Fornell-Larcker Criterion

Questions about the implementation and application of the PLS-SEM method, that are not related to the usage of the SmartPLS software.
Post Reply
Catharsis
PLS Junior User
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:52 am
Real name and title: Human Kohzadi Student

Fornell-Larcker Criterion

Post by Catharsis »

Hello,

I am currently investigating some reflective research models with SmartPLS and had a few questions about checking the measurement model, specifically discriminant validity.

I would like to know if my Fornell-Larcker criterion is met. I'm not sure about the FC construct because the value on the diagonal is not greater than the values in the corresponding row. According to my assumption this should be so. Would be very grateful about clarification. Maybe I just misunderstood something.


Best regards!
Attachments
Bildschirmfoto 2019-03-12 um 15.29.04.png
Bildschirmfoto 2019-03-12 um 15.29.04.png (125.08 KiB) Viewed 5940 times
jmbecker
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 1281
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

Re: Fornell-Larcker Criterion

Post by jmbecker »

Fornell-Larcker criterion says that you diagonal value should be larger than all values in the same row and column. Thus, your EE and FC constructs are not distrinct based on Fornell-Larcker.
In addition, you should also consider HTMT criterion (smaller than 0.85) which is more sensitive to discriminant validity problems than Fornell-Larcker and the current state-of-the-art in PLS-SEM research.
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
Catharsis
PLS Junior User
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:52 am
Real name and title: Human Kohzadi Student

Re: Fornell-Larcker Criterion

Post by Catharsis »

Hello Dr. Becker,

thanks for the answer. I followed your instructions, and it actually looks like there's a discriminant validity problem.

My question now would be how to solve the problem. Should I discard the weakest item from the construct (FC4) and recalculate the PLS algorithm? Or do you remove the whole construct directly in such cases? In this case FC? I have discarded the FC4 item as a test. The Fornell-Larcker criterion is now fulfilled. But the HTMT value does not improve.
Attachments
Bildschirmfoto 2019-03-13 um 07.25.40.png
Bildschirmfoto 2019-03-13 um 07.25.40.png (110.93 KiB) Viewed 5931 times
Catharsis
PLS Junior User
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:52 am
Real name and title: Human Kohzadi Student

Re: Fornell-Larcker Criterion

Post by Catharsis »

...
Attachments
Bildschirmfoto 2019-03-13 um 07.26.03.png
Bildschirmfoto 2019-03-13 um 07.26.03.png (240.93 KiB) Viewed 5928 times
jmbecker
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 1281
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

Re: Fornell-Larcker Criterion

Post by jmbecker »

There are multiple ways that could solve a discriminant validity problem. Pleas search the forum and the literature for more information on that issue. It would need quite a lengthy answer to provide all possible options.
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
Post Reply