Question regarding higher-order factor model
-
- PLS User
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:49 am
- Real name and title:
Question regarding higher-order factor model
I have read over the posts in these forums and noticed that SmartPLS handles second-order factors. In my research model, I have seven first-order factors. Each first-order factor is reflective, composed of several items. Each of these first-order factors then becomes a formative indicator of two second-order factor (3 first-order factors go to the first second-order factor and 4 first-order factors go to the other second-order factor). These two second-order latent factors then serve as formative indicators for a third-order factor. The third-order factor, along with two other factors, is used to predict the dependent variable.
My question is whether SmartPLS can test this type of model? As I stated in the first sentence, I know SmartPLS handles second-order factors, but wasn’t sure if SmartPLS can handle a third-order factor.
My question is whether SmartPLS can test this type of model? As I stated in the first sentence, I know SmartPLS handles second-order factors, but wasn’t sure if SmartPLS can handle a third-order factor.
Re: Question regarding higher-order factor model
Conceptually the "third order" factor might be needed (and in covariance modeling perhaps computationally needed as well--if such a model could be identified) but in PLS I'm not sure that it's necessary, from the standpoint of the calculations.dhenderson17 wrote:These two second-order latent factors then serve as formative indicators for a third-order factor. The third-order factor, along with two other factors, is used to predict the dependent variable.
Wouldn't the results be the same (computationally) is you simply use the second order constructs along with the two other factors to predict your dependent variable?
John J. Sailors, PhD
Associate Professor of Marketing
The University of St. Thomas
Opus College of Business
Minneapolis, MN
Associate Professor of Marketing
The University of St. Thomas
Opus College of Business
Minneapolis, MN
-
- PLS User
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:49 am
- Real name and title:
Hello Dr. Sailors,
The two-second order constructs are formative, not reflective....would that make a difference? I'm not sure how that would affect the model....
Just read your answer again..do you mean to disgard the third-order factor and just have the two-second order factors? From a theoretical perspective, i don't think i should disregard the third-order factor....
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Best,
Dave
The two-second order constructs are formative, not reflective....would that make a difference? I'm not sure how that would affect the model....
Just read your answer again..do you mean to disgard the third-order factor and just have the two-second order factors? From a theoretical perspective, i don't think i should disregard the third-order factor....
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Best,
Dave
As I said, conceptually (theoretically) I understand that the 3rd order factor might be necessary.
I have have been wrong about the computational necessity, my mind thinking about it in covariance modeling terms.
How to do it? Treat the 3rd order factor the same as you would a second order factor, which means that you either 1) repeat all of the indicators of the 2nd order factors as its indicators or 2) create new indicators for it that are the LV scores from the second order constructs.
It gets cumbersome as you keep adding levels, but apart from that I don't think it matters whether you're talking about a 2nd order factor or an nth order factor, you specify it the same way.
I have have been wrong about the computational necessity, my mind thinking about it in covariance modeling terms.
How to do it? Treat the 3rd order factor the same as you would a second order factor, which means that you either 1) repeat all of the indicators of the 2nd order factors as its indicators or 2) create new indicators for it that are the LV scores from the second order constructs.
It gets cumbersome as you keep adding levels, but apart from that I don't think it matters whether you're talking about a 2nd order factor or an nth order factor, you specify it the same way.
Last edited by jjsailors on Fri Dec 29, 2006 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
John J. Sailors, PhD
Associate Professor of Marketing
The University of St. Thomas
Opus College of Business
Minneapolis, MN
Associate Professor of Marketing
The University of St. Thomas
Opus College of Business
Minneapolis, MN
-
- PLS Expert User
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:43 pm
- Real name and title:
- Location: Coimbatore, India
second order constructs in smartPLS
Thanks a lot. I suppose you can do third order constructs as well using the same procedure.
But how do you test validity-convergent and discriminant for the constructs?
What are the quality factors apart from reliability. If some MVs are removed from the lower order constructs, then they should be removed from the higher order constructs as well, shouldn't they.
Regards
Vivek
But how do you test validity-convergent and discriminant for the constructs?
What are the quality factors apart from reliability. If some MVs are removed from the lower order constructs, then they should be removed from the higher order constructs as well, shouldn't they.
Regards
Vivek
-
- PLS User
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:49 am
- Real name and title:
Reply to Dr. Sailors
Hi Dr. Sailors,
Thank you again for your response. You mentioned two ways for computing the 2nd and 3rd order factors. Which way is the better way, or does the answer depend?
Also, I guess I wanted to double-check that Smart PLS can accomodate third-order factors. I know PLS-GRAPH can, but like i said, just wanted to double-check that Smart PLS can as well.
Thank you for all of your help.
Best,
Dave
Thank you again for your response. You mentioned two ways for computing the 2nd and 3rd order factors. Which way is the better way, or does the answer depend?
Also, I guess I wanted to double-check that Smart PLS can accomodate third-order factors. I know PLS-GRAPH can, but like i said, just wanted to double-check that Smart PLS can as well.
Thank you for all of your help.
Best,
Dave
Hi David,
First note that I've edited my response above, changing the 2nd option for how to set up second (or higher) order constructs.
In practice there should be little if any difference between the approaches. I've always simply repeated the indicators.
John
First note that I've edited my response above, changing the 2nd option for how to set up second (or higher) order constructs.
In practice there should be little if any difference between the approaches. I've always simply repeated the indicators.
John
John J. Sailors, PhD
Associate Professor of Marketing
The University of St. Thomas
Opus College of Business
Minneapolis, MN
Associate Professor of Marketing
The University of St. Thomas
Opus College of Business
Minneapolis, MN
-
- PLS User
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:49 am
- Real name and title:
Hi John,
Thanks for your help. I'm not sure how to do this in Smart PLS yet, but I'm in the early stages of using the tool. As I continue to use Smart PLS, I should be able to figure out the exact mechanics of how to setup the second and third order factors.
As a side question, I conducted a power analysis last night for my study and determined that I need approx. 115 subjects to achieve a power of .8 (alpha=.05, medium effect size of .15). This analysis is based upon 9 independent variables. I do, however, have a covariate in my study, but I can't find any literature that discusses the impact of a covariate on sample size. I'm also not sure if Smart PLS can handle a covariate. I looked through the forum, but didn't see any posts that really answered this question.
Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks again for your help.
Best,
Dave
Thanks for your help. I'm not sure how to do this in Smart PLS yet, but I'm in the early stages of using the tool. As I continue to use Smart PLS, I should be able to figure out the exact mechanics of how to setup the second and third order factors.
As a side question, I conducted a power analysis last night for my study and determined that I need approx. 115 subjects to achieve a power of .8 (alpha=.05, medium effect size of .15). This analysis is based upon 9 independent variables. I do, however, have a covariate in my study, but I can't find any literature that discusses the impact of a covariate on sample size. I'm also not sure if Smart PLS can handle a covariate. I looked through the forum, but didn't see any posts that really answered this question.
Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks again for your help.
Best,
Dave
-
- PLS Expert User
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:43 pm
- Real name and title:
- Location: Coimbatore, India
error correlations
I also have a doubt. In PLS no error terms are mentioned explicitly. What happens if two error variables are correlated? This will falsely show a significant path between two variables, even though only their errors are related.
Re: error correlations
I think that's not correct. It's not that error terms aren't explicitly stated, it's that they play no role in the model.viswadatta wrote:I also have a doubt. In PLS no error terms are mentioned explicitly. What happens if two error variables are correlated? This will falsely show a significant path between two variables, even though only their errors are related.
An Emergent Variable (EV) is always a weighted sum of it's manifest variables, and, while the estimation of those weights may imply an error term, that term plays no role in the calculation of the EV.
Likewise when calculating path coefficients between EVs, the error term from one equation is irrelevant to the other equations that may also involve the same EV because each is, again, just the weighted sum of it's manifest variables.
John J. Sailors, PhD
Associate Professor of Marketing
The University of St. Thomas
Opus College of Business
Minneapolis, MN
Associate Professor of Marketing
The University of St. Thomas
Opus College of Business
Minneapolis, MN
-
- PLS Junior User
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 1:26 pm
- Real name and title: Alexander McLeod, Assistant Professor
Re: Question regarding higher-order factor model
"What are the quality factors apart from reliability. If some MVs are removed from the lower order constructs, then they should be removed from the higher order constructs as well, shouldn't they. "
Hello,
I didn't see an answer to Viswadatta's question above. Do you remove items below .7 for second order and third order constructs when using repeated indicators?
Thanks,
Alex
Hello,
I didn't see an answer to Viswadatta's question above. Do you remove items below .7 for second order and third order constructs when using repeated indicators?
Thanks,
Alex
-
- SmartPLS Developer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
- Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker
Re: Question regarding higher-order factor model
On the higher-order construct where you repeat the indicators, loadings must not be above 0.7. It is not a normal measurement model, but only auxiliary measurement.
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
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
-
- PLS Junior User
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 1:26 pm
- Real name and title: Alexander McLeod, Assistant Professor
Re: Question regarding higher-order factor model
Thanks for the response. To be clear, on 2nd order construct reliability should be less than 0.7 ?
Seems counter intuitive since we always want reliability greater than 0.7 if possible.
We have good reliability on our first order constructs that repeat as indicators for the 2nd order.
When we run PLS, some reliabilities on the 2nd order construct are in .6 range.
Shouldn't these items be removed?
Thanks,
Alex
Seems counter intuitive since we always want reliability greater than 0.7 if possible.
We have good reliability on our first order constructs that repeat as indicators for the 2nd order.
When we run PLS, some reliabilities on the 2nd order construct are in .6 range.
Shouldn't these items be removed?
Thanks,
Alex
-
- SmartPLS Developer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
- Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker
Re: Question regarding higher-order factor model
If you remove items from the first order constructs you remove them also from the second-order (and higher) constructs.
On the first order constructs all normal rules apply (e.g., loadings should be higher than 0.7) and if you need to delete due to these rules you also delete on the SO construct.
However, on the SO constructs loadings need not to be higher than 0.7. They can be higher, but also lower. This does not matter. Decisions for retaining indicators are only made on the first oder constructs and then tranfered to the higher order constructs.
On the first order constructs all normal rules apply (e.g., loadings should be higher than 0.7) and if you need to delete due to these rules you also delete on the SO construct.
However, on the SO constructs loadings need not to be higher than 0.7. They can be higher, but also lower. This does not matter. Decisions for retaining indicators are only made on the first oder constructs and then tranfered to the higher order constructs.
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
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de