Discriminant Validity: HTMT of Higher Order Constructs

Questions about the implementation and application of the PLS-SEM method, that are not related to the usage of the SmartPLS software.
Post Reply
I.M.S.H
PLS Junior User
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:21 am
Real name and title: ShuHan Tan

Discriminant Validity: HTMT of Higher Order Constructs

Post by I.M.S.H »

Hello everyone,

I have several higher order constructs (all reflectively measured) in my model. One of the HOCs is Psychological Involvement (PI) that has Emotional Contagion (EC) and Mutual Understanding (MU) as LOCs. When examining the HTMT of lower order constructs, EC and MU have established discriminant validity with all other latent variables in the model, including Interaction with Other Users (IO).

However, when I tried to access the HTMT of (PI, IO), the HTMT value is >0.90 May I know what are the possible reasons for this issue? I wish I can get some insights regarding this issue. And may I know in this case, can I still say that PI has established discriminant validity?

Best regards,
S.H.
jmbecker
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 1281
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

Re: Discriminant Validity: HTMT of Higher Order Constructs

Post by jmbecker »

Have you calculated the HTMT for the higher order construct PI correctly? You cannot use the numbers from SmartPLS but have to calculate this by hand if you use the repeated indicator approach: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... in_PLS-SEM
Dr. Jan-Michael Becker, BI Norwegian Business School, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
I.M.S.H
PLS Junior User
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:21 am
Real name and title: ShuHan Tan

Re: Discriminant Validity: HTMT of Higher Order Constructs

Post by I.M.S.H »

jmbecker wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:39 am Have you calculated the HTMT for the higher order construct PI correctly? You cannot use the numbers from SmartPLS but have to calculate this by hand if you use the repeated indicator approach: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... in_PLS-SEM
Yes I manually calculated the HTMT for all higher order constructs in my model following the guidelines in “How to specify, estimate and validate HOC in PLS SEM”, and I have checked several times to ensure the accuracy of the manual calculation of HTMT.
jmbecker
SmartPLS Developer
Posts: 1281
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker

Re: Discriminant Validity: HTMT of Higher Order Constructs

Post by jmbecker »

If course you can find that lower-order constructs individually show discriminant validity, while the higher-order construct does not.
The higher-order construct is a separate own measurement concept and the combination of items (in this case lower-order components) might be quite similar to a different concept (not showing enough discrimination), while all individual items (lower-order components) are not similar enough to invalidate discriminant validity.

As discriminant validity makes only sense for reflective higher-order constructs and the fact that there is some criticism about reflective higher-order constructs (are they really useful?). You may also think about whether it is necessary to model the concept as a higher-order construct or whether it is more meaningful to investigate the single constructs (lower-order components) separately.
Dr. Jan-Michael Becker, BI Norwegian Business School, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
Post Reply