forum.smartpls.com

Hey,

Please, I need your help.

What are the adequate steps to establish the third order construct (M) bellow in the picture?

If I use the two-stage approach, are the steps bellow correct :

1- use the repeated indicators in second (A, B) and third (M) order constructs simultaneously.
2- save the latent variable scores of the reflective second-order constructs.
3- use these latent variable scores as indicators of the reflective third order construct in a new model.

OR

1- use the repeated indicators only in the second order constructs (A, B) without the third order construct (M).
2- save the latent variables scores of the reflective first-order constructs (1....8).
3- Then use these latent variable scores as repeated indicators of the reflective second-order and third-order construct in a new model.
4- save the latent variables scores of the reflective second-order constructs.
5- use latent variables scores of the second order constructs as indicators for the reflective third-order construct in a final model.

The reliability and validity of the reflective second and third order constructs should be assessed in every step, or after assessing the reflective first-order constructs we move directly to the assessment of the reflective third order construct?

Thank you.

I think there is no specific guideline in the literature on how to use the two-stage approach correctly in the case of a third-order construct.

Usually using the repeated-indicator in the first stage of the repeated indicator approach might also not be the best solution. It is better to model the effects of the first-oder constructs on the other variables in the model and then use these LV scores. The repeated-indicator approach without context of the rest of the model is sometimes not very stable and might produce unexpected and implausible results.

Hello,

If I understand correctly, then it would be correct to use the disjoint two stage approach (Sarstedt et al., 2019) for the lowest order construct. Obtain the latent variable scores so then the numbered constructs in the illustration (posted in the original question) would be based on the latent variable scores.

Then use the repeated indicator method approach for the third order latent construct (M in the case of this illustration).

The alternative of only using repeated indicators is not the best. So, there is no need to be using the same method (disjoint tow stage approach only or repeated indicator method only) for all levels of the third order construct. Is my understanding correct?

Note: This makes sense because for a very large construct, the repeated indicator approach becomes very messy. However, the disjoint two stage approach for both 1st and second order construct makes it hard to keep track of the details (at least for the relationships between first order to second order).