Validating second order formative construct

This forum is closed, and read-only.
Locked
neethu856
PLS Junior User
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:27 pm
Real name and title: Nethu M

Validating second order formative construct

Post by neethu856 »

Please help.

I have a second order formative endogenous construct in my model. But I struggle in validating the formative second-order 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 second-order construct. Please help.
jmbecker
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

Re: Validating second order formative construct

Post by jmbecker »

What exactly are your problems?
Generally, you want to apply all assessment criteria that you use for first-order constructs also for the second-order construct just that the weights there are the path coefficients from the first-order constructs to the second-order construct (and not the repeated indicators).
Dr. Jan-Michael Becker, BI Norwegian Business School, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
lockylaw
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

Post by lockylaw »

I think I have a similar question. I have a formative-formative type HCM and I chose the two-stage 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.
lockylaw
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

Post by lockylaw »

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.
dlaude
PLS Junior User
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:20 am
Real name and title: Daniel Laude

Re: Validating second order formative construct

Post by dlaude »

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?

Weights.PNG
Weights.PNG (2.97 KiB) Viewed 73718 times
jmbecker
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

Re: Validating second order formative construct

Post by jmbecker »

The following paper nicely summarizes the evaluation of second order constructs:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... in_PLS-SEM
Dr. Jan-Michael Becker, BI Norwegian Business School, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
Eiffelyn
PLS Junior User
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:17 am
Real name and title: Eiffelyn Putri Abdikesuma

Re: Validating second order formative construct

Post by Eiffelyn »

jmbecker wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:52 am The following paper nicely summarizes the evaluation of second order constructs:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... in_PLS-SEM
Dear Dr. Becker,

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 re-read 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.
jmbecker
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

Re: Validating second order formative construct

Post by jmbecker »

You will get this from the PLS output > Latent Variables > Latent Variable Correlation
Dr. Jan-Michael Becker, BI Norwegian Business School, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
Eiffelyn
PLS Junior User
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:17 am
Real name and title: Eiffelyn Putri Abdikesuma

Re: Validating second order formative construct

Post by Eiffelyn »

jmbecker wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:11 pm You will get this from the PLS output > Latent Variables > Latent Variable Correlation
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
COMP_LIKE.png (51.75 KiB) Viewed 73142 times
jmbecker
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 1282
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

Re: Validating second order formative construct

Post by jmbecker »

Sorry for the late response, I was also confused in the first moment, but you are using the example data of the corporate reputation model that is built-in to the SmartPLS software. However, the paper uses a replication of the model on a different dataset. I remember that this might have been some nonsense requirement in the review process.

The data from the paper can be found here: https://www.pls-sem.net/downloads/sampl ... d-various/
Dr. Jan-Michael Becker, BI Norwegian Business School, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
Eiffelyn
PLS Junior User
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:17 am
Real name and title: Eiffelyn Putri Abdikesuma

Re: Validating second order formative construct

Post by Eiffelyn »

jmbecker wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:26 pm Sorry for the late response, I was also confused in the first moment, but you are using the example data of the corporate reputation model that is built-in to the SmartPLS software. However, the paper uses a replication of the model on a different dataset. I remember that this might have been some nonsense requirement in the review process.

The data from the paper can be found here: https://www.pls-sem.net/downloads/sampl ... d-various/
Thank you so much Dr. Becker for your explanation and help. It means a lot to me.
Locked