C
Christian Nitzl
Researcher at Bundeswehr University Munich
Publications - 41
Citations - 3753
Christian Nitzl is an academic researcher from Bundeswehr University Munich. The author has contributed to research in topics: Management accounting & Accounting information system. The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 37 publications receiving 1797 citations.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis
TL;DR: In this article, confirmatory composite analysis (CCA) is applied to confirm measurement models when using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to confirm both reflective and formative measurement models of established measures that are being updated or adapted to a different context.
Journal ArticleDOI
Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models
TL;DR: This study illustrates the state-of-the-art use of mediation analysis in the context of PLS-structural equation modeling (SEM) by challenging the conventional approach to mediation analysis and providing more accurate alternatives.
Journal ArticleDOI
The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in management accounting research: Directions for future theory development
TL;DR: After reviewing eleven top-ranked management accounting journals through the end of 2013, 37 articles in which PLS-SEM is used are identified and a special focus is placed on the degree of importance of these analysed criteria for the future development of management accounting research.
Book ChapterDOI
Mediation Analyses in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines and Empirical Examples
TL;DR: This chapter illustrates how to perform modern procedures in PLS-SEM by challenging the conventional approach to mediation analysis and providing better alternatives.
Journal ArticleDOI
Beyond a tandem analysis of SEM and PROCESS: Use of PLS-SEM for mediation analyses!:
TL;DR: It is argued that much of the confusion regarding SEM’s efficacy for mediation analyses results from a singular focus on factor-based methods, and there is no need for a tandem use of SEM and PROCESS.