Dear Respected Professors,
I am also experiencing a similar issue with HTMT values greater than 0.85.
The HTMT ratio of two of my constructs (attitude and behavioral intention in the TAM model) is around 0.873 (SmartPLS 4).
First, while studying the current progress of PLS SEM, I found the following statement from an article authored by the greatest scholars in this field:
"When the constructs to be compared are conceptually similar (e.g. cognitive and emotional satisfaction), a threshold of 0.90 or even closer to 1 should be used." Reference: Marko Sarstedt, Joseph F. Hair Jr. & Christian M. Ringle (2023) “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet” – retrospective observations and recent advances, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 31:3, 261-275, DOI: 10.1080/10696679.2022.2056488
Second, I also read another article, the authors present a new set of criteria for discriminant validity assessment in variance-based SEM. Reference: Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
“In contrast to the other approaches, the two absolute HTMT.85 and HTMT.90 criteria, as well as HTMTinference, yield sensitivity levels of 95% or higher under all simulation conditions (Table 3). Because of its lower threshold, HTMT.85 slightly outperforms the other two approaches with an average sensitivity rate of 99.90% compared to the 99.45% of HTMT.90 and the 97.01% of HTMTinference. In general, all three HTMT approaches detect discriminant validity issues reliably.”
“The main difference between the HTMT criteria lies in their specificity. Of the three approaches, HTMT.85 is the most conservative criterion, as it achieves the lowest specificity rates of all the simulation conditions. This means that HTMT.85 can pint to discriminant validity problems in research situations in which HTMT.90 and HTMTinference indicate that discriminant validity has been established. In contrast, HTMTinference is the most liberal of the three newly proposed approaches. Even if two constructs are highly, but not perfectly, correlated with values close to 1.0, the criterion is unlikely to indicate a lack of discriminant validity, particularly when (1) the loadings are homogeneous and high or (2) the sample size is large. Owing to its higher threshold, HTMT.90 always has higher specificity rates than HTMT.85.”
“Based on our findings, we strongly recommend drawing on the HTMT criteria for discriminant validity assessment in variance-based SEM. The actual choice of criterion depends on the model set-up and on how conservative the researcher is in his or her assessment of discriminant validity. Take, for example, the technology acceptance model and its variations (Davis 1989; Venkatesh et al. 2003), which include the constructs intention to use and the actual use. Although these constructs are conceptually different, they may be difficult to distinguish empirically in all research settings. Therefore, the choice of a more liberal HTMT criterion in terms of specificity (i.e., HTMT.90 or HTMTinference, depending on the sample size) seems warranted. Conversely, if the strictest standards are followed, this requires HTMT.85 to assess discriminant validity.”
So, can the attitude (A) and behavioral intention (BI) in the TAM model be explained as conceptually highly similar constructions, and to use the HTMT threshold of 0.9? Or use the criteria of HTMTinference to establish discriminant validity? What method should I use to demonstrate and prove the effectiveness of discrimination in a more convincing way. This will be very important for my construct differentiation validity argument.
Thank you.
Regards,
YAN MING
PhD Student, Woosong University, Republic of Kore