forum.smartpls.com

Hello SmartPLS users,

I have a question regarding a HOC (reflective-formative type) used in my research model with the repeated indicator approach.

I have read these two sources and am now unsure how to proceed.

• Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. saGe publications.
  • 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, 27(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003
  In Hair et al. (2017, p.55) it is said "Generally, use the factor weighting scheme for paramater estimation" and in Sarstedt et. al (2019) it is recommended to "use the path weighting scheme" and "Reflective-formative and formative-formative higher-order constructs: Interpret the relationships between higher-order and lower-order components as weights and assess convergent validity, collinearity, and the significance and relevance of the weights".
  
  My questions:
  • which weighting scheme should I use? or both? Factor for measurement evaluation and path for structural model evaluation?
    
    Thank you in advance.
    
    Kind regards, Christine

The following paper shows that it is advantageous to use path weighting for reflective-formative type models. Often the difference is negligible if the lower-order constructs are not highly correlated.

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.