Page 1 of 1

Discriminant validity of 2nd Order Factor

Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:25 pm
by mdw
I realize this type of question has probably been asked before, but having read all the replies and associated links, I'm still a little unclear on how to tackle this issue.

I have a reflective-formative 2nd order factor within a model (as per p.231 of the PLS Primer by Hair et al) whereby the LOCs are measured by reflective indicators, and the LOCs have a formative relationship with the HOC.

All values within the entire model are absolutely fine, apart from the AVE of the 2nd order construct, which remains stubbornly just below 0.4.

Am I correct in thinking this isn't a problem? Some replies suggest AVE isn't required for a HOC, but others suggest I need to get it near to or > 0.5.

I've read the LRP paper by Becker et al (2012), but am still trying to arrive at the definitive view.

Any help much appreciated!

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:30 am
by Diogenes
Hi,

If HOCs are formative, it does not make sense compute AVE and composite reliability.
We do not expect that their LOCs will be correlated, for this reason they are used as formative.

If HOCs were reflective, we should compute their AVE and CC based on their relations with LOCs (they are presented as path coefficients, but we should interpret them as loadings, see: viewtopic.php?t=640 ).


Best regards,

Bido

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:02 am
by bwilson
Diogenes wrote:Hi,

If HOCs are formative, it does not make sense compute AVE and composite reliability.
We do not expect that their LOCs will be correlated, for this reason they are used as formative.

If HOCs were reflective, we should compute their AVE and CC based on their relations with LOCs (they are presented as path coefficients, but we should interpret them as loadings, see: viewtopic.php?t=640 ).


Best regards,

Bido
Yes. the validity should be tested within a broader nomological framework.
never report AVE or Reliabilities for formative constructs.

regards
Brad

Many thanks...

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:38 pm
by mdw
Many thanks both - problem now resolved!

Re: Discriminant validity of 2nd Order Factor

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:56 am
by mattburek
I encountered the same problem. I have a reflective-formative model and would like to report my numbers. Following Hair et al. (2014), I need to follow " the same measurement model evaluation criteria apply to the HOC as for any other construct in the PLS path model".

My reflective latent variables (LOCs) are all discriminant and convergent valid. Now what do I have to report for the HOC?

Regards

Re: Discriminant validity of 2nd Order Factor

Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:22 pm
by jmbecker
The same as you would report for any formative latent variable.