Would it be possible to add the Chin/hierarchical secondorder construct approach discussed previously in the forum to the next release of Smart PLS?
It would be extremely useful to have the ability to define a 2ndorder construct explicitly, as a method of accounting for high collinearity among 1st order LVs (using the approach of having all the 1st order indicators included in the 2nd order LV). This would be much easier to work with than having to physically add a set of duplicate indicators to define the secondorder construct and then set the path relationships manually. That's not a lot of fun when you have models with, say, 50 indicators.
Another feature that would be useful for model building would be a way to impose boundary constraints on the structural parameters (specifically GT or LT 0), or alternatively to set a path to 0 or some predefined value.
As the cliche goes, I can ask:).
Thanks,
Stuart Drucker
Adding 2ndorder constructs and directional constraints

 PLS Junior User
 Posts: 4
 Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:15 pm
 Real name and title:
 Location: Chicago, IL USA
 Contact:
Adding 2ndorder constructs and directional constraints
Stuart Drucker
Drucker Analytics, Inc.
Drucker Analytics, Inc.
 swende
 SmartPLS Developer
 Posts: 104
 Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:34 am
 Real name and title: Dipl. WiInf. Sven Wende
 Location: Hamburg (Germany)
I think, we could do that but it depends on the support of the community. ;)
Actually I don´t have the corresponding literature at my fingertips. Therefore it would be nice, if someone can answer me the following questions. I think, we will be able then, to implement the basic functionality.
1. What´s about the measurement model? Is it relevant, how the first order constructs are measured (formative, reflective)? Must all first order constructs be measured the same way (all reflective, all formative) ?
2. How should the second order construct be measured? Reflective, formative ? Does it depend on the first order construct measurement models?
Actually I don´t have the corresponding literature at my fingertips. Therefore it would be nice, if someone can answer me the following questions. I think, we will be able then, to implement the basic functionality.
1. What´s about the measurement model? Is it relevant, how the first order constructs are measured (formative, reflective)? Must all first order constructs be measured the same way (all reflective, all formative) ?
2. How should the second order construct be measured? Reflective, formative ? Does it depend on the first order construct measurement models?
I didn´t get the idea, yet! Can you please provide a more detailed example?Another feature that would be useful for model building would be a way to impose boundary constraints on the structural parameters (specifically GT or LT 0), or alternatively to set a path to 0 or some predefined value.
Sven Wende, CEO SmartPLS GmbH
 Diogenes
 PLS SuperExpert
 Posts: 905
 Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:13 pm
 Real name and title:
 Location: São Paulo  BRAZIL
 Contact:
2nd order constructs
Hi Sven,
This artiche is the answer:
JARVIS, Cheryl Burke; MACKENZIE, Scott B.; PODSAKOFF, Philip M. "A critical Review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research." Journal of Consumer Research, sep. 2003, v. 30, n. 2, p. 199218.
We could have both: indicators and first order constructs like formative indicators.
The software VisualPLS (http://www2.kuas.edu.tw/prof/fred/vpls/index.html) has implemented the 2nd order construct, but it still doesn´t run the bootstrat for models with this kind of construct.
Regards,
Bido
This artiche is the answer:
JARVIS, Cheryl Burke; MACKENZIE, Scott B.; PODSAKOFF, Philip M. "A critical Review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research." Journal of Consumer Research, sep. 2003, v. 30, n. 2, p. 199218.
We could have both: indicators and first order constructs like formative indicators.
The software VisualPLS (http://www2.kuas.edu.tw/prof/fred/vpls/index.html) has implemented the 2nd order construct, but it still doesn´t run the bootstrat for models with this kind of construct.
Regards,
Bido
Prof. Dr. Diogenes de Souza Bido
 cringle
 SmartPLS Developer
 Posts: 821
 Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:13 am
 Real name and title: Prof. Dr. Christian M. Ringle
 Location: Hamburg (Germany)
 Contact:
Hi,
the article by Jarvis/Mackenzie/Podsakoff ("A critical Review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research") is a good source. Regarding (so called) 2ndordermodels, it basically describes what Lohmoeller already laid out in 1989. But he actually gives a statistical foundation that such models can be computed with the PLS algorithm:
Mode A (first order) – Mode A (Second Order) – Spread (inner model)
Mode A (first order) – Mode A (Second Order) – Collect (inner model)
Mode B (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Spread (inner model)
Mode B (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Collect (inner model)
Mode A (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Spread (inner model)
Mode A (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Collect (inner model)
Mode B (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Spread (inner model)
Mode B (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Collect (inner model)
So far so good – Lohmoeller provides some confidence that 2ndordermodels can be properly computed with the basic PLS algorithm. That is an important point, because reusing manifest variables is a special case in PLS path modeling.
However here comes my question (might be better discussed the methodology section of this forum):
Since 2ndodermodels are a special PLS path model that uses manifest variables twice for modelestimation, would it be appropriate to embedd such a model into a larger (standard) PLS model.
I have seen such applications recently, but doubt their appropriateness. Besides, I have not found a reasonable discussion on that matter (using manifest variables for more than one time in 2ndorder models and to embed such model in a “normal” PLS model) in literature. In case that would be appropriate regarding the statistical grounds of PLS path modeling, would it then be accurate to also compute 3rd, 4th and so on order models. How often could manifest variables be used in PLS path models – could a reuse in “standard” model make sense as well?
These are important implications in order to prevent users from a “misuse” of such functionalities  as published more and more often. In my own research, I always estimated 2ndordermodels as “standalonemodels…
Best
Christian
the article by Jarvis/Mackenzie/Podsakoff ("A critical Review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research") is a good source. Regarding (so called) 2ndordermodels, it basically describes what Lohmoeller already laid out in 1989. But he actually gives a statistical foundation that such models can be computed with the PLS algorithm:
Mode A (first order) – Mode A (Second Order) – Spread (inner model)
Mode A (first order) – Mode A (Second Order) – Collect (inner model)
Mode B (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Spread (inner model)
Mode B (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Collect (inner model)
Mode A (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Spread (inner model)
Mode A (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Collect (inner model)
Mode B (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Spread (inner model)
Mode B (first order) – Mode B (Second Order) – Collect (inner model)
So far so good – Lohmoeller provides some confidence that 2ndordermodels can be properly computed with the basic PLS algorithm. That is an important point, because reusing manifest variables is a special case in PLS path modeling.
However here comes my question (might be better discussed the methodology section of this forum):
Since 2ndodermodels are a special PLS path model that uses manifest variables twice for modelestimation, would it be appropriate to embedd such a model into a larger (standard) PLS model.
I have seen such applications recently, but doubt their appropriateness. Besides, I have not found a reasonable discussion on that matter (using manifest variables for more than one time in 2ndorder models and to embed such model in a “normal” PLS model) in literature. In case that would be appropriate regarding the statistical grounds of PLS path modeling, would it then be accurate to also compute 3rd, 4th and so on order models. How often could manifest variables be used in PLS path models – could a reuse in “standard” model make sense as well?
These are important implications in order to prevent users from a “misuse” of such functionalities  as published more and more often. In my own research, I always estimated 2ndordermodels as “standalonemodels…
Best
Christian
Prof. Dr. Christian M. Ringle, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), SmartPLS
 Literature on PLSSEM: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation
 Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/citations?use ... AAAJ&hl=de
 Literature on PLSSEM: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation
 Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/citations?use ... AAAJ&hl=de
cringle wrote:Hi,
So far so good – Lohmoeller provides some confidence that 2ndordermodels can be properly computed with the basic PLS algorithm. That is an important point, because reusing manifest variables is a special case in PLS path modeling.
However here comes my question (might be better discussed the methodology section of this forum):
Since 2ndodermodels are a special PLS path model that uses manifest variables twice for modelestimation, would it be appropriate to embedd such a model into a larger (standard) PLS model.
Besides, I have not found a reasonable discussion on that matter (using manifest variables for more than one time in 2ndorder models and to embed such model in a “normal” PLS model) in literature. In case that would be appropriate regarding the statistical grounds of PLS path modeling, would it then be accurate to also compute 3rd, 4th and so on order models. How often could manifest variables be used in PLS path models – could a reuse in “standard” model make sense as well?
These are important implications in order to prevent users from a “misuse” of such functionalities  as published more and more often. In my own research, I always estimated 2ndordermodels as “standalonemodels…
Christian
Yes the Lohmoller work is a good foundation. The algorithm can definitely handle it. However, I believe further work is needed here too. Little is known about 2nd order models and if authors are to use it at the moment they should either follow the standalone model approach only or if they are embedding it within a broader structural model they should note it appropriately within the study limitations and not over state the relevance/importance of their results. This of course is a risky thing to do as you are identifying possible reasons for study rejection but it is only fair to the reader that you are up front about the process and limitations.
There will be more work on this area in the near future.
When using higher order for the first time be upfront
Dear all,
I would agree with the discussion on use of hierarchical or repeated indicators approach. Use in isolation if you can...
But if used in a structural model be upfront about it in study limitation.
Newer monte carlo studies may provide more guidance.
Wilson, B. and Henseler, J. (2007), Modeling Reflective HigherOrder Constructs using Three Approaches with PLS Path Modeling: A Monte Carlo Comparison.Thyne, M.; Deans, K. R., and Gnoth, J. in Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Department of Marketing, School of Business. University of Otago. University of Otago., New Zealand.; 791800.
Wilson, B. (2005), Using PLS to Investigate Interaction Effects Between Two Second Order Constructs: An Applied Marketing Example.Aluja, T.; Casanovas, J.; Esposito Vinzi, V.; Morineau, A., and Tenenhaus, M., Editors. in 4th International Symposium on PLS and Related Methods., Barcelona, Spain. 183190.
Happy reading.
brad.
I would agree with the discussion on use of hierarchical or repeated indicators approach. Use in isolation if you can...
But if used in a structural model be upfront about it in study limitation.
Newer monte carlo studies may provide more guidance.
Wilson, B. and Henseler, J. (2007), Modeling Reflective HigherOrder Constructs using Three Approaches with PLS Path Modeling: A Monte Carlo Comparison.Thyne, M.; Deans, K. R., and Gnoth, J. in Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Department of Marketing, School of Business. University of Otago. University of Otago., New Zealand.; 791800.
Wilson, B. (2005), Using PLS to Investigate Interaction Effects Between Two Second Order Constructs: An Applied Marketing Example.Aluja, T.; Casanovas, J.; Esposito Vinzi, V.; Morineau, A., and Tenenhaus, M., Editors. in 4th International Symposium on PLS and Related Methods., Barcelona, Spain. 183190.
Happy reading.
brad.
Bradley Wilson. Ph.D.
Senior Lecturer in Advertising.
RMIT University.
School of Media and Communication.
GPO Box 2476V
Location. 9.5.20
Melbourne. Victoria.
Australia.
SEE FOR PUBLICATIONS
www.rmit.edu.au/staff/bradleywilson
Senior Lecturer in Advertising.
RMIT University.
School of Media and Communication.
GPO Box 2476V
Location. 9.5.20
Melbourne. Victoria.
Australia.
SEE FOR PUBLICATIONS
www.rmit.edu.au/staff/bradleywilson

 PLS User
 Posts: 11
 Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:02 pm
 Real name and title:
 Location: Granada, Spain
PLS & 2ndorder models
Dear Prof. Wilson,
Great! I would like to know your opinion about this:
Could I justify the use of PLS path modeling with a reflective 2ndorder constructs model in a leding journal?
Could I use to do it your recommended references? How do I get them?
Thank you in advance for yor attention.
Best,
 JB
Great! I would like to know your opinion about this:
Could I justify the use of PLS path modeling with a reflective 2ndorder constructs model in a leding journal?
Could I use to do it your recommended references? How do I get them?
Thank you in advance for yor attention.
Best,
 JB
getting refs
first article is available on google.
second article is becoming featured in PLS handbook 2008.
I think that these approaches are gaining in reputation in leading journals.
best regards,
brad
second article is becoming featured in PLS handbook 2008.
I think that these approaches are gaining in reputation in leading journals.
best regards,
brad
Bradley Wilson. Ph.D.
Senior Lecturer in Advertising.
RMIT University.
School of Media and Communication.
GPO Box 2476V
Location. 9.5.20
Melbourne. Victoria.
Australia.
SEE FOR PUBLICATIONS
www.rmit.edu.au/staff/bradleywilson
Senior Lecturer in Advertising.
RMIT University.
School of Media and Communication.
GPO Box 2476V
Location. 9.5.20
Melbourne. Victoria.
Australia.
SEE FOR PUBLICATIONS
www.rmit.edu.au/staff/bradleywilson