Page **1** of **1**

### Can I use PLS SEM to validate my instrument which i developed from grounded theory

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:19 am**

by **micpatlem**

My name is Michael, I am studying about the characteristics of healthy role model in medical institutions. From Grounded theory, I developed new instrument that I used for survey in the next phase of my study. I have some questions according to my study, especially when I got data from survey that I intended to use for validating my instrument:

- Could I use PLS SEM to validate my new developed instrument?" The sample size is 79 sample which I consider meet the minimum sample size to use PLS SEM and my research aims was exploratory.

- Is my path model right? It has 7 construct (PH, SH, MH, SpH, WTP, LLL, IHB) which I categorized as 7 exogenous variables and the endogenous variable is the characteristics of healthy role model (HRM). For better understanding to my model, please look the path model I attached here.

- I couldn't continue to report R2, f2 since the indicator of 7 exogenous variable (PH, SH, MH, SpH, WTP, LLL, HB) is equivalent with endogenous variable (HRM)

Please help me to answer this questions.

Sincerely,

Michael

### Re: Can I use PLS SEM to validate my instrument which i developed from grounded theory

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:22 pm**

by **jmbecker**

You describe a reflective-formative higher-order construct. And it seems you model it by using the repeated indicator approach. Such a model is generally valid, but comes with some problems.

1) As you describe it does not allow you to assess the R² etc. because the endogenous construct in your model is composed of its lower-order constructs. They are meant to describe it entirely.

2) Your model as such is not identified without a link of the higher-order construct (HRM) to another construct which is not one of its own lower-order components.

3) You might want to estimate the higher-order component (HRM) where you use the repeated indicators using Mode B for the indicators.

Please read:

Sarstedt, M., Hair Jr, 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).

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.

### Re: Can I use PLS SEM to validate my instrument which i developed from grounded theory

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:33 pm**

by **micpatlem**

Dear Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

Thanks for your helping information. I have read the references you mentioned but still have some questions.

I read your publication " Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM..." (Becker et al., 2012) and try to answer the guidelines you wrote in reporting guidelines p.377. First, my model is reflective-formative type. Second, I chosed repeated indicator with mode A measurement (because my first order constructe are reflective), and use path for the PLS-SEM algorithm. But as the literature said, the R2 is 1.0 because the same indicator on dependent and independent variable. How could I solve this problem?

I read the references and the answer that we must proposed is an extended repeated indicator approach or two stage approach. How could I perform this approach since I dont have any antecendent (endogenous) or exogenous construct which has a number of indicators? Here I attached the two stages model that I could not be continue to calculate. I wish I have some of your suggestions in my problem, thank you.

Sincerely yours

Michael

### Re: Can I use PLS SEM to validate my instrument which i developed from grounded theory

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:01 am**

by **micpatlem**

Dear. Dr. Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

I tried to estimate my hierarchical model by using two-stages approach. Is it a right? thanks

Sincerely,

Michael