What are the latest guidelines for hierarchical latent variables?

Please post your suggestions for PLS related literature.
Post Reply
msaradhi
PLS Junior User
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:16 am
Real name and title: Saradhi Motamarri (Mr)

What are the latest guidelines for hierarchical latent variables?

Post by msaradhi » Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:32 pm

Hi,
I am reading Becker et al. (2012) paper, "Hierarchical Latent Variable Models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for Using Reflective-Formative Type Models', and Lee and Cardogan's (2013) paper 'Problems with formative and higher-order reflective variables'.

Are there any new guidelines since these publications?
1. Are Reflective-Reflective Models acceptable?
2. If so, what are the reporting guidelines for such models?
Is AVE computed by SmartPLS-3 incorrect and need to manually calculate it based on path coefficients?
3. What is the recommended approach in SmartPLS-3?

Thank you in advance.
Regards, Saradhi.

Syed Rahman
PLS Junior User
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:47 pm
Real name and title: Dr Syed Mahmudur Rahman
Contact:

Re: What are the latest guidelines for hierarchical latent variables?

Post by Syed Rahman » Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:53 pm

This latest article with both reflective-reflective and reflective-formative hierarchical measurement models can be helpful https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102252. The SmartPLS results reporting style in this article is excellent. For example, it follows the guideline in the SmartPLS primer book for interpreting the results. Section 4 of this article discusses how to validate higher-order models or hierarchical component models (HCMs) or higher-order constructs. Section 4.1.3 and the appendix discuss how to report multigroup analysis using SmartPLS (PLS-MGA). The article also discusses global fit analysis using SmartPLS with data from two different countries. You can follow this article for reporting confirmatory tetrad analysis (CTA-PLS in SmartPLS) and mediation tests using SmartPLS.

Post Reply