Validating second order formative construct
Validating second order formative construct
Please help.
I have a second order formative endogenous construct in my model. But I struggle in validating the formative secondorder construct with all formative indicators on the first and second level. Anyone know exact steps. Any good references? Whether we have to check VIF, outer weights etc for second order one?
From the base model using the repeated indicator approach, with latent variable scores I have built the updated model. Whether that updated model needs to be used for formative model assessment and all further structural model assessments? But I found difficulty in analysing the formative secondorder construct. Please help.
I have a second order formative endogenous construct in my model. But I struggle in validating the formative secondorder construct with all formative indicators on the first and second level. Anyone know exact steps. Any good references? Whether we have to check VIF, outer weights etc for second order one?
From the base model using the repeated indicator approach, with latent variable scores I have built the updated model. Whether that updated model needs to be used for formative model assessment and all further structural model assessments? But I found difficulty in analysing the formative secondorder construct. Please help.

 SmartPLS Developer
 Posts: 1059
 Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
 Real name and title: Dr. JanMichael Becker
Re: Validating second order formative construct
What exactly are your problems?
Generally, you want to apply all assessment criteria that you use for firstorder constructs also for the secondorder construct just that the weights there are the path coefficients from the firstorder constructs to the secondorder construct (and not the repeated indicators).
Generally, you want to apply all assessment criteria that you use for firstorder constructs also for the secondorder construct just that the weights there are the path coefficients from the firstorder constructs to the secondorder construct (and not the repeated indicators).
Dr. JanMichael Becker, University of Cologne, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de

 PLS Junior User
 Posts: 9
 Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:18 am
 Real name and title: Dr. Locky Law
 Location: Hong Kong
Re: Validating second order formative construct
I think I have a similar question. I have a formativeformative type HCM and I chose the twostage approach. After the PLS Algorithm calculation in the first stage, there are two VIF values every indicator, and I am unsure which one I should look at. Thanks.

 PLS Junior User
 Posts: 9
 Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:18 am
 Real name and title: Dr. Locky Law
 Location: Hong Kong
Re: Validating second order formative construct
Oh, I am answering my own question now.
Basically one of the two VIF values of every indicator in the first stage is the same as the VIF values of all the indicators pointing to one single construct, so making it HCM does not change the VIF values, but it does change the weights of the formative indicators.
Basically one of the two VIF values of every indicator in the first stage is the same as the VIF values of all the indicators pointing to one single construct, so making it HCM does not change the VIF values, but it does change the weights of the formative indicators.
Re: Validating second order formative construct
When I estimate the (outer) weights and loadings of an HCM, SmartPLS gives me two values for each indicator: one weight / loading "from" the indicator "to" the 1st order construct (see output: CONS3 > CONS) and one weight / loading from the indicator to the 2nd order construct (see output: CONS3 > SE).
If I understand correctly, I should use the weights and loadings of an indicator to the 1st order construct to validate the 1st order construct. Additionally, I use the weights (path coefficients) from the 1st order to the 2nd order constructs to validate the 2nd order constructs.
My question is: Do I need the weights / loadings that go "all the way" from the indicators to the 2nd order construct (e.g. CONS3 > SE) to validate the 1st or 2nd order?
If I understand correctly, I should use the weights and loadings of an indicator to the 1st order construct to validate the 1st order construct. Additionally, I use the weights (path coefficients) from the 1st order to the 2nd order constructs to validate the 2nd order constructs.
My question is: Do I need the weights / loadings that go "all the way" from the indicators to the 2nd order construct (e.g. CONS3 > SE) to validate the 1st or 2nd order?

 SmartPLS Developer
 Posts: 1059
 Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
 Real name and title: Dr. JanMichael Becker
Re: Validating second order formative construct
The following paper nicely summarizes the evaluation of second order constructs:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... in_PLSSEM
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... in_PLSSEM
Dr. JanMichael Becker, University of Cologne, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de

 PLS Junior User
 Posts: 2
 Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:17 am
 Real name and title: Eiffelyn Putri Abdikesuma
Re: Validating second order formative construct
Dear Dr. Becker,jmbecker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:52 amThe following paper nicely summarizes the evaluation of second order constructs:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... in_PLSSEM
I have read the following paper that you recommend before. I have found how to calculate the Cronbach's Alpha for higher order construct, but I got confuse about where the value of average correlation between COMP and LIKE come from (0.665)? Moreover that value also will be used in calculating HTMT. I have reread the paper many times but still I can't find the answer where 0.665 come from. I have tried to download the excel file but the 0.665 is just there no more explanation where it is come from.
Please help me to solve this problem, I really need it for my thesis.
Thank you in advance.

 SmartPLS Developer
 Posts: 1059
 Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
 Real name and title: Dr. JanMichael Becker
Re: Validating second order formative construct
You will get this from the PLS output > Latent Variables > Latent Variable Correlation
Dr. JanMichael Becker, University of Cologne, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de

 PLS Junior User
 Posts: 2
 Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:17 am
 Real name and title: Eiffelyn Putri Abdikesuma
Re: Validating second order formative construct
Thank you for your explanation Dr. Becker. But I still don't get why we use 0.665, below is the result of PLS Output  latent variable correlation for the data using in your paper (Sarstedt, 2019):
I think 0.665 is the correlation between ATTR  PERF. Why we use that value sir (0.665)? Why we do not calculate the average between COMP  REPU and LIKE  REPU (0.883 + 0.920)/2?
I really hope you would help me by explaining the reason.
Thank you Dr. Becker.
 Attachments

 COMP_LIKE.png (51.75 KiB) Viewed 230 times