# Examining the Optimal Choice of SEM Statistical Software Packages for Sustainable Mathematics Education: A Systematic Review

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

- RQ: What are the optimal choices of proprietary statistical software packages in SEM approaches for sustainable mathematics education?

## 2. Methodology

#### 2.1. The Review Protocol (PRISMA)

#### 2.2. Resources

#### 2.3. Systematic Review Process

#### 2.3.1. Identification

#### 2.3.2. Screening

#### 2.3.3. Eligibility

#### 2.3.4. Inclusion Criteria

#### 2.4. Data Abstraction and Analysis

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. General Findings

#### 3.1.1. Distribution of Publications Based on Countries

#### 3.1.2. Distribution of Publications Based on Years

#### 3.1.3. Distribution of Publications Based on Research Design

#### 3.1.4. Distribution of Publications Based on Samples

#### 3.2. Main Findings

#### 3.2.1. CB-SEM Statistical Applications

#### 3.2.2. VB-SEM/PLS-SEM Statistical Applications

## 4. Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Ramalingam, S.; Yunus, M.M.; Hashim, H. Blended Learning Strategies for Sustainable English as a Second Language Education: A Systematic Review. Sustainability
**2022**, 14, 8051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Boeren, E. Understanding Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4 on “quality education” from micro, meso and macro perspectives. Int. Rev. Educ.
**2019**, 65, 277–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hogan, D.; O’Flaherty, J. Exploring the nature and culture of science as an academic discipline: Implications for the integration of education for sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.
**2022**, 23, 120–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hair, J.J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Cengage Learning EMEA: Andover, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Mondiana, Y.Q.; Pramoedyo, H.; Sumarminingsih, E. Structural Equation Modeling on Likert Scale Data with Transformation by Successive Interval Method and with No Transformation. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ.
**2018**, 8, 398–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Awang, Z. SEM Made Simple, a Gentle Approach to Learning Structural Equation Modelling; MPWS Rich Publication: Selangor, Malaysia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Awang, Z.; Lim, S.H.; Awang, N.F. Pendekatan Mudah SEM: Structural Equation Modelling; MPWS Rich Publication: Selangor, Malaysia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.J.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Danks, N.P.; Soumya, R. Review of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Alcaraz, J.L.G.; Vargas, A.R. Algorithms and Computational Techniques Applied to Industry; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Jaya, I.G.M.; Hermina, N.; Sunengsih, N. CB-SEM and VB-SEM: Evaluating Measurement model of Business Strategy of Internet Industry in Indonesia. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res.
**2019**, 10, 878–883. [Google Scholar] - Mohamad, M.; Afthanorhan, A.; Awang, Z.; Mohammad, M. Comparison between CB-SEM and PLS-SEM: Testing and confirming the Maqasid Syariah quality of life measurement model. J. Soc. Sci. Res.
**2019**, 5, 608–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.
**2016**, 116, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sanchez, G. PLS Path Modeling with R. R Package Notes 235. 2013. Available online: http://gastonsanchez.com/PLS_Path_Modeling_with_R.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2022).
- Rigdon, E.E.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. On comparing results from CB-SEM and PLS-SEM: Five perspectives and five recommendations. Mark. ZFP
**2017**, 39, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Petter, S. “Haters gonna hate”: PLS and information systems research. ACM SIGMIS Database DATABASE Adv. Inf. Syst.
**2018**, 49, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chin, W.W.; Cheah, J.-H.; Liu, Y.; Ting, H.; Lim, X.-J.; Cham, T.H. Demystifying the role of causal-predictive modelling using partial least squares structural equation modelling in information systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.
**2020**, 120, 2161–2209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nejati, M.; Rabiei, S.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. Envisioning the invisible: Understanding the synergy between green human resource management and green supply chain management in manufacturing firms in Iran in light of the moderating effect of employees’ resistance to change. J. Clean. Prod.
**2017**, 168, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Albright, J.J.; Park, H.M. Confirmatory Factor Analysis using Amos, LISREL, Mplus, SAS/ STAT CALIS; Working Paper; The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing, Indiana University, Indiana University Publishing: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2009; Available online: www.indiana.edu/~statmath (accessed on 15 October 2022).
- Marôco, J. Análise de Equações Estruturais: Fundamentos Teóricos, Software & Aplicações, 2nd ed.; Rolo & Filhos II, SA: Mafra, Portugal, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- El-Sheikh, A.A.; Abonazel, M.R.; Gamil, N. A Review of Software Packages for Structural Equation Modeling: A Comparative Study. Appl. Math. Phys.
**2017**, 5, 85–94. [Google Scholar] - Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 4th ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Arbuckle, J.L. Amos 7.0 User’s Guide; SPSS Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Arbuckle, J.L. Amos (Version 25.0); Computer; IBM SPSS: Chicago, IL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Memon, M.A.; Ramayah, T.; Cheah, J.-H.; Ting, H.; Chuah, F.; Cham, T.H. PLS-SEM Statistical Programs: A Review. J. Appl. Struct. Equ. Model.
**2021**, 5, i–xiv. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Kelloway, E.K. Using Mplus for Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS 3; SmartPLS GmbH.: Boenningstedt, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kock, N. WarpPLS 6.0 User Manual. 2017. Available online: http://warppls.com/ (accessed on 21 October 2022).
- Henseler, J.; Dijkstra, T.K. ADANCO; GmbH & Co.: Kleve, Germany, 2015. Available online: http://www. compositemodeling.com (accessed on 27 October 2022).
- Chuah, F.; Memon, M.A.; Ramayah, T.; Cheah, J.H.; Ting, H.; Cham, T.H. PlS-SEM using R: An introduction to cSEM and SEMinR. J. Appl. Struct. Equ. Model.
**2021**, 5, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Ray, S.; Danks, N.P.; Calero Valdez, A. R Package Seminr: Domain-Specifc Language for Building and Estimating Structural Equation Models Version 2.1.0 [Computer Software]. 2021. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/seminr/ (accessed on 25 October 2022).
- Rademaker, M.E.; Schuberth, F.; Schamberger, T.; Klesel, M.; Dijkstra, T.K.; Henseler, J. R Package cSEM: Composite-Based Structural Equation Modeling Version 0.3.0 [Computer Software]. 2020. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cSEM/ (accessed on 24 October 2022).
- Monecke, A.; Leisch, F. R package semPLS: Structural Equation Modeling using Partial Least Squares Version 1.0–10 [Computer Software]. 2013. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/ packages/semPLS/ (accessed on 2 November 2022).
- Sanchez, G.; Trinchera, L.; Russolillo, G. Plspm: Tools for Partial Least Squares Path Modeling (PLS-PM); R package: Boston, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Narayanan, A. A review of eight software packages for structural equation modeling. Am. Stat.
**2012**, 66, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics
**2021**, 126, 5113–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Selcuk, A.A. A Guide for Systematic Reviews: PRISMA. Turk. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol.
**2019**, 57, 57–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mirazchiyski, P.V. RALSA: The R analyzer for large-scale assessments. Large-Scale Assess. Educ.
**2021**, 9, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ringienė, L.; Žilinskas, J.; Jakaitienė, A. ILSA Data Analysis with R Packages. In Modelling, Computation and Optimization in Information Systems and Management Sciences; Le Thi, H.A., Pham Dinh, T., Le, H.M., Eds.; MCO 2021. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 363. [Google Scholar]
- Serang, S.; Jacobucci, R.; Stegmann, G.; Brandmaier, A.M.; Culianos, D.; Grimm, K.J. Mplus Trees: Structural Equation Model Trees Using Mplus. MPLUS TREES
**2021**, 28, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, W.; Tien, L.; Du, Y. The Construction of the Influence Model of Artistic Creativity Based on AMOS Data Analysis. In 2021 International Conference on Big Data Analytics for Cyber-Physical System in Smart City. BDCPS 2021; Atiquzzaman, M., Yen, N., Xu, Z., Eds.; Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies; Springer: Singapore, 2022; Volume 102. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, K.K.-K. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Techniques Using SmartPLS. Mark. Bull.
**2013**, 24, 1–32. [Google Scholar] - Kraus, S.; Breier, M.; Dasi-Rodriguez, S. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. Int. Entrep. Manag. J.
**2020**, 16, 1023–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mengist, W.; Soromessa, T.; Legese, G. Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX
**2020**, 7, 100777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Subramaniam, S.; Maat, S.M.; Mahmud, M.S. Computational thinking in mathematics education: A systematic review. Cypriot J. Educ.
**2022**, 17, 2029–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abelha, M.; Fernandes, S.; Mesquita, D.; Seabra, F.; Ferreira-Oliveira, A.T. Graduate employability and competence development in higher education: A systematic literature review using PRISMA. Sustainability
**2020**, 12, 5900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sierra-correa, P.C.; Ricardo, J.; Kintz, C. Ecosystem-based adaptation for improving coastal planning for sea-level rise: A systematic review for mangrove coasts. Mar. Policy
**2015**, 51, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mohamed, R.; Ghazali, M.; Samsudin, M.A. A Systematic Review on Mathematical Language Learning Using PRISMA in Scopus Database. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.
**2020**, 16, em1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev.
**2015**, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pranckute, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications
**2021**, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Joshi, A. Comparison between Scopus & ISI Web of Science. J. Glob. Values
**2016**, 7, 976–9447. [Google Scholar] - Li, K.; Rollins, J.; Yan, E. Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: A selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis. Scientometrics
**2018**, 115, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Harzing, A.W.; Alakangas, S. Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics
**2016**, 106, 787–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Perevochtchikova, M.; De la Mora-De la Mora, G.; Hernández Flores, J.Á.; Marín, W.; Langle Flores, A.; Ramos Bueno, A.; Rojo Negrete, I.A. Systematic review of integrated studies on functional and thematic ecosystem services in Latin America, 1992–2017. Ecosyst. Serv.
**2019**, 36, 100900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Snyder, H. Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res.
**2019**, 104, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J. Plan. Educ. Res.
**2019**, 39, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mariano, D.C.B.; Leite, C.; Santos, L.H.; Rocha, R.E.; de Melo-Minardi, R.C. A guide to performing systematic literature reviews in bioinformatics. arXiv
**2017**, arXiv:1707.05813. [Google Scholar] - Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ
**2021**, 372, 105906. [Google Scholar] - Thornley, C.; Gibb, F. Meaning in philosophy and meaning in information retrieval (IR). J. Doc.
**2009**, 65, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Grewal, A.; Kataria, H.; Dhawan, I. Literature search for research planning and identification of research problem. Indian J. Anaesth.
**2016**, 60, 635–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Meline, T. Selecting Studies for Systemic Review: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. Contemp. Issues Commun. Sci. Disord.
**2006**, 33, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nang, A.F.M.; Maat, S.M.; Mahmud, M.S. Teacher Technostress and Coping Mechanisms during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Pegem Egit. Ve Ogretim Derg.
**2022**, 12, 200–212. [Google Scholar] - Dawson, K.; Ferdig, R.E. Commentary: Expanding notions of acceptable research evidence in educational technology: A response to Schrum et al. Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ.
**2006**, 6, 133–142. [Google Scholar] - González-Albo, B.; Bordons, M. Articles vs. proceedings papers: Do they differ in research relevance and impact? A case study in the Library and Information Science field. J. Informetr.
**2011**, 5, 369–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rahman, N.A.; Rosli, R.; Rambely, A.S.; Halim, L. Mathematics teachers’ practices of stem education: A systematic literature review. Eur. J. Educ. Res.
**2021**, 10, 1541–1559. [Google Scholar] - Okoli, C. A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst.
**2015**, 37, 879–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Singh, G.; Haddad, K.M.; Chow, C.W. Are articles in “top” management journals necessarily of higher quality? J. Manag. Inq.
**2007**, 16, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bybee, R.W. The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities; National Science Teachers Association: Arlington, VI, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Vasquez, J.; Sneider, C.; Comer, M. STEM Lesson Essentials, Grades 3–8: Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics; Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Pittaway, L.; Holt, R.; Broad, J. (Eds.) Synthesising Knowledge in Entrepreneurship Research: The Role of Systematic Literature Reviews (Handbook of Research on Small Business and Entrepreneurship); Edward Elgar: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Albelbisi, N.A.; Yusop, F.D. Secondary School Students’ Use of and Attitudes toward Online Mathematics Homework. TOJET Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol.
**2018**, 17, 144–153. [Google Scholar] - Albelbisi, N.A. The Effect of Web-based Homework on Student’s Mathematics Self-Efficacy. Int. J. Technol. Math. Educ.
**2021**, 27, 181–190. [Google Scholar] - Albelbisi, N.A.; Al-Adwan, A.S.; Habibi, A.; Rasool, S. The relationship between students’ attitudes toward online homework and mathematics anxiety. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol.
**2022**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jeong, J.S.; González-Gómez, D. Flipped-ocn method in mathematics learning to analyze the attitudes of pre-service teachers. Mathematics
**2021**, 9, 607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Khan, T.; Thomas, S. Promoting Positive Education through Constructivist Digital Learning Heutagogy: An Intervention Outcome. J. Learn. Dev.
**2022**, 9, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sawyerr, A.; Agyei, D.D. Mathematics teachers’ use of ICT in classroom instruction: Exploring the will-skill-tool-pedagogy model in the Ghanaian context. Educ. Inf. Technol.
**2022**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Robinson, P.; Lowe, J. Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health
**2015**, 39, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Hodgkinson, G.P.; Ford, J.K. What makes excellent literature reviews excellent? A clarification of some common mistakes and misconceptions. J. Organ. Behav.
**2015**, 36, S1–S5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Higgins, J.P.T.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Arthur, Y.D. Mathematics Teachers’ Acceptance of ICT in Teaching and Learning: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model. Probl. Educ. 21st Century
**2022**, 80, 408–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arthur, Y.D.; Dogbe, C.S.K.; Asiedu-Addo, S.K. Modeling students’ mathematics achievement and performance through teaching quality: SERVQUAL perspective. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ.
**2021**, 14, 1509–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arthur, Y.D.; Dogbe, C.S.K.; Asiedu-Addo, S.K. Enhancing Performance in Mathematics Through Motivation, Peer Assisted Learning, And Teaching Quality: The Mediating Role of Student Interest. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.
**2022**, 18, em2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arthur, Y.D.; Boadu, S.K.; Asare, B. Effects of Peer Tutoring, Teaching Quality and Motivation on Mathematics Achievement in Senior High Schools. Int. J. Educ. Sci.
**2022**, 37, 35–43. [Google Scholar] - Badri, M. School emphasis on academic success and TIMSS science/math achievements. Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci.
**2019**, 5, 176–189. [Google Scholar] - Başaran, B. Investigating science and mathematics teacher candidate’s perceptions of TPACK-21 based on 21st century skills. Elem. Educ. Online
**2020**, 19, 2212–2226. [Google Scholar] - Cardona, R.S. The Enablers and Outcomes of Research Productivity among Junior High School Mathematics Teachers: A Structural Model. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.
**2020**, 16, em1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, C.L.; Wu, C.C. Students’ behavioral intention to use and achievements in ICT-Integrated mathematics remedial instruction: Case study of a calculus course. Comput. Educ.
**2020**, 145, 103740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cob, Z.C.; Ali, N.; Ramli, R. An empirical evidence of geometers’ sketchpad acceptance. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol.
**2019**, 9, 3436–3439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Davadas, S.D.; Lay, Y.F. Factors affecting students’ attitude toward mathematics: A structural equation modeling approach. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.
**2018**, 14, 517–529. [Google Scholar] - Elastika, R.W.; Sukono; Dewanto, S.P. Analysis of factors affecting students’ mathematics learning difficulties using sem as information for teaching improvement. Int. J. Instr.
**2021**, 14, 281–300. [Google Scholar] - Hidayat, R.; Syed Zamri, S.N.A.; Zulnaidi, H. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of achievement goals for indonesian students in mathematics education programmes. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.
**2018**, 14, em1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hidayat, R.; Zamri, S.N.A.S.; Zulnaidi, H. Does mastery of goal components mediate the relationship between metacognition and mathematical modelling competency? Educ. Sci. Theory Pract.
**2018**, 18, 579–604. [Google Scholar] - Hidayat, R.; Syed Zamri, S.N.A.; Zulnaidi, H.; Abdullah, M.F.N.L.; Adnan, M. The Interrelationships between Metacognition and Modeling Competency: The Moderating Role of the Academic Year. Eur. J. Educ. Res.
**2021**, 10, 1853–1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hwang, S. Examining the effect of students’ early numeracy activities at home on later mathematics achievement via early numeracy competencies and self-efficacy beliefs. Int. Electron. J. Elem. Educ.
**2020**, 13, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Irakleous, P.; Christou, C.; Pitta-Pantazi, D. Mathematical imagination, knowledge, and mindset. ZDM Math. Educ.
**2022**, 54, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ji, R.; Yue, X.; Zheng, X. Using PLS-SEM to Examine the Structure of First-year University Students’ Mathematics-related Beliefs. High. Educ. Stud.
**2021**, 11, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kazi, M. Instructional leadership: Teaching evaluation as a key element for 6th grade student’s achievement in mathematics. Int. J. Educ. Manag.
**2021**, 35, 1191–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kyaruzi, F.; Strijbos, J.W.; Ufer, S.; Brown, G.T.L. Students’ formative assessment perceptions, feedback use and mathematics performance in secondary schools in Tanzania. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract.
**2019**, 26, 278–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lailiyah, S.; Hayat, S.; Urifah, S.; Setyawati, M. Levels of students’ mathematics anxieties and the impacts on online mathematics learning. Cakrawala Pendidik.
**2021**, 40, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Litster, K.; Lommatsch, C.W.; Novak, J.R.; Moyer-Packenham, P.S.; Ashby, M.J.; Roxburgh, A.L.; Bullock, E.P. The Role of Gender on the Associations Among Children’s Attitudes, Mathematics Knowledge, Digital Game Use, Perceptions of Affordances, and Achievement. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ.
**2021**, 19, 1463–1483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mailizar, M.; Almanthari, A.; Maulina, S. Examining teachers’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in teaching of mathematics: An extended tam model. Contemp. Educ. Technol.
**2021**, 13, ep298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mohamed, Z.; Ubaidullah, N.H. Evaluation of the teaching quality model and its relationship with students’ academic performance through partial least squares-structural equation model. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng.
**2019**, 8, 4035–4039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mohamed, Z.; Zain, H.H.M.; Yahya, R.A.S.; Damanhuri, M.I.M. Assessing the relationship between program education objectives and program learning outcomes in outcome-based education using partial least squares-structural equation model. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng.
**2019**, 8, 1709–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mustafa, N.; Mohamed, Z.; Ubaidullah, N.H. Modeling of statistical reasoning and students’ academic performance relationship through partial least squares-structural equation model (PLS-SEM). Univers. J. Educ. Res.
**2020**, 8, 3519–3526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mustafa, N.; Ubaidullah, N.H.; Ahmad, M.Z.; In’am, A. PLS-SEM Model of Students’ Attitudes toward Statistics, Reasoning of Statistics, Self-Efficacy, Motivation and Academics Performance. Rev. Int. Geogr. Educ. Online
**2021**, 11, 992–1003. [Google Scholar] - Muwonge, C.M.; Ssenyonga, J.; Kwarikunda, D. Cognitive Appraisals, Achievement Emotions, and Motivation towards Learning Mathematics among Lower Secondary Students. Afr. J. Res. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.
**2018**, 22, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rawlings, A.M.; Tapola, A.; Niemivirta, M. Temperamental Sensitivities Differentially Linked with Interest, Strain, and Effort Appraisals. Front. Psychol.
**2021**, 11, 551806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Shapira-Lishchinsky, O.; Zavelevsky, E. Multiple Appearances of Parental Interactions and Math Achievement on TIMSS International Assessment. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ.
**2020**, 18, 145–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Smeda, A.; Shiratuddin, M.F.; Wong, K.W. A structural equation modelling approach for adoption of e-book amongst mathematics and statistics (MAS) students at higher education institutions in Libya. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol.
**2018**, 35, 240–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Somasundram, P. The Role of Cognitive Factors in Year Five Pupils’ Algebraic Thinking: A Structural Equation Modelling Analysis. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.
**2021**, 17, em1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Suryanti, S.; Arifani, Y. The Relationship between Blended Mathematics Professional Training and Teachers’ Creativity and Effectiveness. Int. J. Instr.
**2021**, 14, 139–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sutter-Brandenberger, C.C.; Hagenauer, G.; Hascher, T. Students’ self-determined motivation and negative emotions in mathematics in lower secondary education-Investigating reciprocal relations. Contemp. Educ. Psychol.
**2018**, 55, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tee, K.N.; Leong, K.E.; Abdul Rahim, S.S. The Mediating Effects of Critical Thinking Skills on Motivation Factors for Mathematical Reasoning Ability. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res.
**2018**, 27, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tee, K.N.; Leong, K.E.; Rahim, S.S.A. Modeling relationships of affective and metacognitive factors on grade eleven students’ mathematics achievement. Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci.
**2019**, 5, 295–308. [Google Scholar] - Tee, K.N.; Leong, K.E.; Abdul Rahim, S.S. A Self-Regulation Model of Mathematics Achievement for Eleventh-Grade Students. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ.
**2020**, 19, 619–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Valls Martínez, M.D.C.; Martín-Cervantes, P.A.; Sánchez Pérez, A.M.; Martínez Victoria, M.D.C. Learning mathematics of financial operations during the COVID-19 era: An assessment with partial least squares structural equation modeling. Mathematics
**2021**, 9, 2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wafubwa, R.N.; Csíkos, C. Formative Assessment as a Predictor of Mathematics Teachers’ Levels of Metacognitive Regulation. Int. J. Instr.
**2020**, 14, 983–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wijaya, T.T.; Cao, Y.; Bernard, M.; Rahmadi, I.F.; Lavicza, Z.; Surjono, H.D. Factors influencing microgame adoption among secondary school mathematics teachers supported by structural equation modelling-based research. Front. Psychol.
**2022**, 13, 952549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Xiang, J.; Wan, Y.; Zhou, J. Factors affecting the learning effect of advanced mathematics among Chinese college students in social science majors. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ.
**2019**, 15, em1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, Y.; Wang, Q. Content learning opportunities, computer-based instruction, and students’ mathematics and science achievement. Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol.
**2020**, 51, 1164–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sarstedt, M.; Cheah, J.H. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling Using SmartPLS: A Software Review. J. Mark. Anal.
**2019**, 7, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 3rd ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022; forthecoming. [Google Scholar]
- Ramayah, T.; Jun-Hwa, C.; Chuah, F.; Ting, H.; Memon, M.A. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 3.0: An Updated Guide and Practical Guide to Statistical Analysis, 2nd ed.; Pearson: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Zamir, S.; Yang, Z.; Wenwu, H.; Sarwar, U. Assessing the attitude and problem-based learning in mathematics through PLS-SEM modeling. PLoS ONE
**2022**, 17, e0266363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Jöreskog, K.G.; Sörbom, D. LISREL 9.20 for Windows; Scientific Software International, Inc.: Skokie, IL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Structural Equations Modeling Overview: Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Education Ltd.: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Finch, H.; Bolin, J. Multilevel Modeling using Mplus; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Rousseau, D.M.; Manning, J.; Denyer, D. Chapter 11: Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the Field’s full weight of. Acad. Manag. Ann.
**2008**, 2, 475–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rivera, J.R.D.; Jacomossi, R.R.; Barrichello, A.; Morano, R.S. Using structural equation modeling: Patterns and trends of publications in Brazilian journals. Rev. De Gest.
**2018**, 25, 291–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guo, B.; Brian, E.P.; David, F.G. A systematic review of structural equation modelling in Social Work Research. Br. J. Soc. Work
**2009**, 39, 1556–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Okech, D.; Kim, J.; Little, T.D. Recent developments in structural equation modelling research in social work journals. Br. J. Soc. Work
**2013**, 45, 685–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Owolabi, H.O.; Ayandele, J.K.; Olaoye, D.D. A Systematic Review of Structural Equation Model (SEM). Open J. Educ. Dev.
**2020**, 1, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Study flow diagram (adapted from [58]).

Database | Keywords Used |
---|---|

Scopus | TITLE-ABS-KEY ([“structural equation modeling” OR “SEM”] AND [“covariance-based SEM” OR “CB-SEM” OR “variance-based SEM” OR “VB-SEM” OR “partial least square” OR “partial least square-SEM” OR “partial least square structural equation modeling” OR “PLS-SEM” OR “proprietary statistical software package*” OR “statistical application*” OR “statistical program*” OR “statistical software*” OR “SEM software*” OR “software package*” OR “software program”*] AND [“mathematic*” OR “mathematic* education” OR “mathematic* teach* and learning” OR “mathematic* literacy” OR “mathematic* subject” OR “mathematic* discipline”]) |

Criterion (C) | Inclusion (I) | Exclusion (E) |
---|---|---|

Type of article/literature | Journal (research articles/empirical articles) | Journals (systematic review/non-empirical articles), book series, chapter in book, and conference proceeding |

Language | English | Non-English |

Timeline | Between 2018 and 2022 | <2018 |

Country/region | All | - |

Field | Mathematics education/subject/discipline/literacy/TnL | Non-mathematics education/subject/discipline/literacy/TnL |

**Table 3.**The findings regarding the types of proprietary statistical software packages according to SEM approaches.

No | Study | Research Design | Countries | Sample and Level | Types of Proprietary Statistical Software Packages According to SEM Approaches | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

CB-SEM | VB-SEM/PLS-SEM | |||||||||

Lisrel | Amos | Mplus | SmartPLS | R Package | WarpPLS | |||||

1 | [71] | QN | Malaysia | Students (International secondary school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

2 | [72] | QN | Malaysia | Students (International secondary school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

3 | [73] | QN | Malaysia | Students (International secondary school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

4 | [80] | QN | West Africa | Core and elective mathematics teachers (Secondary school) | X | √ | X | X | X | X |

5 | [81] | QN | West Africa | Undergraduate students (University) | X | √ | X | X | X | X |

6 | [82] | QN | West Africa | Undergraduate students (University) | X | √ | X | X | X | X |

7 | [83] | QN | West Africa | Senior students (High school) | X | √ | X | X | X | X |

8 | [84] | QN | UEA | Parents, Mathematics teachers, and students (Elementary school) | √ | X | X | X | X | X |

9 | [85] | QN | Turkey | Prospective mathematics teachers (University) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

10 | [86] | QN | Philippines | Mathematics teachers (High school) | X | X | X | X | X | √ |

11 | [87] | QN | Taiwan | Students (Vocational high school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

12 | [88] | QN | Malaysia | Mathematics teachers (Secondary school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

13 | [89] | QN | Malaysia | Students (Secondary school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

14 | [90] | QN | Indonesia | Students (University) | √ | X | X | X | X | X |

15 | [91] | QN | Indonesia | Students (University) | X | √ | X | X | X | X |

16 | [92] | QN | Indonesia | Students (University) | X | √ | X | X | X | X |

17 | [93] | QN | Indonesia | Students (University) | X | √ | X | X | X | X |

18 | [94] | QN | South Korea | Students (Elementary school) | X | X | √ | X | X | X |

19 | [95] | QN | (Cyprus) Southeast Europe | Students (Primary school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

20 | [74] | QN | Spain | Pre-service mathematics teachers (University) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

21 | [96] | QN | Australia | Students (University) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

22 | [97] | QN | (Cyprus) Southeast Europe | Principal, Mathematics teachers, and students (Primary school) | X | √ | X | X | X | X |

23 | [75] | QN | India | Undergraduate students (University) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

24 | [98] | MM | East Africa | Students (Secondary school) | X | X | √ | X | X | X |

25 | [99] | QN | Indonesia | Students (University) | √ | X | X | X | X | X |

26 | [100] | MM | USA | Students (Elementary school, charter school, and home-school groups) | X | X | √ | X | X | X |

27 | [101] | QN | Indonesia | Mathematics teachers (Secondary school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

28 | [102] | QN | Malaysia | Undergraduate students (University) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

29 | [103] | QN | Malaysia | Graduate mathematics teachers (University) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

30 | [104] | QN | Malaysia | Undergraduate students (University) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

31 | [105] | QN | Malaysia | Undergraduate students (University) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

32 | [106] | QN | East Africa | Students (Lower secondary school) | X | X | √ | X | X | X |

33 | [107] | QN | Southern and central Finland | Students (Lower and upper secondary school) | X | X | √ | X | √ | X |

34 | [76] | QN | West Africa | Mathematics teachers (Secondary school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

35 | [108] | QN | Israel | Principals, mathematics teachers, and students (Middle school) | X | X | √ | X | X | X |

36 | [109] | QN | South Africa | Students (Public university) | X | √ | X | X | X | X |

37 | [110] | QN | Malaysia | Students (Primary school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

38 | [111] | QN | Indonesia | Students (Secondary school) | √ | X | X | X | X | X |

39 | [112] | QN | Switzerland | Students (Primary and secondary school) | X | X | √ | X | X | X |

40 | [113] | QN | Malaysia | Students (Private high school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

41 | [114] | QN | Malaysia | Students (Private high school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

42 | [115] | QN | Malaysia | Students (Private lower-level high school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

43 | [116] | QN | Spain | Undergraduate students (University) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

44 | [117] | QN | East Africa | Mathematics teachers (Secondary school) | X | √ | X | X | X | X |

45 | [118] | QN | Indonesia | Mathematics teachers (Secondary school) | X | X | X | √ | X | X |

46 | [119] | QN | China | Students (University) | X | √ | X | X | X | X |

47 | [120] | QN | USA | Mathematics teachers and students (Middle school) | X | X | X | X | X | √ |

Study | CB-SEM Statistical Applications |
---|---|

[84,90,99,111] | Lisrel (N = 4 studies) |

[80,81,82,83,91,92,93,97,109,117,119] | Amos (N = 11 studies) |

[94,98,100,106,107,108,112] | Mplus (N = 7 studies) |

Study | VB-SEM/PLS-SEM Statistical Applications |
---|---|

[71,72,73,74,75,76,85,87,88,89,95,96,101,102,103,104,105,110,113,114,115,116,118] | SmartPLS (N = 23 studies) |

[107] | R package (plspm) (N = 1 study) |

[86,120] | WarpPLS (N = 2 studies) |

Study | Findings |
---|---|

[71] | F1: a significant relationship between performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and student attitude toward the use of an online mathematics homework tool. F2: a significant relationship between student attitudes and their actual use of online homework. |

[72] | F1: a significant relationship between perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and attitude toward the use of a web-based mathematics homework tool. F2: a significant relationship between attitude and mathematics self-efficacy factor. |

[73] | F1: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are predictors of attitude toward the use of OHW. |

[85] | F1: direct effects of technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK21), and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK21) on TPACK-21. F2: teachers’ content knowledge (CK), technological knowledge (TK), and pedagogical knowledge (PK21) directly affect technological content knowledge (TCK). |

[87] | F1: perceived usefulness significantly affected attitude toward use and behavioral intention to use. F2: attitude toward use significantly affected behavioral intention to use. F3: attitude toward use exhibited significant mediating effects between perceived usefulness and behavioral intention to use. |

[88] | F1: infrastructure support and system quality affect teachers’ intention to use geometer’s sketchpad. |

[89] | F1: teacher affective support and classroom instruction predict attitude towards mathematics more than parental influences. |

[95] | F1: the mathematical mindset of students could directly and moderately describe their mathematical knowledge. F2: mathematical knowledge and mathematical mindset can both directly and to a significant extent be used to describe mathematical imagination. |

[74] | F1: component relation effects of OB, ATP, and ATN of pre-service teachers toward mathematics learning and the influence of their educational background. F2: science and technology background were positively correlated after the flipped-OCN method compared with the rest of pre-service teachers. |

[96] | F1: a significant relationship between students’ self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategies, and epistemological beliefs about mathematics as well as their perceptions of the learning environment. |

[75] | F1: learning through constructivist Digital Learning Heutagogy supported academic achievement, learning engagement, and positive emotions F2: peer relationship not supported by the intervention. |

[101] | F1: attitude toward E-learning use and E-learning experience were the two most significant constructs in predicting E-learning use. |

[102] | F1: a significant relationship between teaching quality and students’ academic performance. |

[103] | F1: a significant relationship between Program Education Objectives (PEOs) and Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs). |

[104] | F1: a significant relationship between statistical reasoning and students’ academic performance. |

[105] | F1: students’ attitude and belief toward statistics, statistical reasoning, self-efficacy, motivation, and the relationship with academic performance are statistically important. |

[76] | F1: a significant relationship between the will, skill, tool, and pedagogy parameters and the stages of adoption of teachers’ use of ICT. F2: Tool strongly predicts ICT integration. |

[110] | F1: a significant relationship between cognitive factors (symbol sense, pattern sense, number sense, and operation sense) and algebraic thinking. |

[113] | F1: task value and critical thinking skills predicts students’ performance in mathematical reasoning. F2: critical thinking skills fully mediated with the relationship of mastery goal orientation on the students’ abilities to solve the reasoning tasks. |

[114] | F1: students’ formative performance predicts their summative performance. F2: formative performance significantly mediates the relationship between self-confidence and summative performance. |

[115] | F1: behavioral regulations (self-observation, self-judgment, and self-reaction) significantly influence student academic achievement and mathematical reasoning ability. F2: cognition regulation significantly mediates the relationship between motivational regulation and reasoning ability. F3: behavioral, cognition regulation, and students’ reasoning ability significantly mediates the relationship between motivational regulation and academic achievement. |

[116] | F1: Format and depth of the video tutorials predict performance learning and promoting autonomy. |

[118] | F1: a significant relationship between perceived ease of use and subjective norm influence (PEU and SN) with teachers’ microgame usage behaviors and intentions. |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Sakaria, D.; Maat, S.M.; Mohd Matore, M.E.E. Examining the Optimal Choice of SEM Statistical Software Packages for Sustainable Mathematics Education: A Systematic Review. *Sustainability* **2023**, *15*, 3209.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043209

**AMA Style**

Sakaria D, Maat SM, Mohd Matore MEE. Examining the Optimal Choice of SEM Statistical Software Packages for Sustainable Mathematics Education: A Systematic Review. *Sustainability*. 2023; 15(4):3209.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043209

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Sakaria, Darmaraj, Siti Mistima Maat, and Mohd Effendi Ewan Mohd Matore. 2023. "Examining the Optimal Choice of SEM Statistical Software Packages for Sustainable Mathematics Education: A Systematic Review" *Sustainability* 15, no. 4: 3209.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043209