journal of Information Technology Theory
and Application, 11 (2): 5-40.
Vinzi, V. E., L. Trinchera, and S. Amato. (2010). “PLS Path Modeling:
From Foundations to Recent Developments and Open Issues for
Model Assessment and Improvement.” In Handbook of Partial
Least Squares, edited by V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler,
and H. Wang. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 47-81.
Werts, C. E., R. L. Linn, and K. G. Joreskog. (1974). “Interclass
Reliability Estimates: Testing Structural Assumptions.”
Education and Psychological Measurement, 34 (1): 25-33.
Wold, H. O. (1982). “Soft Modeling: The Basic Design and Some
Extensions.” In Systems under Indirect Observations, Part II,
edited by K. G. Jöreskog and H. O. Wold. Amsterdam: North-
Holland, pp. 1-54.
Wold, H. O. (1985). “Partial Least Squares.” In Encyclopedia
of Statistical Sciences, Vol. 6, edited by S. Kotz and N. L.
Johnson. New York: John Wiley, pp. 581-891.
Zach, F., and P. Racherla. (2011). “Assessing the Value of
Collaborations in Tourism Networks: A Case study of Elkhart
County, Indiana.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
28 (1): 97-110.
Author Biographies
Patrícia Oom do Valle, PhD, is an Associate Professor of
Quantitative Methods Applied to Economics and Business at the
Faculty of Economics, University of the Algarve. Her research
focuses on the use of advanced multivariate statistical methods in
modelling consumer behavior, especially in the fields of tourism
and environment. Tel: + 351 289 800 915 ext. 7277; fax: +351 289
800 064; email: pvalle@ualg.pt.
Guy Assaker, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Business and
Tourism at the Lebanese American University (LAU). His research
focuses on the use of advanced multivariate statistical methods to
model various business and tourism subjects. Tel: + 961 54 72 54
ext. 2443; fax: +961 9 54 72 56; email: guy.assaker@lau.edu.lb.