ArticlePloS one2024
Application of Bayesian structural equation modeling in construction and demolition waste management studies: Development of an extended theory of planned behavior.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sustainable construction and demolition waste management relies heavily on the attitudes and actions of its constituents; nevertheless, deep analysis for introducing the best estimator is rarely attained. The main objective of this study is to perform a comparison analysis among different approaches of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in Construction and Demolition Waste Management (C&DWM) modeling based on an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour (Extended TPB). The introduced research model includes twelve latent variables, six independent variables, one mediator, three control variables, and one dependent variable. Maximum likelihood (ML), partial least square (PLS), and Bayesian estimators were considered in this study. The output of SEM with the Bayesian estimator was 85.8%, and among effectiveness of six main variables on C&DWM Behavioral (Depenmalaydent variables), five of them have significant relations. Meanwhile, the variation based on SEM with ML estimator was equal to 78.2%, and four correlations with dependent variable have significant relationship. At the conclusion, the R-square of SEM with the PLS estimator was equivalent to 73.4% and three correlations with the dependent variable had significant relationships. At the same time, the values of the three statistical indices include root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute percentage error (MPE), and mean absolute error (MSE) with involving Bayesian estimator are lower than both ML and PLS estimators. Therefore, compared to both PLS and ML, the predicted values of the Bayesian estimator are closer to the observed values. The lower values of MPE, RMSE, and MSE and the higher values of R-square will generate better goodness of fit for SEM with a Bayesian estimator. Moreover, the SEM with a Bayesian estimator revealed better data fit than both the PLS and ML estimators. The pattern shows that the relationship between research variables can change with different estimators. Hence, researchers using the SEM technique must carefully consider the primary estimator for their data analysis. The precaution is necessary because higher error means different regression coefficients in the research model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.