Search results

In their paper titled “A Miracle of Measurement or Accidental Constructivism? How PLS Subverts the Realist Search for Truth,” Cadogan and Lee (2022) cast serious doubt on PLS’s suitability for scientific studies. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the claims of Cadogan and Lee, correct some inaccuracies, and derive recommendations for researchers using structural equation models.

This paper uses scenario analysis to show which estimators are appropriate for reflective measurement models and composite models, and formulates the statistical model that underlies PLS Mode A. It also contrasts two different perspectives: PLS as an estimator for structural equation models vs. PLS-SEM as an overarching framework with a sui generis logic.

There are different variants of PLS, which include PLS, consistent PLS, PLSe1, PLSe2, proposed ordinal PLS and robust PLS, each of which serves a particular purpose. All of these are appropriate for scientific inquiry if applied properly. It is not PLS that subverts the realist search for truth, but some proponents of a framework called “PLS-SEM.” These proponents redefine the term “reflective measurement,” argue against the assessment of model fit and suggest that researchers could obtain “confirmation” for their model.

Researchers should be more conscious, open and respectful regarding different research paradigms.

Researchers should select a statistical model that adequately represents their theory, not necessarily a common factor model, and formulate their model explicitly. Particularly for instrumentalists, pragmatists and constructivists, the composite model appears promising. Researchers should be concerned about their estimator’s properties, not about whether it is called “PLS.” Further, researchers should critically evaluate their model, not seek confirmation or blindly believe in its value.

This paper critically appraises Cadogan and Lee (2022) and reminds researchers who wish to use structural equation modeling, particularly PLS, for their statistical analysis, of some important scientific principles.

Authenticity has been studied from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, leading to a rich but confused literature. This study, a review, aims to compare the psychology and sociology/tourism definitions of authenticity to clarify the concept. From a psychological perspective, authenticity is a mental appraisal of an object or experience as valued leading to feelings and summative judgements (such as satisfaction or perceived value). In objective authenticity, a person values the object due to belief in an expert’s opinion, constructive authenticity relies on socially constructed values, while existential authenticity is based on one’s self-identity. The resultant achievement of a valued goal, such as seeing a valued object, leads to feelings of pleasure. Sociological definitions are similar but based on different theoretical antecedent causes of constructed and existential authenticity. The paper further discusses the use of theory in tourism and the project to develop tourism as a discipline. This project is considered unlikely to be successful and in turn, as argued, it is more useful to apply theory from other disciplines in a multidisciplinary manner. The results emphasise that it is necessary for tourism researchers to understand the origins and development of the concepts they use and their various definitions.

The purpose of this study was to create an air movement operations planning model to rapidly generate air mission request (AMR) assignment and routing courses of action (COA) in order to minimize unsupported AMRs, aircraft utilization and routing cost.

In this paper, the US Army Aviation air movement operations planning problem is modeled as a mixed integer linear program (MILP) as an extension of the dial-a-ride problem (DARP). The paper also introduces a heuristic as an extension of a single-vehicle DARP demand insertion algorithm to generate feasible solutions in a tactically useful time period.

The MILP model generates optimal solutions for small problems (low numbers of AMRs and small helicopter fleets). The heuristic generates near-optimal feasible solutions for problems of various sizes (up to 100 AMRs and 10 helicopter team fleet size) in near real time.

Due to the inability of the MILP to produce optimal solutions for mid- and large-sized problems, this research is limited in commenting on the heuristic solution quality beyond the numerical experimentation. Additionally, the authors make several simplifying assumptions to generalize the average performance and capabilities of aircraft throughout a flight.

This research is the first to solve the US Army Aviation air movement operations planning problem via a single formulation that incorporates multiple refuel nodes, minimization of unsupported demand by priority level, demand time windows, aircraft team utilization penalties, aircraft team time windows and maximum duration and passenger ride time limits.