Removing indicator leaving single indicator

PLS is broadly applied in modern business research. This forum is the right place for discussions on the use of PLS in the fields of Marketing, Strategic Management, Information Technology etc.
Post Reply
iputu.ariyasa
PLS Senior User
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 2:10 am
Real name and title: I Putu Ariyasa, ST.

Removing indicator leaving single indicator

Post by iputu.ariyasa » Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:26 am

I have an exogenous formative higher order construct with four reflective lower order constructs. One of the LOC has two indicators, and after data collection stage, one the indicators has low outer loading and resulting in low reliability & validity of the LOC. Regarding the relationship between the LOC and HOC, whether i keep the indicator or not, the weight of the LOC showed a low significance level

My question is:
  • 1. should i remove this indicator and leaving the LOC with only single indicator (and possibly reducing the content validity)?
    2. can anybody point me to a reference(s) that could justify the removal or retention the indicators?
thanks

Best Regards,
I Putu Ariyasa

jmbecker
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

Re: Removing indicator leaving single indicator

Post by jmbecker » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:11 pm

I don't have a specific reference in mind, but generally a two indicator reflective construct is often problematic in terms of achieving the desired reliability criteria as it is not really a common factor type of construct, which would need at least three indicators.
I, personally, would keep the indicator and opt for higher content validity. In addition, higher reliability and validity after removal are an illusion as a single item construct is not able to assess reliability and validity and thus defines the reliability as 1 though it is probably lower. Thereby you have no chance to evaluate, whether your removal really improves the reliability and validity. Thus, keeping the item seems more plausible to me.
Dr. Jan-Michael Becker, University of Cologne, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ja ... v=hdr_xprf
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de

iputu.ariyasa
PLS Senior User
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 2:10 am
Real name and title: I Putu Ariyasa, ST.

Re: Removing indicator leaving single indicator

Post by iputu.ariyasa » Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:49 pm

jmbecker wrote:I don't have a specific reference in mind, but generally a two indicator reflective construct is often problematic in terms of achieving the desired reliability criteria as it is not really a common factor type of construct, which would need at least three indicators.
I, personally, would keep the indicator and opt for higher content validity. In addition, higher reliability and validity after removal are an illusion as a single item construct is not able to assess reliability and validity and thus defines the reliability as 1 though it is probably lower. Thereby you have no chance to evaluate, whether your removal really improves the reliability and validity. Thus, keeping the item seems more plausible to me.
Thanks for your reply, i think i would keep the item too

manjap
PLS Junior User
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:05 pm
Real name and title: Manja Pfeiffer, MBACLL

Re: Removing indicator leaving single indicator

Post by manjap » Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:24 pm

Hello. I am new to statistics and SmartPLS and have read a few posts on single indicators.
In my model, I had to remove several indicators that were below 0.7 with LPM and PEU leaving just 1 single measurement item left and a resulting loadings of 1.0.
Is there anyone who can advise if I have to take any action on the loadings of 1.0 in SmartPLS, specifically how to handle reliability and validity for LPM and PEU with the loading of 1.0?

Attached is 2 files of my model: stage 1: red circles with all indicators below 0.7; stage 2 (revised): all items below 0.7 removed

Many thanks, Manja
Attachments
SmartPLS_screen_revised-indicators.png
SmartPLS_screen_revised-indicators.png (192.98 KiB) Viewed 968 times
SmartPLS_screen_all-indicators.png
SmartPLS_screen_all-indicators.png (202.16 KiB) Viewed 968 times

jmbecker
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 888
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

Re: Removing indicator leaving single indicator

Post by jmbecker » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:07 am

First, I would not blindly delete indicators. I would try to understand why they have performed so poorly and if there are any data reasons (missing values, (reverse) coding, etc.) that could contribute to the problem.
Second, I would delete the indicators sequentially (lowest loading first) and re-estimate the model each time. This may lead to increased loadings of the other remaining indicators and therefore deleting fewer indicators.
Third, I would not use a single indicator instead of two or more somewhat unreliable indicators (loading 0.5 - 0.7). The one indicator (although looking good in terms of loadings, etc.) might represent your conceptual variable very badly. You probably had a good theoretical foundation for collecting multiple indicators. Thus, try to stick with as many indicators as possible even if they are slightly unreliable. This is still better than removing too many. The single indicator is usually worse than the composite of unreliable indicators. How can a single indicator suddenly become very good, just because you delete other indicators? --> Because it hides his unreliability behind the lack of evaluation criteria.
Only if you think that in a given situation a single-indicator is sufficient (usually you choose the indicator to be a single indicator a priori because it represents the conceptual domain very well, e.g. "Are you satisfied" for satisfaction) you should use it, but not if it is a result of indicator removal.
Dr. Jan-Michael Becker, University of Cologne, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ja ... v=hdr_xprf
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de

Post Reply