I have two conceptually similar reflective constructs for which I could not establish discriminant validity using the HTMT criterion. I have taken the second approach outlined in the paper (p. 130):
However, as I proceed I am unsure how to describe this approach in my paper's methods section. After an extensive search I have not found a published paper that appears to have identified an issue with discriminant validity using SmartPLS and the HTMT criterion, has documented the steps the authors took in merging indicators into one construct, and then described the subsequent analysis.The second approach to treat discriminant validity problems aims at merging the constructs that cause the problems into a more general construct. Again, measurement theory must support this step. In this case, the more general construct replaces the problematic constructs in the model and researchers need to re-evaluate the newly generated construct’s discriminant validity with all the opposing constructs. This step may entail modifications to increase a construct’s average monotrait-heteromethod correlations and/or to decrease the average heteromethod-heterotrait correlations (Fig. 8).
So could someone point me to more detailed descriptions of the process outlined in figure 8 and, in particular, to any published paper's whose methods sections document how the author's proceeded to assess the measurement model, revise the research model, and then retest their model prior to assessing the structural model?
Many thanks for any assistance!