Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chaos, Solitons and Fractals

Nonlinear Science, and Nonequilibrium and Complex Phenomena
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chaos

Review

Based on the multi-assessment model: Towards a new context of

combining the artificial neural network and structural equation
modelling: A review
A.S. Albahri a,d, Alhamzah Alnoor c, A.A. Zaidan b, O.S. Albahri b, Hamsa Hameed a,∗,
B.B. Zaidan e, S.S. Peh a, A.B. Zain a, S.B. Siraj a, A.H. Alamoodi b, A.A. Yass f
a
Faculty of Human Development, Sultan Idris University of Education (UPSI), Tanjung Malim, Malaysia
b
Department of Computing, Sultan Idris University of Education (UPSI), Tanjong Malim, Malaysia
c
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
d
Informatics Institute for Postgraduate, Studies (IIPS), Iraqi Commission for Computers and Informatics, Baghdad, Iraq
e
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Future Technology Research Center, Yunlin, Taiwan, ROC
f
IT Infra Expert Company, Earthlink, Main ISP, Baghdad, Iraq

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Theoretical models have become increasingly complex, but the dual-phase structural equation modelling
Received 2 May 2021 (SEM) and artificial neural network analysis can be used by scholars to unveil the causal interactions
Revised 4 July 2021
and nonlinear relationships between variables. However, not only a single open issue and challenge—but
Accepted 13 September 2021
several of them—are encountered in the use of different multi-assessment types of measurement model
Available online 14 November 2021
to achieve the reliability and validity whilst implementing SEM, but the gaps have not been fully deter-
Keywords: mined at present. The issues significantly impact the effectiveness process of selecting the most suitable
Structural equation modelling method to assess the measurement model of SEM. Once the best sequence quality improvement is met, it
Partial least square−structural equation then needs to present a recommendable solution. To this end, this study completes the literature by pre-
modelling senting a systematic review of all main advanced aspects of the SEM reliability and validity approaches.
Artificial neural network Firstly, the databases of ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science and Scopus were checked for the
Multi-criteria decision making
retrospective studies. A total of 239 papers were gathered for the period covering 2016 to June 2021.
Then, the obtained articles were filtered according to the predefined inclusion criteria. Sixty articles were
ultimately selected and divided into three categories (single, hybrid and other types) to enable a new
representation of the crossover taxonomy amongst ‘SEM reliability and validity’ and ‘multi-assessment
methods for structural model’ for the first time. The three categories had been matched with the SEM
processes, and each of the detailed models were defined to determine the sets of principal criteria of the
entire selected SEM approaches. Consequently, this multi-field interdisciplinary review was used to ex-
pose the state-of-the-art challenges and open issues (i.e. multiple-evaluation criteria, importance criteria
and data variation) related to the sets of SEM criteria necessitating a selection process for deriving the
best SEM method. Each issue entailed a ‘wherefore’, and multi-criteria decision making was adopted to
handle the complexity problems in the different cases. Thus, a new three-phase decision-making method-
ology was constructed. In the first phase, a decision matrix (DM) was identified for the SEM approach;
the composition of the decision alternatives and identified criteria were derived from the academic lit-
erature. In the second phase, the development methodology was achieved on the basis of the integrated
multi-criteria DM techniques. The analytic hierarchy process was used for the subjective weighting of
the criteria within the constructed DM, whereas the vlsekriterijumska optimizcija i kaompromisno resenje

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hamsahameed@fpm.upsi.edu.my (H. Hameed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111445
0960-0779/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al.
technique was used for ranking and selecting the best SEM methods. In the third phase, an objective vali-
dation approach was adopted to validate the proposed methodology. The outcome of this novel approach
is intended to guide decision makers and policymakers on the easy evaluation of their goals of selecting
the most suitable computing methods and the improvement of the reliability and validity of SEM.
1. Introduction
Structural equation modelling (SEM) is a popular method for
parameter estimation and hypothesis testing [1–6]. The SEM tech-
nique contributes to the development of exploratory research the-
ories by explaining the variance that contributes to an estimate
of linear equations, which include both observed and latent vari-
ables [7–9]. SEM enables researchers to simultaneously examine
measurement and theoretical concepts [10–15]. Furthermore, SEM
has become a mainstream tool in social research and is employed
continuously. Authors from numerous nations have contributed
to the implementation of numerous second-generation technolo-
gies (e.g. partial least square−structural equation modelling [PLS-
SEM]) [16–19]. This method is useful for developing and access-
ing theories and assessing the interaction of factors, in which the
conceptual constructs include independent, mediating, moderat-
ing and dependent factors via multi-assessment of measurement
modelling (i.e. reliability and validity representing an outer model)
and structural model assessment (i.e. hypotheses tests representing
an inner model) [20–22]. Hence, the PLS-SEM method is appro-
priate for explaining causal relationships; it has predictive advan-
tages, such as the use of the coefficient determination (R2 ), pre-
dictive relevance (Q2 ) and effect size (F2 ) values [23–26]. How-
ever, the PLS-SEM method cannot explore the nonlinear relation-
ship amongst constructs [27–31]. Therefore, the authors had be-
come interested in solving this problem by attempting to improve
the performance of the PLS-SEM technique for exploring the non-
linear and non-compensatory relationships between constraints, in
which the quadratic and interaction terms of constraints are inte-
grated into a conceptual framework [32–34]. However, one of the
drawbacks of these methods is the assumption that variables are
normally distributed. When this assumption is breached, the PLS-
SEM estimates become biased [35–38].
The use of deep learning-based dual-stage PLS-SEM and artifi-
cial neural network (ANN) analysis provides more in-depth testing
findings than a single-step PLS-SEM method and allows for the ex-
cavation and prediction of variables [39–41]. Hence, ANN analysis
has become a critical method complementing the work of PLS-SEM
in recent years [42–44]. The benefits of combining PLS-SEM and
ANN are the validation of the PLS-SEM results and the explanation
of the nonlinear interactions between antecedents and dependent
variables [45–48].
As part of our ongoing research intending to clarify how PLS-
SEM and ANN can be integrated with each other, we found an in-
crease in literature that had used PLS-SEM with ANN. However, the
different study cases that linked PLS-SEM with ANN used varying
types of multi-assessment of measurement models, such as load-
ing factor, Cronbach’s alpha (CA), average variance extraction (AVE),
composite reliability (CR), Fornell−Larcker, HTMT, Fornell−Larcker
and HTMT, cross-loadings, exploratory factor analysis and confir-
matory factor analysis. A complete explanation of how these types
affect PLS-SEM and ANN performance is still incomplete and needs
to be investigated. Thus, the first question arises: What studies
had used multi-assessment of the measurement model (outer model)
methods to examine reliability and validity? The literature differed in
calculating the reliability and validity of the various methods and
obtained varying values of R2 between PLS-SEM and ANN, posing
2
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
a significant concern to the accurate input to ANN [3,22,28,44,49–
53]. The present study can attain the goal of answering the above-
mentioned question and contribute to the body of PLS-SEM knowl-
edge by presenting recent studies and conducting a systematic
literature review (refer to the ‘Analysis of Multi-Assessment SEM
model’ section). The method, information source and study selec-
tion, amongst others, are identified and explained to establish the
crossover taxonomy amongst the ‘SEM reliability and validity’ and
assessment methods for the structural model (Fig. 2).
The systematic literature review provides exclusive evidence
showing that the previous studies entail different types of multi-
assessment of measurement methods, which can substantially im-
pact the inputs of upcoming processes of SEM and other related
processes, such as ANN and contribution processes [22]. However,
the three specific challenges with respect to SEM that can influ-
ence the explicit relations between explanatory variables (input)
and dependent variables (output) had not been considered [54,55].
Therefore, what are the main challenges and issues related to the im-
plementation of SEM calculation? This discussion leads to a genuine
concern regarding effectiveness, namely, the effect of the SEM out-
put when different multi-assessment methods lead to varying re-
sults or effects on ANN and contribution process [22,34,50]. Be-
sides, the methods of establishing the reliability and validity in
SEM is a concern related to the overall SEM output results based
on the R2 , F2 and Q2 indicators that consider the significant criteria
of the SEM model (refer to the ‘Open Issues and Challenges’ sec-
tion). In these contexts, the aforementioned issue raises another
important question: What is the recommended solution for such
challenging aspects and their issues when selecting the best method
as a means of increasing the reliability and validity of SEM mod-
els? Consequently, a novel methodology should be developed to
overcome the SEM challenges regarding effectiveness when select-
ing the most suitable method of assessing the SEM measurement
model; this aspect can be answered using new integrated phases
(refer to the ‘Methodology’ section).
2. Methods
This research was developed in accordance with the selected
reporting items for meta-analytic and systematic review guide-
lines [56,57] (Fig. 1). The essential keyword of this research was
‘SEM−ANN’. The scope was limited to the English literature with
articles related to SEM−ANN.
2.1. Information Sources
According to prior research [32−34], a thorough systematic re-
view should be performed across several databases to include the
majority of publications. Thus, four digital databases were selected
for the search of target articles. The selection criteria were de-
signed to offer a much wider perspective on the researchers’ at-
tempt to consolidate a diverse but relevant range of disciplines
[58–61]. The four databases included the following: 1) IEEE Xplore
technical literature library on engineering and technology; 2) Sci-
enceDirect database, which offers access to technology and science
journal articles; 3) Web of Science (WoS), which involves cross-
disciplinary research materials; and 4) Scopus library of cross-
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al.
Fig. 1. Systematic review protocol.
disciplinary literature. These databases were selected for their aca-
demic credibility and breadth of coverage across academic fields.
2.2. Study selection
The research selection process began with a search of the avail-
able literature, followed by two rounds of screening and filtering
[62–65]. The first iteration eliminated duplicate and irrelevant ar-
ticles based on scanned titles and abstracts [66,67]. After a com-
prehensive full-text reading of the articles that were screened in
the first phase, the articles were filtered in the second iteration
[68,69]. The same qualifying criteria were used in both versions.
2.3. Search protocol
A search protocol was performed at the beginning of June 2021
by using the abovementioned databases. The Boolean query search
utilised numerous keywords correlated with ‘structural equation
modeling’ and ‘artificial neural network’. The keywords in the
search process contained a combination of words and operands
(Fig. 1).
3
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445
2.4. Eligibility criteria
The eligibility criteria included the following:
1. The papers were published in a journal or as a conference pa-
per in the English language.
2. Attention was given on SEM and ANN analysis.
All articles that conformed with the above criteria were se-
lected. In summary, the initial purpose was to map the SEM and
ANN model cases and concerns into a general and coarse-grained
review. The inclusion/exclusion criteria included studies not related
to the SEM and ANN models or other irrelevant topics.
3. Analytic results of the multi-assessment SEM model
In testing the hypotheses in SEM, the multi-assessment of the
measurement model (outer model) should be considered before
assessing the structural model (inner model). Several ways can be
used to verify this aspect and determine the factors that charac-
terise reliability and validity. As mentioned in Section 1, the four
methods for assessing the measurement model can also be in-
cluded into the sub-methods. Consequently, only the publications
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445

that could meet the criteria outlined in Fig. 1 were included in our
study. We obtained 239 entries from the selected databases. After

Exploratory Factor Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis

eliminating the 12 duplicate records, 227 articles were retained.
Following an examination of the titles and abstracts, 84 of them
fulfilled the original selection criterion. Then, after examining the
complete texts of the 60 publications, all of them were found to
fulfil the inclusion criteria and thus included in the final evalua-
tion. The final evaluation was split into three main groups. The first
category, which contained 7 articles (12%), represented the ‘sin-
gle based method’. In this category, a unique method of measuring

√
the reliability and validity (i.e. loading factor, CA, AVE and CR) was
conducted for the articles. Loading factor particularly refers to the
load factors for items exceeding 0.7. CA measures reliability [70].
AVE evaluates the degree of variation that is recorded by a con-
struct versus the level attributable to the measurement error; val-
ues higher than 0.7 are regarded as excellent, whereas levels less
than 0.5 are regarded as acceptable [71]. CR is a less biased assess-

11%
ment of reliability than the CA; an appropriate CR value is 0.7 or

√
higher.

Fornell–Larcker HTMT Fornell–Larcker and HTMT Cross loadings

The second category, which contained 44 articles (73%), repre-
sented the ‘hybrid based method’. This category included articles
that had used three types of discriminant validity methods, in-

3%
cluding the convergent validity method. For this category, firstly,

√
the Fornell–Larcker testing technique measures discriminant valid-
ity by comparing the amount of variance captured by the con-
struct (i.e. AVE) and the shared variance with other constructs
[72]. Secondly, the heterotrait−monotrait (HTMT) ratio approach
for correlations assesses the discriminant validity [73]. Thirdly, the
cross-loadings may be linked back to exploratory factor analysis, in

Multi-Assessment of the Measurement Model (Outer Model)

which researchers examine the indicator loading patterns to iden-
tify those indicators with high loadings on a single factor and the

3%
√
indications with high loadings on several factors [72].

11%
The third category, which contained 9 articles (15%), repre- Discriminant validity

√
sented ‘others’. This category involved articles depicting other
methods of measuring reliability and validity. The first method was
exploratory factor analysis, which can explore the basic dimensions
of variables. The second method was confirmatory factor analysis,
which can be used for testing the hypotheses to determine the best

83% 83% 51% 6%

√

model [74].
AVE CR

The academic studies in the literature entailed different sub-

√

√
√
√
√

methods to achieve reliability and validity. Therefore, we explored

Convergent validity

√
√
√
√

the SEM processes as a means of offering a comprehensive analysis

of the collected studies on the cited methods within the scope of
CA
√

√
√
√
√

the aforementioned three categories, subsequently completing our

Loading

argument. The details are listed in Table 1.

83%

The loading, CA, CR, AVE and discriminant validity methods had
√
√
√
√
√
√

been applied most frequently and were distributed amongst the

[4,8-13,16,18,23-27,32-34,36,41,45-47,80-90]

single and hybrid categories. The application of exploratory factor

analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were limited in the stud-
ies belonging to the ‘others’ category. The mean value is computed
as follows:
total f requence
mean = × 100. (1)
N
[3,22,28,44,49,50,91]

[7,17,19,27,29,95,96]

In addition, although Ref. [97] stressed the need to use both

convergent validity and discriminant validity when applying SEM
[5,14,43,75-77]

to the multi-assessment of measurement model, many problems

[6,40,92,93]

and issues were observed regarding this topic. Moreover, discrep-

[42,94]
[79,80]

ancies were apparent amongst the studies in terms of the use of

[78]

85%
Category Type Ref.

appropriate methods for measuring reliability and validity. The per-

centage of the reviewed papers ranged between 3% to 85% for the
SEM processes.

multi-assessment of the measurement model for determining the

factors that can be subject to hypothesis testing and ANN input ob-
Hybrid

Others
Single

Mean
Table 1

tainment. A significant concern is thus raised with regards to the

adoption of any method to integrate SEM with ANN. The differ-
ences in the methods of reliability and validity measurement are

4
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445

Fig. 2. Crossover taxonomy amongst ‘SEM reliability and validity’ and multi-assessment methods for the structural model.

explained in Ref. [98], and it also confirms the variation in the re-
sults of these methods.
Furthermore, the trends in the literature review seem to indi-
cate a consolidated and improved approach for the main categories
involving the crossover in the utilisation of the abovementioned
multi-assessment measuring modelling techniques. The crossover
taxonomy is shown in Fig. 2.
The crossover taxonomy can help to explain the matching be-
tween each category and the multi-assessment methods for the
structure model. The hybrid category shows four directions for
the integrated multi-assessment methods for ‘loading’, ‘CA’, ‘AVE’
and ‘CR’ along with ‘Fornell–Larcker’, ‘HTMT’, ‘Fornell–Larcker and
HTMT’ and ‘cross-loading’. However, no integration direction to-
wards ‘exploratory factor analysis’ and ‘confirmatory factor anal-
ysis’ is apparent. Thus, the literature varies in terms of how to use
the methods. This scenario signifies a need for a novel solution to Fig. 3. Number of articles by category and publication journal.
select the best method and/or direction to be able to measure re-
liability and validity in SEM (refer to Section 9).
rect, 31 papers; WoS database, 24 papers; IEEE Xplore, 1 paper;
and Scopus, 4 papers.
The SEM–ANN papers in ScienceDirect represent the highest
4. Comprehensive science mapping analysis percentage of total articles. This high number can be attributed
to the authors relating many of ScienceDirect’s journals to the so-
Comprehensive science mapping analysis can be adopted to ex- cial sciences. The number of articles published in WoS and Sco-
plore the problems related to the SEM–ANN integration, as most pus may have decreased due to their limited number of journals
cases in the literature largely focus on the hybrid method’s ad- in the social science field. The literature dealing with hybrid va-
vantages. Moreover, as many barriers had been neglected in the lidity methods (i.e. convergent validity and discriminant validity),
literature, a mapping analysis based on the bibliometrix is neces- such as those published in ScienceDirect’s and WoS’ journals, has
sitated [99]. Four digital databases have stored numerous types of increased. Most of the articles focus on convergent validity analy-
research publications, as shown in Fig. 3. The total numbers of the sis by using the abovementioned four indicators and discriminant
published articles selected in this study are as follows: ScienceDi- validity analysis by using the Fornell–Larcker method. However,

5
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al.
Fig. 4. Annual scientific production.
the Fornell–Larcker criterion reportedly does not perform well [72].
Thus, the multi-assessment SEM model should be investigated be-
cause the aforementioned issues may arise when the databases are
eventually utilised.
4.1. Annual scientific production
Fig. 4 shows the relationship between annual scientific produc-
tion and year of publication. The trend depicts a dramatic increase
in interest with June 2021.
The annual scientific production in 2021 represents the largest
number of papers for the study period. Most of them refer to the
hybrid-based method, followed by the exploratory factor analy-
sis and confirmatory factor analysis. The rise in articles about the
hybrid-based method may be attributed to the numerous problems
associated with this topic in recent years. The combination of SEM
and ANN analysis is vital for discovering the causal and nonlinear
relationships amongst the constructs. This advantage can explain
why the studies focusing on this type of analysis have increased in
recent years. In particular, the increase is 37% in 2020, followed by
17% in 2021. The rise may also be explained by the usefulness of
ANN, as this approach provides the ranks and validates both sig-
nificant predictors and the SEM results.
4.2. Wordcloud
Wordcloud is a tool used to identify the most important top-
ics dealing with a certain subject matter. Fig. 5 shows the essen-
tial critical words adopted by the previous studies about SEM–ANN
and the relationships amongst them.
Wordcloud can provide support to the research taxonomy by
dividing the SEM–ANN studies into three categories. As shown in
Fig. 5, the most frequently used keyword is technology, whether
they may be about mobile payment or shopping perception, tech-
nology acceptance and cloud computing. The highest percentage
based on frequent words was for UTAUT at 13%, followed by be-
havioural intention at 12%.
4.3. Country collaboration map
Fig. 6 shows a mapping of the scientific cooperation of authors
based overseas. European−African cooperation and European–
American cooperation are both lacking. These gaps constitute a
6
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445
broad prospect for various future studies, and they may even open
new horizons of cooperation in the SEM–ANN field.
A research cooperation network is a type of network in which
the authors are the nodes and the co-authors are the contacts. Re-
search cooperation is one of the most recorded ways of teamwork
in science. Hence, the strength of the SEM–ANN research network
may also represent the existence of a network of cooperation be-
tween or amongst authors.
5. Multi-assessment model in SEM combined with ANN
This section presents the state-of-the-art processes of the
multi-assessment model in SEM combined with the ANN workflow
and its complex relationships (Fig. 7).
The implementation of the SEM process begins with the in-
ner and outer models (i.e. multi-assessment of measurements and
assessment of the structural model), as they represent the out-
puts of SEM. These inner and outer models are the same as the
feeder inputs to the ANN and contribution processes. However,
in SEM, the multi-assessment of measurements entails the fol-
lowing sub-methods: convergent validity, discriminant validity, ex-
ploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In con-
vergent validity, four types of multi-assessment measurements (i.e.
loading, CA, AVE and CR) are mentioned in the literature [97]. In
their specific contexts, the loading factor should exceed 0.7, AVE
should exceed 0.5 and CR and CA (for internal consistency relia-
bility) should exceed 0.7. Discriminant validity includes the follow-
ing three methods: Fornell–Larcker, HTMT and cross-loading. How-
ever, in the literature, other methods, particularly exploratory fac-
tor analysis or confirmatory factor analysis, had been used to mea-
sure reliability and validity. As for SEM, Ref. [98] recommended the
use of both convergent validity and discriminant validity instead of
other methods. Then, an assessment of the structural model (inner
model) is performed. The process involves the testing of hypothe-
ses whose processes differ depending on the type of variables. The
hypotheses may be supported or not. If the hypotheses are sup-
ported, then the process will move forward to the ANN and con-
tribution processes.
6. Open issues and challenges
The questions raised in the previous studies form the open
challenges and issues. The questions related to the main challenge
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445

Fig. 5. Most frequent words.

Fig. 6. Country collaboration map.

can be summarised as selection. In detail, for the topic concern-
ing SEM, the problem of selection is about knowing which method
is the best choice for assessing reliability and validity. Fig. 8 and
Table 1 show four methods that can be used to assess reliability
and validity. However, the different results depicted by the studies
may affect the SEM output results—a challenge that is evident in
the literature. For example, in Ref. [78], the loading factor was used
to measure convergent validity, but the measurement of discrimi-
nant validity was neglected. All of the other studies in the litera-
ture used methods to measure convergent validity. Instead of fo-
cusing on a single method to measure discriminant validity, an op-
posing approach was adopted. This finding from the literature re-

7
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al.
Fig. 7. Multi-assessment model in SEM combined with ANN.
Fig. 8. SEM selection process.
view further confirms the selection problems with respect to SEM
methods [3,22,28,44,49,50]. The SEM selection problems depicted
in Fig. 8 and Table 1 can be further visualised as Fig. 9.
The selection process shown in Fig. 8 can help to achieve the
aim of selecting the best method. Table 1 has shown the overall
effectiveness of the selection challenge. In this context, on the basis
of the SEM process involved in deriving the reliability and valid-
ity results, the visualisation in Fig. 9 can be used to further elabo-
rate the aforementioned effectiveness. In particular, in the selection
process associated with effectiveness (A) and (B) variables, each
output process can be considered an input to another process and
thus also involves an effect.
The process of SEM can be affected by two kinds of effective-
ness variables, namely, (A) and (B). For effectiveness (A), the sup-
ported hypotheses are dependent on the multi-assessment of the
measurement model affecting the variable selection. For effective-
8
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445
ness (B), the supported hypotheses are affected by the input to
the ANN and contributions to the other process. The effectiveness
concerns consequently raise several practical technical issues, in-
cluding those related to the multiple-evaluation criteria, criteria of
importance and data variation, which are related to the selection
challenge.
6.1. Concerns related to the multiple-evaluation criteria
The multiple-evaluation criteria must be considered when ap-
plying the SEM processes. Three sets of multiple-evaluation cri-
teria can affect the selection process. In the SEM processes, sev-
eral methods of reliability and validity should be considered in the
multi-assessment of the measurement model, as they involve mul-
tiple calculations of the R2 , Q2 and F2 indicators [22,34,50]. In con-
clusion, by taking into account all of the abovementioned differ-
ences regarding each set of criteria, the evaluation phase’s set of
criteria will eventually affect the efficiency of the framework and
the selection process. Thus, the process of selection with respect
to the multiple-evaluation criteria for each of the SEM processes
should be considered. In this regard, a multi-attribute decision ma-
trix (DM) can be used. Fig. 10 shows how the respective set of mul-
tiple criteria for each of the SEM processes can affect the selection
[100].
6.2. Concerns related to the criteria of importance
The importance criteria of the SEM methods are the concern of
this study. Several criteria need to be considered. Different weights
are often given to each set of criteria, either subjectively by deci-
sion makers (experts) [101,102] or objectively via the fixed-weight
method [103], but they further increase the complexity of the task
and thus affect the selection process. The main issue is know-
ing which amongst the criteria is more important than the others.
Moreover, the most appropriate importance criteria in the set can
boost the ranking operation and the selection of the best meth-
ods and runs. Fig. 11 shows how each set of SEM criteria should
be evaluated when detecting the importance of each criterion with
respect to another criterion, a process that can solve the criteria
importance issue.
The criteria weights of the DMs differ in their importance de-
pending on the subjective or objective method of the evaluation.
For example, the SEM criteria (R2 s, Q2 and F2 ) are varied, and the
R2 s may take the higher importance weight in the set [6,40].
6.3. Concerns related to data variation
In this study, data variation widely occurs amongst the dif-
ferent SEM methods. The variations listed in the academic liter-
ature are generally concerned with the selection process in SEM
[17,19,27,81]. Examples of these data variations are shown in
Fig. 12. Moreover, the data variations can be viewed as a special
scenario to offer a clear discussion and analysis of this concern.
For example, a scenario may occur as a goal maximisation rep-
resentative, which is behaviourally related to the SEM matrix. In
this context, the scenario can be observed when the maximisation
values of the criteria (↑) affect the data of the alternatives (high,
higher and highest levels), in which the aim is to achieve the bet-
ter selection process.
From the discussions shared previously, the selection process
therefore involves a simultaneous consideration of the multi-
criteria matrices of the SEM process, in which different maximi-
sation goal scenarios are represented by the varying high, higher
and highest levels that generate a variety of data.
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445

Fig. 9. SEM effectiveness to ANN and the contribution process.

Fig. 10. Multi-criteria evaluation issues of the SEM processes.

Fig. 11. Criteria importance issues of the SEM processes.

7. Research proposals on potential future direction
According to the analytic review of the literature regarding the
performance of the SEM categories (Fig. 2) and the information
provided in Table 1, no exclusive study had used multi-criteria de-
cision making (MCDM) for different multi-assessment approaches
to purposively ensure an easy evaluation of their respective ob-
jectives. Similarly, a comprehensive process is generally lacking for
selecting the most suitable method that can be used to assess the
measurement model of the SEM method, which subsequently can
affect the overall SEM processes. The present study is an attempt
to describe the potential future direction of the selection process
(i.e. SEM method). This one-part selection process can be consid-
ered the main challenge in the literature, as the selection process
may be hindered by a multi-complex attribute problem. Figs. 10–
12 illustrate the aforementioned multi-criteria evaluation issues.
For SEM, the experiments (Ei) are considered the available alter-
natives; this approach is a suitable method of assessing reliability
and validity (multi-assessment of the measurement model) with
respect to the related criteria (R2 s, Q2 and F2 ). The adaptation of
precise and suitable techniques for selecting decisions by using the
multi-criteria scheme can eventually boost decision-making qual-
ity. Aside from the analysis, assessment and ranking shared previ-
ously, MCDM is a good solution to aid decision makers in organis-
ing and solving any problem [1].
8. MCDM: an overview
MCDM is an extension of decision theory that deals with de-
cisions that include multiple goals. The MCDM approach enables

9
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al.
Fig. 12. Variations of issues in the SEM process.
alternatives to be assessed and analysed using several sets of
criteria, which are then combined to provide an overall assess-
ment [104–108]. Decision-making methods are well recognised,
and the MCDM is the most important of them. The method in-
cludes many processes, including organising, planning and resolv-
ing distinct issue decisions by using a set of criteria [109,110]. This
technique incorporates different processes to improve the qual-
ity of decisions [111,112]. MCDM is accomplished by enabling a
more logical, efficient, clear and explicit decision-making process
compared with other conventional processes [113–117]. Therefore,
selecting the most appropriate MCDM technique is highly im-
portant. The mathematical model of MCDM can be represented
as max[f1 (x ), f2 (x ), . . . , fn (x )], where n is the number of crite-
ria, and x ∈ A = [a1 , a2 , . . . , am ] [118–130]. The variable A repre-
sents the set of alternatives, and m is the number of alterna-
tives. For each criterion j and alternative i, fij = fj (ai ), ∀(i, j ); i =
1, 2, . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n, which represent the dependencies of
each attribute value on the ith alternative and the jth criterion
[131–140]. Various MCDM techniques have been developed and
used in different areas [141–152] for weighting the evaluation cri-
teria and alternative ranking. Ranking methods (e.g. technique for
order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution [TOPSIS]
and vlsekriterijumska optimizcija i kaompromisno resenje [VIKOR])
are used to determine the best alternative [153–155]. TOPSIS and
VIKOR are suitable to situations involving several options and cri-
teria; these techniques are also particularly advantageous when
quantitative or objective data are provided [156,157]. The TOPSIS
approach finds the answer with the shortest distance to the ideal
solution and the largest distance to the negative-ideal solution, but
10
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445
Table 2
DM of the multi-assessment model in SEM.
SEM Criteria
Ei Alternatives R2 s Q2 F2
E1 R2 s/E1 Q2 / E1 F2 / E1
E2 R2 s/E2 Q2 / E1 F2 / E1
E3 R2 s/E3 Q2 / E1 F2 / E1
. . . .
. . . .
En R2 s/En Q2 / En F2 / En
R2 s = Coefficient of determination for SEM, Q2 = Predictive rele-
vance, F2 = Effect size, Ei= Experiment
it does not take into account their relative significance [158–162].
Thus, VIKOR is appropriate in terms of ranking conditions with
several alternatives and attributes [154,163,164]. VIKOR is one of
the most practical ways for solving real-world problems. The ma-
jor drawbacks of VIKOR include the absence of weight generation
provision [104,154,165]; by contrast, the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) can provide a solution to such problems. The most recent
consideration for the MCDM methods is the combination of two or
more techniques to overcome the limitations of a single method-
ology. AHP and VIKOR are both frequently utilised MCDM tech-
niques in different research fields [154,166]. According to our anal-
ysis, AHP–VIKOR integration is the most appropriate MCDM solu-
tion. AHP can be utilised for weighting the multi-assessment crite-
ria. This phase intends to resolve the issue of significance criteria
by investigating the most affected criterion used in the SEM selec-
tion process. Then, VIKOR can be used to select the most suitable
method of assessing the measurement model of the SEM method
based on the weighted criteria resulting from the first stage. The
goal of this stage is to eliminate the issues of multi-criteria and
variations in the data. The complete methodology phases are illus-
trated in the next section.
9. Methodology
This section illustrates the proposed methodology of selecting
the SEM methods. The methodology can be performed in three
phases. The flowchart depicting the methodology is illustrated in
Fig. 13.
The first phase represents the identification and construction
phase of the SEM DM. In the second phase (development), the
AHP–VIKOR integration is presented. In the third phase, the valida-
tion approach is illustrated for validating the proposed work. The
details are provided in the following subsections.
9.1. Identification and construction phase
In this phase, the DMs of the SEM methods are identified and
conducted. The DM is considered to be the main component in the
proposed selection methodology, which is composed of decision al-
ternatives (i.e. set of experiment methods denoted by Ei) and three
evaluation criteria (Table 2).
The most popular measure for evaluating the structural model
is R2 . Besides evaluating the values of R², F2 can be used to eval-
uate the amount of change in R2 when a specified exogenous
construct is omitted from the model. Similarly, Q² is used by re-
searchers to evaluate a model’s out-of-sample predictive power.
The values can be obtained using statistical software, such as
SmartPLS. All of the evaluation criteria are regarded as benefit cri-
teria, in which high values indicate better performance. However,
as discussed previously, the selection process of the SEM methods
is a complex MCDM problem. To this end, the development of an
appropriate decision-making approach is an important preclusion
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445

Fig. 13. Selection methodology of the multi-assessment model in SEM.

Fig. 14. Integration of the AHP–VIKOR methods.

of the problem complexity. The details are presented in the next 9.2.1. AHP method
subsection. In the AHP method [175], several steps are conducted for
weighting the SEM evaluation criteria.

9.2. Development Phase

Step 1: A pairwise comparison amongst the SEM evaluation
criteria is performed to extract the weights in a subjective
The development phase is based on the AHP method, which is
manner (Fig. 15).
implemented for the subjective weighting of the criteria used in
Step 2: The AHP constructs a pairwise matrix comparison based
the selection process of the SEM methods (Section 9.2.1). Then,
on Eq. (1) to provide a weighting decision [167].
VIKOR is used to rank and select the best SEM methods based
on the weighted criteria (Section 9.2.2). The MCDM contexts used ⎛ ⎞
X11 ··· X1n
to reach a final decision for the SEM selection are also presented
in this phase (Section 9.2.3). The structure of the integrated AHP– A = ⎝ ... ..
.
.. ⎠
. (1a)
VIKOR method is presented in Fig. 14. Xn1 ··· Xnn

11
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445

Fig. 15. Pairwise comparison example.

1
W here Xii = 1, Xii = Xi j
9.2.2. VIKOR method
The VIKOR method is utilised to rank and select the most suit-
Step 3: A pairwise comparison questionnaire is designed for the able SEM method.
DM criteria of SEM. Then, the questionnaire is distributed to
experts. The target experts must have sufficient experience Step 1: Calculate the best f ∗ i and worst f − i values of the SEM
in the given field. Their judgments on the SEM evaluation evaluation criteria.
criteria must also be assessed. fi∗ = max j fi j, fi− = min j fi j (8)
Step 4: In this stage, the elements in matrix A (1) are nor-
malised to create the normalised matrix Anorm , Anorm (ai j) as where i = 1; 2; ...; n.
follows:
Xi j Step 2: As discussed previously, the AHP method is used
a i j = n (2) for weighting the SEM evaluation criteria. A collection
i=1 X i j of weights w = w1 , w2 , w3 , · · · , wj , · · · , wn is adopted in
⎛ ⎞
a11 ··· ain this step, and the result must be equal to 1. The resultant
= ⎝ ... .. ⎠
.. matrix is calculated using the following equation:
Anorm . . (3)
fi∗ − f i j
an1 ··· ann W M = wi∗ (9)
fi∗ − fi−
Step 5: In this step, the given pairwise comparisons are used
on the basis of mathematical calculations, and weights are Then, a weighted matrix is computed as follows:
assigned for the evaluation criteria used in the DM of SEM. ⎡ w1 ( f ∗ − f11 ) wi ( fi∗ − fi j )⎤
The weights of each criterion can be obtained according to
i
f ∗− f −
··· fi∗ − fi−
Eq. (4) [168]: ⎢. i i ⎥
n
⎢. .. .. ⎥ (10)

n ⎣. . . ⎦
j=1 ai j w1 ( fi∗ − f31 ) ( fi∗ − fi j )
Wi = and Wi = 1 (4) ···
wi
n fi∗ − fi− fi∗ − fi−
j=1

where n is the number of compared criteria. Step 3: In this step, the Sj and Rj values denoted by j=1,2,3,….,J,
i=1,2,3,…,n are calculated on the basis of the following equa-
Step 6: In this step, Eq. (5) is used to assess the CR with respect tions:
to the pairwise comparison matrix as follows:

n
fi∗ − fi j
CI Sj = wi∗ (11)
CR = (5) fi∗ − fi−
RI i=1

The consistency index (CI) is calculated according to Eq. (6) as fi∗ − f i j

follows: R j = maxi wi∗ (12)
fi∗ − fi−
λ max − n
CI = (6)
n−1 where wi is the weight of each criterion representing its relative
The random CI (RI) is calculated according to Eq. (7) as follows: significance.

1.98 (n − 1 ) Step 4: Calculate the values of Qj, j = (1, 2, · · · , J ) according to

RI = CI (7) the following equation:
n
   
A pairwise comparison matrix with a corresponding CR of less V S j − S∗ ( 1 − V ) R j − R∗
than 10% is agreeable; otherwise, the process must be repeated. Qj = + (13)
S− − S∗ R− − R∗
12
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al.
where
S∗ = min j S j , S− = max j S j R∗ = min j R j , R− = max j R j
Step 5: The SEM methods can finally be ranked. This process is
achieved by arranging the Q values in ascending order. The
SEM method with the lowest Q value is considered to be the
most suitable.
9.2.3. MCDM contexts
Two different MCDM contexts are used in this study, with the
aim of reaching a final decision for the SEM selection.
A. The SEM selection process may include an individual con-
text. Hence, the Kendall tau distance rank test is used to determine
whether the distance between each expert’s unique judgement is
identical/acceptable. The Kendall tau distance rank introduced by
Maurice Kendall is a measure for quantifying the pairwise discrep-
ancies between two ranking lists [169]. This non-parametric test
can also quantify the relationships of two ranking lists. The corre-
lation coefficient is preceded by a numeric value between 0 and 1,
where
• 0 indicates the existence of a complete connection between two
ranking lists (i.e. individual prioritisation of each expert), and
• 1 indicates the existence of a complete connection between two
ranking lists (i.e. individual prioritisation of each expert).
The greater the distance between two ranking lists, the stronger
the connection between them. The following steps may be used to
determine the Kendall tau rank distance:
Step 1: Create a table containing two ranking lists. Each expert’s
rating may be sorted in an ascending manner.
Step 2: Calculate the number of concordant (C) pairings. In this
phase, the concordant pairings may be computed using the
rated alternatives of each expert. This process is used to de-
termine the number of higher ranks that are below a given
level.
Step 3: Calculate the number of discordant (D) pairings. The
number of discordant pairings is expected to be identical to
that in the preceding stage, except that it entails the lower
ranks instead of the higher ranks.
Step 4: Calculate the sums of the concordant and discordant
pairings.
Step 5: Calculate the degree of connection between the two
ranking lists according to Eq. (15).
C −− D
Kendal l  sT au = (15)
C + D
B. The term ‘Group MCDM’ refers to a scenario in which more
than one DM is required to select the optimal alternative. G-MCDM
techniques gather and integrate the knowledge and judgement of
experts from numerous areas in a systematic manner. In a group
setting, each expert contributes his or her subjective opinion to
the criteria that need subjective assessment. Numerous real-world
decision-making issues encountered by organisations need collab-
orative efforts amongst DM teams. The concept of group decision
making refers to the combined results of many expert judgments
into a single and unique conclusion. Academic researchers of col-
lective decision-making have proposed two distinct configurations,
namely, internal aggregation and external aggregation [121]. Inter-
nal aggregation is aimed at aggregating the criteria weights from
different experts into single unified weights by using the arith-
metic mean operator. Then, the unified weights of each evaluation
criteria are introduced into the VIKOR method to extract the inter-
nal group’s MCDM results. Meanwhile, the internal group’s MCDM
results can be obtained by aggregating the score of each ranked
SEM method that has resulted from each individual ranking using
the arithmetic mean operator.
13
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445
9.3. Validation phase
The validity of any proposed work (e.g. method, technique,
model or framework) is a crucial step; this vital process is indis-
pensable when it comes to human life. The MCDM methods can
help to address SEM cases with respect to their multi-criteria com-
plex problems that are further hindered by decision making. More
importantly, the development of a new decision support approach
cannot be applied unless validation is achieved. The validation in
MCDM coincides with the principle of testing the reliability and
stability of the decision results [170]. The literature shows sev-
eral approaches for validating the proposed decision support ap-
proaches. One of these approaches is objective validation, which
uses mean ± standard deviation in statistical analysis, to validate
the ranking results of the proposed MCDM framework. In this ap-
proach, the ranking results of the alternatives are divided into (n)
groups. Each group consists of a set of studied alternatives. The
mean ± standard deviation is computed for each group according
to Eqs. 16 and 17.
1 n
mean = xi , (16)
n i=1

1 N
Standard deviation = (xi − x̄ )2 . (17)
N−1 i=1
Suppose we divided the rank results of the alternatives into
three groups. According to this division, the best value should be
for the first group, which must be supported by the mean ± stan-
dard deviation result. The statistical measurement of all of the
remaining groups should be poorer than the first and preceding
groups; i.e. the obtained measurement should be better or equal
to those of the posterior groups, to ensure that the alternative pri-
oritisation has undergone systematic ranking [171].
10. Potential future work
This section contains a discussion of potential future work for
the proposed new context of the multi-assessment model in SEM
based on MCDM combined with ANN. The findings from the com-
prehensive research indicates that most of the studies had focused
on behavioural intention to use technology or apps in different sec-
tors. However, the research on interactive pretend play apps is lim-
ited. Hence, the first set of potential future work is in predicting
the factors that can influence the design of a low-cost autism chil-
dren’s app. In this context, the app can provide a better learning
environment and reduce the communication barriers to support
children with autism to adapt to life and improve their living con-
ditions [172]. The second set of potential future work regarding the
multi-assessment model in SEM based on MCDM combined with
ANN is the prediction of factors that can influence the design of
virtual reality games and augmented reality in pretend play ther-
apies. The reviewed literature indicates a lack of investigation of
virtual reality and augmented reality with respect to the multi-
assessment model in SEM based on MCDM combined with ANN.
By developing a training platform, the implementation of virtual
reality and augmented reality via the proposed method can help
children with autism to improve their communication and social
skills with the people around them, thus enhancing their interac-
tion under different situations [173,174].
11. Conclusion
This study delved into the communication workflow of the
multi-assessment model in SEM based on MCDM combined with
ANN by implementing a systematic literature review. The underly-
ing principles depicting the completeness of the SEM approaches
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al.
Fig. 16. New context of the multi-assessment model in SEM based on MCDM com-
bined with ANN.
can affect the selection guidelines either in the SEM method or in
ANN and contribution approaches. Similarly, the existence of open
issues and challenges related to the validity and reliability indi-
cators in SEM proved the need to investigate the selection pro-
cess. In this research, the selected cases highlighted the need for
the SEM methods to be combined with the MCDM techniques, and
a new research methodology must emerge to support the selec-
tion process. Consequently, this study developed a novel integrated
MCDM methodology that can be successfully linked with the SEM
approaches in all of the three distinctly connected phases. In the
proposed solving methodology, MCDM plays a key role in the se-
lection process by overcoming the identified issues and reshaping
the multi-assessment model in SEM combined with ANN, as previ-
ously presented in Fig. 7. The new context of the multi-assessment
model in SEM based on MCDM combined with ANN is shown in
Fig. 16. This new representation can properly reproduce the selec-
tion of each identified alternative with respect to its related cri-
teria, thus overcoming the effectiveness problems of the SEM ap-
proaches. Moreover, for the developed DM, the corresponding ef-
fectiveness problems can be solved, and many SEM reliability and
validity methods can be prioritised and selected. Consequently, the
appropriate method for obtaining superior and accurate measure-
ment results can be accomplished. As a future direction, the test-
ing results of the developed DM may be analysed under different
scenarios, followed by the validation of the results .
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
14
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the Universiti Pendidikan Sultan
Idris, Malaysia for funding this study under UPSI SIG Grant No.
2020-0159-106-01.
References
[1] Chen H, Liu H, Chu X, Zhang L, Yan B. A two-phased SEM-neural network ap-
proach for consumer preference analysis. Advanced Engineering Informatics
2020;46:101156.
[2] Hew J-J, Badaruddin MN, Moorthy MK. Informatics, "Crafting a smartphone
repurchase decision making process: Do brand attachment and gender mat-
ter? Telematics and Informatics 2017;34(4):34–56.
[3] Hew J-J, Leong L-Y, Tan GW-H, Lee V-H, Ooi K-B. Mobile social tourism shop-
ping: A dual-stage analysis of a multi-mediation model. Tourism. Manage-
ment 2018;66:121–39.
[4] Li Y, Yang S, Zhang S, Zhang WJT. Informatics Mobile socialm edia use in-
tention in emergencies among Gen Y in China: An integrative framework of
gratifications, task-technology fit, and media dependency. Telematics and In-
formatics 2019;42:101244.
[5] Liébana-Cabanillas F, Marinkovic V, de Luna IR, Kalinic ZJ, Change S.
Predicting the determinants of mobile payment acceptance: A hybrid
SEM-neural network approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change
2018;129:117–30.
[6] Leong L-Y, Hew T-S, Ooi K-B, Chong AY-L. Predicting the antecedents of trust
in social commerce–A hybrid structural equation modeling with neural net-
work approach. Journal of Business Research 2020;110:24–40.
[7] Leong L-Y, Hew T-S, Ooi K-B, Dwivedi YK. Predicting trust in online adver-
tising with an SEM-artificial neural network approach. Expert Systems with
Applications 2020;162:113849.
[8] Leong L-Y, Hew T-S, Ooi K-B, Wei J. Predicting mobile wallet resistance: A
two-staged structural equation modeling-artificial neural network approach.
International Journal of Information Management 2020;51:102047.
[9] Liébana-Cabanillas F, Marinković V, Kalinić Z. A SEM-neural network ap-
proach for predicting antecedents of m-commerce acceptance international.
Journal of Information Management 2017;37(2):14–24.
[10] Song M, Qiao L, Law R. Engineering, "Formation path of customer engage-
ment in virtual brand community based on back propagation neural network
algorithm. International Journal of Computational Science and Engineering
2020;22(4):454–65.
[11] Higueras-Castillo E, Kalinic Z, Marinkovic V, Liébana-Cabanillas FJ. A mixed
analysis of perceptions of electric and hybrid vehicles. Energy Policy
2020;136:111076.
[12] Ooi K-B, Lee V-H, Tan GW-H, Hew T-S, Hew J-J. Cloud computing in man-
ufacturing: the next industrial revolution in Malaysia? Expert Systems with.
Applications 2018;93:376–94.
[13] Chen C-C, Tsang S-S. Predicting adoption of mobile payments from the per-
spective of taxi drivers. IET Intelligent Transport Systems 2019;13(7):1116–24.
[14] Abubakar AM, Namin BH, Harazneh I, Arasli H, Tunç T. Does gender mod-
erates the relationship between favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility,
cynicism and workplace withdrawal: a neural network and SEM approach.
Tourism Management Perspectives 2017;23:129–39.
[15] Kim Y-J, Lee J-H, Lee S-W, Kim WY. Use of quick sequential organ failure as-
sessment score-based sepsis clinical decision support system may be helpful
to predict sepsis development. Journal of Anesthesia, Intensive Care, Emer-
gency and Pain Medicine 2021;17(5):86–94 September 2021.
[16] Foo P-Y, Lee V-H, Tan GW-H, Ooi K-B. A gateway to realising sustainability
performance via green supply chain management practices: a PLS–ANN ap-
proach. Expert Systems with Applications 2018;107:1–14.
[17] Nair DJ, Rashidi TH, Dixit VV. Estimating surplus food supply for food rescue
and delivery operations. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 2017;57:73–83.
[18] Priyadarshinee P, Raut RD, Jha MK, Gardas BB. Understanding and pre-
dicting the determinants of cloud computing adoption: A two staged
hybrid SEM-Neural networks approach. Computers in Human Behavior
2017;76:341–62.
[19] Raut RD, Mangla SK, Narwane VS, Gardas BB, Priyadarshinee P, Narkhede BE.
Linking big data analytics and operational sustainability practices for sustain-
able business management. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019;224:10–24.
[20] Raut R., Priyadarshinee P., Gardas B. B., Narkhede B. E., Nehete R. J. B. A. I. J.
The incident effects of supply chain and cloud computing integration on the
business performance: An integrated SEM-ANN approach. Benchmarking: An
International. Journal 2018;25(8):2688–2722.
[21] Najmi A., Kanapathy K., Aziz A. A. J. C. S. R., Management E. Exploring con-
sumer participation in environment management: Findings from two-staged
structural equation modelling-artificial neural network approach. Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2021;28(1):184–195.
[22] Zabukovšek S. S., Kalinic Z., Bobek S., Tominc P. J. C. E. J. o. O. R. SEM–ANN
based research of factors’ impact on extended use of ERP systems. Central
European Journal of Operations Research,vol 2019;27(3):703–735.
[23] Li X, et al. Eutrophication research of Dongting Lake: an integrated ML-SEM
with neural network approach. International Journal of Environment and Pol-
lution 2017;62(1):31–52.
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al.
[24] Sila I., Walczak S. J. P. P., Control Universal versus contextual effects on TQM:
a triangulation study using neural networks. Production Planning & Control
2017;, vol. 28, no. 5,:367–386.
[25] Sharma S. K., Al-Badi A., Rana N. P., Al-Azizi L. J. G. I. Q. Mobile applications
in government services (mG-App) from user’s perspectives: A predictive mod-
elling approach. Government Information Quarterly 2018;35(4):557–568.
[26] Ooi K.-B., Tan G. W.-H. J. E. S. w. A. Mobile technology acceptance model: An
investigation using mobile users to explore smartphone credit card. Expert
Systems with Applications 2016;59:33–46.
[27] Raut R. D., Priyadarshinee P., Gardas B. B., Jha M. K. J. T. F., Change S. An-
alyzing the factors influencing cloud computing adoption using three stage
hybrid SEM-ANN-ISM (SEANIS) approach. Technological Forecasting and So-
cial Change 2018;134:98–123.
[28] Shahzad F, Xiu G, Khan MAS, Shahbaz MJ. Predicting the adoption of a mo-
bile government security response system from the user’s perspective: An
application of the artificial neural network approach. Technology in Society
2020;62:101278.
[29] Islam AN, Laato S, Talukder S, Sutinen EJ, Change S. Misinformation sharing
and social media fatigue during COVID-19: An affordance and cognitive load
perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2020;159:120201.
[30] Alkawsi GA, et al. A hybrid SEM-neural network method for identifying accep-
tance factors of the smart meters in Malaysia: Challenges perspective. Alexan-
dria Engineering Journal 2021;60(1):227–40.
[31] K. Batra, A. E. Morgan, M. J. J. o. A. Sharma, Intensive Care, and E. Medicine,
"COVID-19 and social isolation endangering psychological health of older
adults: Implications for Telepsychiatry," Environmental and Occupational
Health, p. 1, 2020.
[32] Sharma SK, Joshi A, Sharma HJ. A multi-analytical approach to predict
the Facebook usage in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior
2016;55:340–53.
[33] Tiruwa A, Yadav R, Suri PK. Modelling Facebook usage for collaborative learn-
ing in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education
2018;10(3):12–45.
[34] Binsawad M. Corporate Social Responsibility in Higher Education: A PLS-SEM
Neural Network Approach. IEEE Access 2020;8:29125–31.
[35] Kalinic Z, Marinkovic V, Molinillo S, Liebana-Cabanillas FJ, Services C. A mul-
ti-analytical approach to peer-to-peer mobile payment acceptance predic-
tion. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier 2019;49(C):143–
153.
[36] Sharma SK, Sharma MJ. Examining the role of trust and quality dimensions
in the actual usage of mobile banking services: An empirical investigation.
International Journal of Information Management 2019;44:65–75.
[37] Coelho A, Moutinho L, Hutcheson GD, Santos Silva MM. Artificial neural net-
works and structural equation modelling: an empirical comparison to evalu-
ate business customer loyalty. Quantitative modelling in marketing and man-
agement. World Scientific; 2013. p. 117–49.
[38] Pičuljan A, Protić A, Haznadar M, Šustić AJSV. The role of B-line artifacts on
lung ultrasound in critically ill patients. Journal of Anesthesia, Intensive Care,
Emergency and Pain Medicine 2020;7:1.
[39] Alam MZ, Hu W, Kaium MA, Hoque MR, Alam M. Understanding the deter-
minants of mHealth apps adoption in Bangladesh: a SEM-Neural network ap-
proach. Technology in Society 2020;61:101255.
[40] M. S. Talukder, G. Sorwar, Y. Bao, J. U. Ahmed, M. A. S. J. T. F. Palash, and
S. Change, "Predicting antecedents of wearable healthcare technology accep-
tance by elderly: a combined SEM-Neural Network approach," Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 150, p. 119793, 2020.
[41] Asadi S., Abdullah R., Safaei M., Nazir S. J. M. I. S. An integrated SEM-
neural network approach for predicting determinants of adoption of wear-
able healthcare devices," Wearable Technology and Mobile Applications for.
Healthcare 2019;2649:34–50.
[42] Dadashova B, Arenas-Ramírez B, Mira-McWilliams J, Aparicio-Izquierdo F.
Prevention, “Methodological development for selection of significant predic-
tors explaining fatal road accidents. Accid. Anal Prev 2016;90:82–94.
[43] C. Parsad, S. Mittal, R. J. I. J. o. P. Krishnankutty, and P. Management,
"A study on the factors affecting household solar adoption in Kerala, In-
dia,"International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
2020, Vol 10, Issue 12, 23-33.
[44] Wong L-W, Leong L-Y, Hew J-J, Tan GW-H, Ooi K-B. Time to seize the digital
evolution: adoption of blockchain in operations and supply chain manage-
ment among Malaysian SMEs. International Journal of Information Manage-
ment 2020;52:101997.
[45] Ahani A, Rahim NZA, Nilashi M. Forecasting social CRM adoption in SMEs:
A combined SEM-neural network method. Computers in Human Behavior
2017;75:560–78.
[46] Lee V.-H., Foo A. T.-L., Leong L.-Y., Ooi K.-B. J. E. S. w. A. Can competitive
advantage be achieved through knowledge management? A case study on
SMEs,"Expert Systems with Applications 2016;65:136–151.
[47] Khayer A, Talukder MS, Bao Y, Hossain MN. Cloud computing adoption and its
impact on SMEs’ performance for cloud supported operations: a dual-stage
analytical approach. Technology in Society 2020;60:101225.
[48] Alnoor A. Human capital dimensions and firm performance, mediating role
of knowledge management. International Journal of Business Excellence
2020;20(2):149–68.
[49] Alam MZ, Hu W, Kaium A, Hoque R, Alam MMD. Understanding the deter-
minants of mHealth apps adoption in Bangladesh: a SEM-Neural network ap-
proach. Technology in Society 2020:101255.
15
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445
[50] Najmi A, Kanapathy K, Aziz AA, Management E. Exploring consumer par-
ticipation in environment management: findings from two-staged structural
equation modelling-artificial neural network approach. Corp Soc Responsib
Environ Manag 2021;28:184–95.
[51] Abbas S, Hadi A-A, Abdullah HO, Alnoor A, Khattak ZZ, Khaw KW. Encoun-
tering Covid-19 and perceived stress and the role of a health climate among
medical workers. Curr Psychol 2021:1–14.
[52] Al-Abrrow H, Ali J, Alnoor AJ. Multilevel influence of routine redesign-
ing, legitimacy and functional affordance on sustainability accounting:
mediating role of organizational sense-making. Global Business Review
2019:0972150919869726.
[53] AL-Abrrow H, et al. Understanding employees’ responses to the COVID-19
pandemic: The attractiveness of healthcare jobs. Journal of Public Affairs
2020;1-15.
[54] Hsu S-H, Chen W-h, Hsieh M-j, Excellence B. Robustness testing of PLS, LIS-
REL, EQS and ANN-based SEM for measuring customer satisfaction. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 2006;17(3):355–72.
[55] Abdullah H, Ismail I, Alnoor A, Yaqoub EJ. Benchmarking Effect of perceived
support on employee’s voice behaviour through the work engagement: a
moderator role of locus of control. International Journal of Process Manage-
ment and Benchmarking 2021;11(1):60–79.
[56] Cooper C, Booth A, Varley-Campbell J, Britten N, rGarside m. Defining the
process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review
of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology
2018;18(1):1–14.
[57] Zaidan AA, et al. A survey on communication components for IoT-based tech-
nologies in smart homes. Telecommun Syst 2018;69(1):1–25.
[58] Mohsin A, et al. Real-time remote health monitoring systems using body sen-
sor information and finger vein biometric verification: A multi-layer system-
atic review. J Med Syst 2018;42(12):1–36.
[59] Mohsin A, et al. Real-time medical systems based on human bio-
metric steganography: A systematic review. J Med Syst 2018;42(12):1–
20.
[60] Talal M, et al. Smart home-based IoT for real-time and secure remote health
monitoring of triage and priority system using body sensors: multi-driven
systematic review. J Med Syst 2019;43(3):42.
[61] Mohsin A, et al. Blockchain authentication of network applications: Tax-
onomy, classification, capabilities, open challenges, motivations, recommen-
dations and future directions. Comput Standards Interfaces 2019;64:41–
60.
[62] Mohsin A, et al. Based medical systems for patient’s authentication: to-
wards a new verification secure framework using CIA standard. J Med Syst
2019;43(7):1–34.
[63] Mohsin A, et al. Finger vein biometrics: taxonomy analysis, open challenges,
future directions, and recommended solution for decentralised network ar-
chitectures. IEEE Access 2020;8:9821–45.
[64] Shuwandy ML, et al. mHealth authentication approach based 3D touchscreen
and microphone sensors for real-time remote healthcare monitoring system:
comprehensive review, open issues and methodological aspects. Comput Sci
Rev 2020;38:10 030 0.
[65] Shuwandy ML, Zaidan B, Zaidan A, Albahri AS. Sensor-based mHealth authen-
tication for real-time remote healthcare monitoring system: a multilayer sys-
tematic review. J Med Syst 2019;43(2):33.
[66] Alamoodi A, et al. Sentiment analysis and its applications in fighting
COVID-19 and infectious diseases: a systematic review. Expert Syst Appl
2020:114155.
[67] Albahri AS, et al. IoT-based telemedicine for disease prevention and health
promotion: State-of-the-Art. J Netw Comput Appl 2021;173:102873.
[68] Hamid RA, et al. How smart is e-tourism? A systematic review of smart
tourism recommendation system applying data management. Comput Sci Rev
2021;39:100337.
[69] Albahri AS, et al. Role of biological data mining and machine learning tech-
niques in detecting and diagnosing the novel coronavirus (COVID-19): a sys-
tematic review. J Med Syst 2020;44:1–11.
[70] Hair Jr JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG. Partial least squares struc-
tural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research.
European Business Review 2014;26(2):106–21.
[71] Hair J, Hollingsworth CL, Randolph AB, Chong AY, Systems D. An updated and
expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 2017;117(3).
[72] Henseler J, Ringle CM. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science 2015;43(1):115–35.
[73] Hair Jr JF, Howard MC, Nitzl C. Assessing measurement model quality in
PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research
2020;109:101–10.
[74] Gerbing DW, Hamilton JG. Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precur-
sor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling. A Multidis-
ciplinary Journal 1996;3(1):62–72.
[75] Kalinić Z, Marinković V, Kalinić L, Liébana-Cabanillas FJ. Neural network mod-
eling of consumer satisfaction in mobile commerce: an empirical analysis. Ex-
pert Systems with Applications 2021;175:114803.
[76] Kheirollahpour MM, Danaee MM, Merican AFA, Shariff AA. Prediction of the
influential factors on eating behaviors: a hybrid model of structural equation
modelling-artificial neural networks. The Scientific World Journal 2020:1–12.
[77] Ray A, Bala PK, Rana NP. Exploring the drivers of customers’ brand attitudes
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al.
of online travel agency services: A text-mining based approach. Journal of
Business Research 2021;128:391–404.
[78] Kalinic Z, Marinkovic V, Molinillo S, Liébana-Cabanillas FJ, Services C. A mul-
ti-analytical approach to peer-to-peer mobile payment acceptance prediction.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2019;49:143–53.
[79] Lee V-H, Hew J-J, Leong L-Y, Tan GW-H, Ooi K-B. Wearable payment: A deep
learning-based dual-stage SEM-ANN analysis. Expert Systems with Applica-
tions 2020;157:113477.
[80] Najmi A, Kanapathy K, Aziz A, Research P. Understanding consumer partic-
ipation in managing ICT waste: Findings from two-staged Structural Equa-
tion Modeling–Artificial Neural Network approach. Environmental Science
and Pollution Research 2021;28(12):14782–96.
[81] Chen H, Liu H, Chu X, Zhang L, Yan B. A two-phased SEM-neural network ap-
proach for consumer preference analysis. Advanced Engineering Informatics
2020;46:101156.
[82] Hew J-J, Badaruddin MN, Moorthy MK. Crafting a smartphone repurchase de-
cision making process: Do brand attachment and gender matter? Telematics
and. Informatics 2017;34(4):34–56.
[83] Alkawsi GA, et al. A hybrid SEM-neural network method for identifying ac-
ceptance factors of the smart meters in Malaysia: Challenges perspective. AEJ
- Alexandria Engineering Journal 2020:23–40.
[84] Raut R, Priyadarshinee P, Gardas BB, Narkhede BE, Nehete RJ. The incident
effects of supply chain and cloud computing integration on the business per-
formance. Benchmarking An International Journal 2018;252:20–33.
[85] Duan SX, Deng HJ, Systems D. Hybrid analysis for understanding contact trac-
ing apps adoption. Industrial Management & Data Systems 2021:40–55.
[86] Asadi S, Nilashi M, Samad S, Rupani PF, Kamyab H, Abdullah RJ. A proposed
adoption model for green IT in manufacturing industries. Journal of Cleaner
Production 2021;297:126629.
[87] Talwar M, Talwar S, Kaur P, Tripathy N, Dhir AJ, Services C. Has financial at-
titude impacted the trading activity of retail investors during the COVID-19
pandemic? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2021;58:102341.
[88] Kunnapapdeelert S, Pitchayadejanant KJ, Modelling SC. Hybrid SEM-neu-
ral networks for predicting electronics logistics information system adop-
tion in Thailand healthcare supply chain. Inderscience Enterprises Ltd
2020;11(1):54–68.
[89] Hayat N, Al Mamun A, Nasir NAM, Selvachandran G, Nawi NBC, Gai QS. Pre-
dicting sustainable farm performance—using hybrid structural equation mod-
elling with an artificial neural network approach. Land 2020;9(9):289.
[90] Shukla SJE. Technologies I. M-learning adoption of management students’:
a case of India. Education and Information Technologies 2021;26(1):279–
310.
[91] Liébana F, Cabanillas NSingh, Kalinic Z, Carvajal-Trujillo EJ. and Management,
"Examining the determinants of continuance intention to use and the moder-
ating effect of the gender and age of users of NFC mobile payments: a mul-
ti-analytical approach. Information Technology and Management 2021:1–29
volume.
[92] Alam MMD, Alam MZ, Rahman SA, Taghizadeh SK. Factors influencing
mHealth adoption and its impact on mental well-being during COVID-19 pan-
demic: A SEM-ANN approach. J Biomed Inform 2021;116:103722.
[93] Abbasi GA, Tiew LY, Tang J, Goh Y-N, Thurasamy RJ. The adoption of cryp-
tocurrency as a disruptive force: Deep learning-based dual stage struc-
tural equation modelling and artificial neural network analysis. PLOS one
2021;16(3):e0247582.
[94] Sharma A. A Structural equation modelling & artificial neural network ap-
proach to examine the impact of human resources accounting on firm’s per-
formance. Pacific Bus Rev Int Mar 2020;12(9):1–12.
[95] Kruk M, Paturej E, Artiemjew PJ. From explanatory to predictive network
modeling of relationships among ecological indicators in the shallow tem-
perate lagoon. Ecological Indicators 2020;117:106637.
[96] ŞAHİN H, Topal BJ. Impact of information technology on business perfor-
mance: integrated structural equation modeling and artificial neural network
approach. Scientia Iranica 2018;25(3):1272–80.
[97] Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Smith D, Reams R, Hair JF Jr. Partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business re-
searchers. Journal of Family. Business Strategy 2014;5(1):105–15.
[98] Hair Jr JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG. Partial least squares struc-
tural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review 2014:40–60.
[99] Aria M, Cuccurullo CJ. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science
mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics 2017;11(4):959–75.
[100] Almahdi E, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Alsalem M, Albahri OS. Mobile patient moni-
toring systems from a benchmarking aspect: Challenges, open issues and rec-
ommended solutions. Journal of Medical Systems 2019;43(7):1–23.
[101] Zaidan AA, Zaidan BB, Al-Haiqi A, Kiah MLM, Hussain M, Abdulnabi MJ. Eval-
uation and selection of open-source EMR software packages based on inte-
grated AHP and TOPSIS. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2015;53:390–404.
[102] Abdulkareem KH, et al. A novel multi-perspective benchmarking framework
for selecting image dehazing intelligent algorithms based on BWM and group
VIKOR techniques. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision
Making 2020;19(03):909–57.
[103] Albahri A, Hamid RA, Albahri O, Zaidan AJ. Detection-based prioritisation:
Framework of multi-laboratory characteristics for asymptomatic COVID-19
carriers based on integrated Entropy–TOPSIS methods. Artificial Intelligence
in Medicine 2020;111:101983.
[104] Albahri O, et al. Fault-tolerant mHealth framework in the context of IoT-based
real-time wearable health data sensors. IEEE Access 2019;7:50052–80.
16
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445
[105] Yas QM, Zadain A, Zaidan B, Lakulu M, Rahmatullah B. Towards on develop a
framework for the evaluation and benchmarking of skin detectors based on
artificial intelligent models using multi-criteria decision-making techniques.
Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell 2017;31(03):1759002.
[106] Abdullateef BN, Elias NF, Mohamed H, Zaidan A, Zaidan B. An evalua-
tion and selection problems of OSS-LMS packages. SpringerPlus 2016;5(1):1–
35.
[107] Zaidan B, Zaidan A, Karim HA, Ahmad NN. A new digital watermarking eval-
uation and benchmarking methodology using an external group of evaluators
and multi-criteria analysis based on ‘large-scale data. Software Practice and
Experience 2017;47(10):1365–92.
[108] Zaidan B, Zaidan A. Software and hardware FPGA-based digital watermarking
and steganography approaches: toward new methodology for evaluation and
benchmarking using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. J Circuits, Syst
Comput 2017;26(07):1750116.
[109] Qader M, Zaidan B, Zaidan A, Ali S, Kamaluddin M, Radzi W. A methodology
for football players selection problem based on multi-measurements criteria
analysis. Measurement 2017;111:38–50.
[110] Rahmatullah B, Zaidan A, Mohamed F, Sali A. Multi-complex attributes anal-
ysis for optimum GPS baseband receiver tracking channels selection. In: 2017
4th international conference on control, decision and information technolo-
gies (CoDIT). IEEE; 2017. p. 1084–8.
[111] Zaidan B, Zaidan A, Abdul Karim H, Ahmad N. A new approach based on mul-
ti-dimensional evaluation and benchmarking for data hiding techniques. Int J
Inform Technol Decision Making 2017:1–42.
[112] Jumaah F, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Bahbibi R, Qahtan M, Sali A. Technique for
order performance by similarity to ideal solution for solving complex situa-
tions in multi-criteria optimization of the tracking channels of GPS baseband
telecommunication receivers. Telecommun Syst 2018;68(3):425–43.
[113] Almahdi E, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Alsalem M, Albahri Albahri Ooms. Mo-
bile-based patient monitoring systems: a prioritisation framework us-
ing multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Journal of Medical Systems
2019;43(7):219.
[114] Khatari M, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Albahri OS, Alsalem M. Multi-criteria evalua-
tion and benchmarking for active queue management methods: Open issues,
challenges and recommended pathway solutions. Int J Inform Technol Deci-
sion Making 2019;18(04):1187–242.
[115] Mohammed R, et al. Determining importance of many-objective optimisation
competitive algorithms evaluation criteria based on a novel fuzzy-weighted
zero-inconsistency method. Int J Inform Technol Decision Making 2021:1–
47.
[116] Mohsin A, et al. PSO–Blockchain-based image steganography: towards a new
method to secure updating and sharing COVID-19 data in decentralised hos-
pitals intelligence architecture. Multimedia Tools Appl 2021;80(9):14137–61.
[117] Krishnan E, et al. Interval type 2 trapezoidal-fuzzy weighted with zero incon-
sistency combined with VIKOR for evaluating smart e-tourism applications.
Int J Intell Syst 2021.
[118] Salman OH, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, NaserkalidHashim MJ, Making D. Novel
methodology for triage and prioritizing using “big data” patients with
chronic heart diseases through telemedicine environmental. International.
Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 2017;16(05):1211–
1245.
[119] Yas QM, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Rahmatullah B, Karim HA. Comprehensive in-
sights into evaluation and benchmarking of real-time skin detectors: Re-
view, open issues & challenges, and recommended solutions. Measurement
2018;114:243–60.
[120] Zaidan B, Zaidan A. Comparative study on the evaluation and benchmarking
information hiding approaches based multi-measurement analysis using TOP-
SIS method with different normalisation, separation and context techniques.
Measurement 2018;117:277–94.
[121] Kalid N, et al. Based on real time remote health monitoring systems: a
new approach for prioritization “large scales data” patients with chronic
heart diseases using body sensors and communication technology. J Med Syst
2018;42(4):69.
[122] Zaidan A, et al. A review on smartphone skin cancer diagnosis apps in evalu-
ation and benchmarking: coherent taxonomy, open issues and recommenda-
tion pathway solution. Health and Technology 2018;8(4):223–38.
[123] Albahri O, et al. Systematic review of real-time remote health monitoring
system in triage and priority-based sensor technology: Taxonomy, open chal-
lenges, motivation and recommendations. J Med Syst 2018;42(5):80.
[124] Alsalem M, et al. Systematic review of an automated multiclass detection and
classification system for acute Leukaemia in terms of evaluation and bench-
marking, open challenges, issues and methodological aspects. J. Med Syst
2018;42(11):204.
[125] Kalid N, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Salman OH, Hashim M, Muzammil HJ. "Based real
time remote health monitoring systems: a review on patients prioritization
and related" big data". using body sensors information and communication
technology 2018;42(2):30 PMID: 29288419.
[126] Jumaah F, Zadain A, Zaidan B, Hamzah A, Bahbibi RJM. Decision-making so-
lution based multi-measurement design parameter for optimization of GPS
receiver tracking channels in static and dynamic real-time positioning multi-
path environment. J Med Syst 2018;118:83–95.
[127] Albahri A, Zaidan A, Albahri O, Zaidan B, Alsalem M. Real-time fault-tolerant
mHealth system: Comprehensive review of healthcare services, opens issues,
challenges and methodological aspects. J Med Syst 2018;42(8):137.
[128] Albahri O, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Hashim M, Albahri A, Alsalem M. Real-time
A.S. Albahri, A. Alnoor, A.A. Zaidan et al.
remote health-monitoring Systems in a Medical Centre: A review of the pro-
vision of healthcare services-based body sensor information, open challenges
and methodological aspects. J Med Syst 2018;42(9):164.
[129] Zughoul O, et al. Comprehensive insights into the criteria of student perfor-
mance in various educational domains. IEEE Access 2018;6(4):73245–64.
[130] Salih MM, Zaidan B, Zaidan A, Ahmed MA. Survey on fuzzy TOP-
SIS state-of-the-art between 2007 and 2017. Comput Operations Res
2019;104:207–27.
[131] Albahri A, et al. Based multiple heterogeneous wearable sensors: A smart
real-time health monitoring structured for hospitals distributor. IEEE Access
2019;7:37269–323.
[132] Albahri O, et al. Fault-tolerant mHealth framework in the context of IoT-based
real-time wearable health data sensors. IEEE Access 2019;7:50052–80.
[133] Almahdi E, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Alsalem M, Albahri O, Albahri A. Mobile pa-
tient monitoring systems from a benchmarking aspect: Challenges, open is-
sues and recommended solutions. J Med Syst 2019;43(7):207.
[134] Alsalem M, et al. Multiclass benchmarking framework for automated acute
Leukaemia detection and classification based on BWM and group-VIKOR. J
Med Syst 2019;43(7):212.
[135] Almahdi E, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Alsalem M, Albahri O, Albahri A. Mobile-based
patient monitoring systems: A prioritisation framework using multi-criteria
decision-making techniques. J Med Syst 2019;43(7):219.
[136] Mohammed K, et al. Real-time remote-health monitoring systems: a review
on patients prioritisation for multiple-chronic diseases, taxonomy analysis,
concerns and solution procedure. J Med Syst 2019;43(7):223.
[137] Khatari M, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Albahri O, Alsalem M. Multi-criteria evaluation
and benchmarking for active queue management methods: open issues chal-
lenges and recommended pathway solutions. Int J Inf Technol Decis Making
2019;18(4):1187–242.
[138] Alaa M, et al. Assessment and ranking framework for the English skills of
pre-service teachers based on fuzzy Delphi and TOPSIS methods. IEEE Access
2019;7:126201–23.
[139] Ibrahim N, et al. Multi-criteria evaluation and benchmarking for young learn-
ers’ English language mobile applications in terms of LSRW skills. IEEE Access
2019;7(7):146620–51.
[140] Talal M, et al. Comprehensive review and analysis of anti-malware apps for
smartphones. Telecommun Syst 2019;72(2):285–337.
[141] Napi NM, Zaidan AA, Zaidan BB, Albahri OS, Alsalem MA, Albahri AS. Medical
emergency triage and patient prioritisation in a telemedicine environment: a
systematic review. Health Technol 2019;9(5):679–700 2019/11/01.
[142] Enaizan O, et al. Electronic medical record systems: Decision support exam-
ination framework for individual, security and privacy concerns using multi-
-perspective analysis. Health Technol 2020;10(3):795–822.
[143] Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Alsalem M, Albahri O, Albahri A, Qahtan M. Multi-agent
learning neural network and Bayesian model for real-time IoT skin detec-
tors: a new evaluation and benchmarking methodology. Neural Comput Appl
2020;32(12):8315–66.
[144] Tariq I, et al. MOGSABAT: a metaheuristic hybrid algorithm for solving multi-
-objective optimisation problems. Neural Comput Appl 2018;32:2020.
[145] Zughoul O. Novel triplex procedure for ranking the ability of software engi-
neering students based on two levels of AHP and group TOPSIS techniques.
Int J Inform Technol Decision Making 2020.
[146] Abdulkareem KH, et al. A new standardisation and selection framework for
real-time image dehazing algorithms from multi-foggy scenes based on fuzzy
Delphi and hybrid multi-criteria decision analysis methods. Neural Comput
Appl 2020 2020/05/26.
[147] Mohammed K, et al. Novel technique for reorganisation of opinion order
to interval levels for solving several instances representing prioritisation in
patients with multiple chronic diseases. Comput Methods Programs Biomed
2020;185:105151.
[148] Mohammed K, et al. A Uniform Intelligent Prioritisation for Solving Diverse
and Big Data Generated From Multiple Chronic Diseases Patients Based on
Hybrid Decision-Making and Voting Method. IEEE Access 2020;8:91521–30.
[149] Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Alsalem M, Momani F, Zughoul O. Novel Multiperspective
Hiring Framework for the Selection of Software Programmer Applicants Based
on AHP and Group TOPSIS Techniques. Int J Inform Technol Decision Making
2020;18(4):1–73.
[150] Abdulkareem KH, et al. A novel multi-perspective benchmarking framework
for selecting image dehazing intelligent algorithms based on bwm and group
vikor techniques. Int J Inform Technol Decision Making 2020;19(3):909–57.
[151] Alamoodi A, et al. A systematic review into the assessment of medical apps:
motivations, challenges, recommendations and methodological aspect. Health
Technol 2020:1–17.
[152] Albahri OS, et al. Helping doctors hasten COVID-19 treatment: Towards a res-
cue framework for the transfusion of best convalescent plasma to the most
critical patients based on biological requirements via ml and novel MCDM
methods. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2020;196:105617.
[153] Salih MM, Zaidan B, Zaidan A, Ahmed MA, Research O. Survey on fuzzy TOP-
SIS state-of-the-art between 2007 and 2017. Computers & Operations Re-
search 2019;104:207–27.
17
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 153 (2021) 111445
[154] Albahri A, et al. Based multiple heterogeneous wearable sensors: A smart re-
al-time health monitoring structured for hospitals distributor, 7. IEEE Access
2019:37269–323.
[155] Albahri OS, et al. Multidimensional benchmarking of the active queue man-
agement methods of network congestion control based on extension of fuzzy
decision by opinion score method. Int J Intell Syst 2021;36(2):796–831.
[156] Dawood KA, Zaidan A, Sharif KY, Ghani AA, Zulzalil H, Zaidan B. Novel multi-
-perspective usability evaluation framework for selection of open source soft-
ware based on BWM and group VIKOR techniques. Int J Inform Technol Deci-
sion Making 2021:1–91.
[157] Mohammed TJ, et al. Convalescent-plasma-transfusion intelligent framework
for rescuing COVID-19 patients across centralised/decentralised telemedicine
hospitals based on AHP-group TOPSIS and matching component. Appl Intell
2021;51(5):2956–87.
[158] Opricovic S, Tzeng O. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking
methods. European Journal of Operational Research 2007;178(2):514–29.
[159] Salih MM, Zaidan B, Zaidan A. Fuzzy decision by opinion score method. Appl
Soft Comput 2020;96:106595.
[160] Mohammed R, et al. Review of the research landscape of multi-criteria evalu-
ation and benchmarking processes for many-objective optimization methods:
coherent taxonomy, challenges and recommended solution. Int J Inform Tech-
nol Decision Making (IJITDM) 2020;19(06):1619–93.
[161] Malik R, et al. Novel roadside unit positioning framework in the context of
the vehicle-to-infrastructure communication system based on AHP—Entropy
for weighting and borda—VIKOR for uniform ranking. Int J Inform Technol
Decision Making 2021:1–34.
[162] Khatari M, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Albahri O, Alsalem M, Albahri A. Multidi-
mensional benchmarking framework for AQMs of network congestion con-
trol based on AHP and Group-TOPSIS. Int J Inform Technol Decision Making
2021:1–38.
[163] Albahri AS, et al. Multi-biological laboratory examination framework for the
prioritization of patients with COVID-19 based on integrated AHP and group
VIKOR methods. Int J Inform Technol Decision Making 2020;19(05):1247–69.
[164] Salih MM, Albahri O, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Jumaah F, Albahri A. Benchmarking
of AQM methods of network congestion control based on extension of inter-
val type-2 trapezoidal fuzzy decision by opinion score method. Telecommun
Syst 2021:1–30.
[165] Khatari M, Zaidan A, Zaidan B, Albahri O, Alsalem MJ. Multi-criteria evalua-
tion and benchmarking for active queue management methods: Open issues
challenges and recommended pathway solutions. International Journal of In-
formation Technology and Decision Making 2019;18(4):1187–242.
[166] Albahri O, et al. New mHealth hospital selection framework supporting
decentralised telemedicine architecture for outpatient cardiovascular dis-
ease-based integrated techniques: Haversine-GPS and AHP-VIKOR. J Ambient
Intell Humanized Comput 2021:1–21.
[167] Baffoe GJE. planning p. Exploring the utility of Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) in ranking livelihood activities for effective and sustainable rural devel-
opment interventions in developing countries. Evaluation and Program Plan-
ning 2019;72:197–204.
[168] Roy J, Chatterjee K, Bandyopadhyay A, Kar SJES. Evaluation and selection of
medical tourism sites: A rough analytic hierarchy process based multi-at-
tributive border approximation area comparison approach. Expert Systems
2018;35(1):e12232.
[169] Desarkar MS, Sarkar S, Mitra PJ. Preference relations based unsupervised rank
aggregation for metasearch. Expert Systems with Applications 2016;49:86–98.
[170] Wu W, Xu Z. Hybrid TODIM method with crisp number and probabil-
ity linguistic term set for urban epidemic situation evaluation. Complexity
2020;2020.
[171] Albahri O, et al. Systematic review of artificial intelligence techniques in
the detection and classification of COVID-19 medical images in terms of
evaluation and benchmarking: taxonomy analysis, challenges, future solu-
tions and methodological aspects. J Infect Public Health 2020;13(10):1381–96.
doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2020.06.028.
[172] Soomro N, Soomro SJ. Autism Children’s App using PECS. Annals of Emerging
Technologies in Computing (AETiC). Vol. 2018;2(1):1–10.
[173] Syahputra M, et al. Implementation of augmented reality in pretend play
therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder Journal of Physics: Con-
ference Series, 1235. IOP Publishing; 2019.
[174] Rahmadiva M, Arifin A, Fatoni MH, Baki SH, Watanabe T. A design of mul-
tipurpose virtual reality game for children with autism spectrum disorder.
In: 2019 international biomedical instrumentation and technology conference
(IBITeC), 1. IEEE; 2019. p. 1–6.
[175] Hamid RA, Albahri AS, Albahri OS, Zaidan AA. Dempster–Shafer theory for
classification and hybridised models of multi-criteria decision analysis for pri-
oritisation: a telemedicine framework for patients with heart diseases. J Am-
bient Intell Humanized Comput 2021:1–35.