3rd-order HOC with formatively 1st- & 2nd order constructs
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:32 am
Hi,
I am unsure about modeling, estimating, and testing a third-order construct made up of formatively measured first- and second-order constructs with SmartPLS.
The most current guidelines by Van Riel et al. (2017) do not cover this type of hierarchical constructs yet and in Ringle et al. (2012) the repeated indicators approach or even a mixture of the repeated indicators approach and the use of latent variable scores in a two-stage approach is recommended (for second-order constructs!).
Actually, I intented to follow the approach by James Gaskin presented in the video "SmartPLS 3 2nd and 3rd order factors using the repeated indicator approach" (https://youtu.be/LRND-H-hQQw). But when I noticed a caution by Jörg Henseler not to follow this approach, I became uncertain about it. However, in his comment on this video he argues that the approach yields inconsistent estimates if the first-order constructs are reflective. But in my case, they are NOT (but formative)! So, the approach might work for me?
My model comprises 1 formative HOC ("Kohärenz") on 3rd order, 2 formative HOCs (V.K. & H.K.) on 2nd order, with 3 formative LOCs each (FW, FD, BW and FW-FD, FW-BW, FD-BW) on 1st order with 2-3 formative indicators (see PLS screenshot attached, already with repeated indicators approach).
I would highly appreciate any support about this question!
Kind regards,
Jan
-----------------------------------------
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012), “Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. iii-xiv.
van Riel, Allard C. R. van; Henseler, Jörg; Kemény, Ildikó; Sasovova, Zuzana (2017). Estimating hierarchical constructs using consistent partial least squares: The case of second-order composites of common factors. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117 (3), 459-477.
I am unsure about modeling, estimating, and testing a third-order construct made up of formatively measured first- and second-order constructs with SmartPLS.
The most current guidelines by Van Riel et al. (2017) do not cover this type of hierarchical constructs yet and in Ringle et al. (2012) the repeated indicators approach or even a mixture of the repeated indicators approach and the use of latent variable scores in a two-stage approach is recommended (for second-order constructs!).
Actually, I intented to follow the approach by James Gaskin presented in the video "SmartPLS 3 2nd and 3rd order factors using the repeated indicator approach" (https://youtu.be/LRND-H-hQQw). But when I noticed a caution by Jörg Henseler not to follow this approach, I became uncertain about it. However, in his comment on this video he argues that the approach yields inconsistent estimates if the first-order constructs are reflective. But in my case, they are NOT (but formative)! So, the approach might work for me?
My model comprises 1 formative HOC ("Kohärenz") on 3rd order, 2 formative HOCs (V.K. & H.K.) on 2nd order, with 3 formative LOCs each (FW, FD, BW and FW-FD, FW-BW, FD-BW) on 1st order with 2-3 formative indicators (see PLS screenshot attached, already with repeated indicators approach).
I would highly appreciate any support about this question!
Kind regards,
Jan
-----------------------------------------
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012), “Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. iii-xiv.
van Riel, Allard C. R. van; Henseler, Jörg; Kemény, Ildikó; Sasovova, Zuzana (2017). Estimating hierarchical constructs using consistent partial least squares: The case of second-order composites of common factors. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117 (3), 459-477.