Hi Shan,
FORNELL, C.; LARCKER, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, v.18, p.39-50. http://skylab.mbaedu.cn/PMH/Data/article-8.pdf
HENSELER, J.; RINGLE, C. M.; SINKOVICS, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in International Marketing. Advances in International Marketing, v.20, p.277-319. http://php.portals.mbs.ac.uk/Portals/49 ... cs-PLS.pdf
Hi Brisbane,
What happen if the outer loadings for INDICATORS are below 0.7?
Outer loading below .7 --> some possible consequences are:
[1] --> AVE below .5 (problem with the convergent validity) --> squared root of AVE < correlations between LV --> (problem with discriminant validity)
[2] --> composite reliability < .7 --> (problem with reliability)
What was the problem actually?, it is caused by most of responses across constructs are 1,2,3 , which group as Strongly Disagree etc..In fact this could be the cause, but the content of this indicator related to the others indicators and the constitutive definition of the LV was Ok?
Did you have done some pretest (content validity and face validity)?
See
Netemeyer, R. G.; Bearden, W. O.; Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling Procedures: issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hi Ali,
It was explained above.
If we remove the worst indicators (low outer loadings – below .7) the AVE and reliability will increase, but we must remember two issues:
- The remain indicators kept the meaning of the LV (content validity)?
- The initial idea was confirmatory? If you want to keep a confirmatory status for your model, you should have a second sample to validate the model that was adjusted to the data in the first run.
Best regards,
Bido
loadings value
-
- PLS Senior User
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:38 am
- Real name and title:
Prof Bido,
Thank you for your simple and easy to understand explanation.
Yes, the pilot-test have been done using 43 respondents, for face validity test . The results show that it's OK.
What happen in the data analysis part, it seems that all indicators should be dropped if below the loadings below than 0.7. However, if I use 0.4 (Hulland,1999), it should be OK.
Thanks
Thank you for your simple and easy to understand explanation.
Yes, the pilot-test have been done using 43 respondents, for face validity test . The results show that it's OK.
What happen in the data analysis part, it seems that all indicators should be dropped if below the loadings below than 0.7. However, if I use 0.4 (Hulland,1999), it should be OK.
Thanks
-
- PLS Junior User
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:07 am
- Real name and title: Reem Ayouby, Ph.D.
- Contact:
Outer Loadings for Formative LV
Hello Professor Bido,
Do the rules you stated so kindly above change for Formative LV?
Regards,
Reem
Do the rules you stated so kindly above change for Formative LV?
Regards,
Reem
Reem Ayouby, Ph.D.
reemayouby.com
reemayouby.com
- Diogenes
- PLS Super-Expert
- Posts: 899
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:13 pm
- Real name and title:
- Location: São Paulo - BRAZIL
- Contact:
Hi,
In the formative model we do not expect that the indicators were correlated, for this reason, AVE, outer loading, and composite reliability are not used to assess the validity and reliabity.
See the Journal of Business ReviewVolume 61, Issue 12, December 2008
Formative Indicators – (special issue with 10 articles)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.009
Best regards,
Bido
In the formative model we do not expect that the indicators were correlated, for this reason, AVE, outer loading, and composite reliability are not used to assess the validity and reliabity.
See the Journal of Business ReviewVolume 61, Issue 12, December 2008
Formative Indicators – (special issue with 10 articles)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.009
Best regards,
Bido