how to specify MODE A or MODE B for reflective-formative HOC with extended repeated indicators
Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 8:15 pm
I have a model with reflective-formative HOC and formative-formative HOC and I want to estimate it with extended repeated indicators.
I have read
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Becker, J.-M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in pls-sem. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 27(3), 197-211. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003
and
Becker, J. M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in pls-sem: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45(5-6), 359-394.
But I If have properly understand both papers, the figure 8 in the Sarstedt et al. 2019 may be wrong.
In that paper authors wrote page 200
"While researchers typically use Mode A to estimate reflectively specified measurement models and Mode B to estimate formatively specified measurement mod- els, Becker et al. (2012) show that this choice of measurement mode for repeated indicators does not apply to the orientation of the lower-order components, but the higher-order component. Specifically, their simulation study shows that Mode B estima- tion of the higher-order component in a reflective-formative type higher-order construct produces the smallest parameter estima- tion bias. Hence, even though the (repeated) indicators identifying the higher-order constructs are specified reflectively on the lower- order components, researchers should use Mode B for these re- peated indicators on the higher-order component. In light of these findings, researchers should use Mode A for a reflectively specified higher-order constructs (i.e., reflective-reflective and formative- reflective types) and Mode B for formatively specified higher- order constructs (i.e., reflective-formative and formative-formative types). This recommendation also holds for the first stage of the embedded two-stage approach. In contrast, the disjoint two-stage approach should be estimated using the standard settings on both stages; that is, Mode A for reflectively specified measurement models and Mode B for formatively specified measurement models."
In page 206 they add "In order to apply the extended repeated indicators approach, we need to extend the model by drawing direct relationships between the four antecedent constructs and the two lower-order compo- nents of reputation ( Fig. 8 ). Following Becker et al. (2012) , we use Mode B to estimate the measurement model of the higher-order component REPU . As is the case in"
But in figure 8 (representing reflective-formative HOC) , REPU construct was drawn exactly in the same way than in figure 6 (representing reflective-reflecitve HOC specification) That is, arrows from REPU to items (comp1 ..like3) that sounds as MODE A. And I think that arrows should be drawn from items (comp1 .. like3 ) to Construct (REPU).
PS. figure 7 and 9 (the version for disjoint two stage approach) are coherent and arrows are drawn in the expected direction.
I have read
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Becker, J.-M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in pls-sem. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 27(3), 197-211. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003
and
Becker, J. M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in pls-sem: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45(5-6), 359-394.
But I If have properly understand both papers, the figure 8 in the Sarstedt et al. 2019 may be wrong.
In that paper authors wrote page 200
"While researchers typically use Mode A to estimate reflectively specified measurement models and Mode B to estimate formatively specified measurement mod- els, Becker et al. (2012) show that this choice of measurement mode for repeated indicators does not apply to the orientation of the lower-order components, but the higher-order component. Specifically, their simulation study shows that Mode B estima- tion of the higher-order component in a reflective-formative type higher-order construct produces the smallest parameter estima- tion bias. Hence, even though the (repeated) indicators identifying the higher-order constructs are specified reflectively on the lower- order components, researchers should use Mode B for these re- peated indicators on the higher-order component. In light of these findings, researchers should use Mode A for a reflectively specified higher-order constructs (i.e., reflective-reflective and formative- reflective types) and Mode B for formatively specified higher- order constructs (i.e., reflective-formative and formative-formative types). This recommendation also holds for the first stage of the embedded two-stage approach. In contrast, the disjoint two-stage approach should be estimated using the standard settings on both stages; that is, Mode A for reflectively specified measurement models and Mode B for formatively specified measurement models."
In page 206 they add "In order to apply the extended repeated indicators approach, we need to extend the model by drawing direct relationships between the four antecedent constructs and the two lower-order compo- nents of reputation ( Fig. 8 ). Following Becker et al. (2012) , we use Mode B to estimate the measurement model of the higher-order component REPU . As is the case in"
But in figure 8 (representing reflective-formative HOC) , REPU construct was drawn exactly in the same way than in figure 6 (representing reflective-reflecitve HOC specification) That is, arrows from REPU to items (comp1 ..like3) that sounds as MODE A. And I think that arrows should be drawn from items (comp1 .. like3 ) to Construct (REPU).
PS. figure 7 and 9 (the version for disjoint two stage approach) are coherent and arrows are drawn in the expected direction.