HOC - 2-stage approach - weighting scheme/CTA
Posted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:01 am
Hello,
in my model I have got 4 HOCs as independent variables consisting each of 2 LOCs. The HCM is a reflective-formative construct (mode A). In the newst book (Advanced issues in PLS-SEM) a factor weighting scheme is recommended. I am using the 2-stage approach, combining the repeated indicators approach (RIA) with an analysis of latent variable scores (Hair, Joe, Jr.. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling). However, the recommendation of using the factor weighting scheme is mentioned in the context of RIA.
Do I need to use the factor weighting scheme also for the settings in second stage (i.e. in the PLS-analysis with the latent variable scores)? I have not found any comment on that so far. I guess to use the same setting (weighting scheme) to be consistent, correct?
Next, I thought about checking the reflective-formative construct with a CTA. Can I do that although I have got only 2 LOCs for each HOC? In the new book at least 4 indicators are mentioned as minimum requirement. On the other hand I have found a similar model constellation (2 LOC for one HOC) in the study of Klarner, Sarstedt, Hoeck and Ringle (2013) in which a CTA was also conducted. However, I guess this CTA was rather checking the Mode A for the HOC than the formative relationship between the 2 LOCs and the HOC.
Can I conduct the CTA for checking the formative nature of the LOC-HOC relationship in SmartPLS3?
Above that also a different weighting scheme (path weight) is proposed for conducting the CTA in the new book. I guess I need to calculate the CTA separately (another time) with the path weighting scheme and not the factor weighting scheme, correct?
Thank you so much for any advise.
Christian
in my model I have got 4 HOCs as independent variables consisting each of 2 LOCs. The HCM is a reflective-formative construct (mode A). In the newst book (Advanced issues in PLS-SEM) a factor weighting scheme is recommended. I am using the 2-stage approach, combining the repeated indicators approach (RIA) with an analysis of latent variable scores (Hair, Joe, Jr.. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling). However, the recommendation of using the factor weighting scheme is mentioned in the context of RIA.
Do I need to use the factor weighting scheme also for the settings in second stage (i.e. in the PLS-analysis with the latent variable scores)? I have not found any comment on that so far. I guess to use the same setting (weighting scheme) to be consistent, correct?
Next, I thought about checking the reflective-formative construct with a CTA. Can I do that although I have got only 2 LOCs for each HOC? In the new book at least 4 indicators are mentioned as minimum requirement. On the other hand I have found a similar model constellation (2 LOC for one HOC) in the study of Klarner, Sarstedt, Hoeck and Ringle (2013) in which a CTA was also conducted. However, I guess this CTA was rather checking the Mode A for the HOC than the formative relationship between the 2 LOCs and the HOC.
Can I conduct the CTA for checking the formative nature of the LOC-HOC relationship in SmartPLS3?
Above that also a different weighting scheme (path weight) is proposed for conducting the CTA in the new book. I guess I need to calculate the CTA separately (another time) with the path weighting scheme and not the factor weighting scheme, correct?
Thank you so much for any advise.
Christian