New rules for keeping formative indicators
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:03 pm
Dear SmartPLS users and developers,
Hope you are doing well. Can you comment and give answers to the points below.
1. Hair et al. (2013) and Cenfetelli and Bassellier (2009) proposed a rule regarding keeping formative indicators, which states that formative indicators with insignificant weights can be kept if their loadings are high (i.e., above .5) and/or significant. In relation to this rule, I have one question, which I present after an example of a situation. Assume that a formative construct (PC) is influencing an endogenous construct (CSC). If one of the formative indicators of PC (let us say PC1) has insignificant weight, but has a high and/or significant loading on the construct PC. I decided to keep this formative indicator (i.e., PC1) based on the rule mentioned above (i.e., based on the loading not the weight), how should I interpret the influence of PC1 on the final endogenous construct CSC?
2. Becker et al. (2013) proposed a rule regarding the preferable usage of Mode A instead of Mode B for formative constructs (under some conditions). Becker et al. (2013) pointed out how Mode A weights (i.e., correlation weights) are slightly different from the Mode A loadings, and that Mode A weights (i.e., correlation weights) should be interpreted in a similar way to Mode B weights (i.e., regression weights).
1.I did not understand the exact difference between Mode A weights and loadings. Can anyone elaborate more about this?
2.Assuming a formative construct (PC) is influencing an endogenous construct (CSC), and assuming using Mode A for the formative construct (PC), how should I interpret the influence of the formative indicators of PC on the final endogenous construct (CSC)?
3.Is it possible to use Hair at al. (2013) and Cenfetelli and Bassellier (2009) rule while using Becker et al. (2013) rule of using Mode A for formative constructs? i.e., Is possible to use Mode A for formative constructs, and keep formative indicators that have insignificant weights but high and/or significant loading?
Thanks
Becker, J.-M., A. Rai, C. M. Ringle and F. Völckner (2013). "Discovering unobserved heterogeneity in structural equation models to avert validity threats." Mis Quarterly 37(3): 665-694.
Cenfetelli, R. T. and G. Bassellier (2009). "Interpretation of formative measurement in information systems research." Mis Quarterly: 689-707.
Hair Jr, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. Ringle and M. Sarstedt (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications.
Hope you are doing well. Can you comment and give answers to the points below.
1. Hair et al. (2013) and Cenfetelli and Bassellier (2009) proposed a rule regarding keeping formative indicators, which states that formative indicators with insignificant weights can be kept if their loadings are high (i.e., above .5) and/or significant. In relation to this rule, I have one question, which I present after an example of a situation. Assume that a formative construct (PC) is influencing an endogenous construct (CSC). If one of the formative indicators of PC (let us say PC1) has insignificant weight, but has a high and/or significant loading on the construct PC. I decided to keep this formative indicator (i.e., PC1) based on the rule mentioned above (i.e., based on the loading not the weight), how should I interpret the influence of PC1 on the final endogenous construct CSC?
2. Becker et al. (2013) proposed a rule regarding the preferable usage of Mode A instead of Mode B for formative constructs (under some conditions). Becker et al. (2013) pointed out how Mode A weights (i.e., correlation weights) are slightly different from the Mode A loadings, and that Mode A weights (i.e., correlation weights) should be interpreted in a similar way to Mode B weights (i.e., regression weights).
1.I did not understand the exact difference between Mode A weights and loadings. Can anyone elaborate more about this?
2.Assuming a formative construct (PC) is influencing an endogenous construct (CSC), and assuming using Mode A for the formative construct (PC), how should I interpret the influence of the formative indicators of PC on the final endogenous construct (CSC)?
3.Is it possible to use Hair at al. (2013) and Cenfetelli and Bassellier (2009) rule while using Becker et al. (2013) rule of using Mode A for formative constructs? i.e., Is possible to use Mode A for formative constructs, and keep formative indicators that have insignificant weights but high and/or significant loading?
Thanks
Becker, J.-M., A. Rai, C. M. Ringle and F. Völckner (2013). "Discovering unobserved heterogeneity in structural equation models to avert validity threats." Mis Quarterly 37(3): 665-694.
Cenfetelli, R. T. and G. Bassellier (2009). "Interpretation of formative measurement in information systems research." Mis Quarterly: 689-707.
Hair Jr, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. Ringle and M. Sarstedt (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications.