Formative Indicators: NegativeWeight&/Loadings - How to interpret?
341 views
Skip to first unread message
Rob DiBob
May 7, 2017, 7:45:29 AM5/7/17
to PLS-SEM
Hello,
I am evaluating a SEM with 3 formative constructs which are supposed to show me their effect on a single reflective construct with two indicators.
Regarding the reflective construct I checked for consistency reliability (Composite reliability) and convergent validity (Average Variance Extracted, Outer Loadings). The commonly in the context of reflective constructs conducted discriminant validity evaluation, is not necessary since only one reflective construct is given, right? Is an assessment of Q^2 necessary/possible when there is only 1 reflective goal construct?
Coming to my main question regarding the formative constructs:
Some indicators show a negative weight and/or a negative Loading (attachment: marked in yellow).
The items are coded correctly and the VIFs are all below 1.8, so there should be no problem with collinearity issues, right?
Since the formative indicator weights are all significant, can i interpret the results in a way as that they all contribute negative to the respective constructs?
It would be great if you could give me some advice how to ensure a correct interpretation of my results!
thank you in advance for your efforts!
Kind regards
RobDiBob
I am evaluating a SEM with 3 formative constructs which are supposed to show me their effect on a single reflective construct with two indicators.
Regarding the reflective construct I checked for consistency reliability (Composite reliability) and convergent validity (Average Variance Extracted, Outer Loadings). The commonly in the context of reflective constructs conducted discriminant validity evaluation, is not necessary since only one reflective construct is given, right? Is an assessment of Q^2 necessary/possible when there is only 1 reflective goal construct?
Coming to my main question regarding the formative constructs:
Some indicators show a negative weight and/or a negative Loading (attachment: marked in yellow).
The items are coded correctly and the VIFs are all below 1.8, so there should be no problem with collinearity issues, right?
Since the formative indicator weights are all significant, can i interpret the results in a way as that they all contribute negative to the respective constructs?
It would be great if you could give me some advice how to ensure a correct interpretation of my results!
thank you in advance for your efforts!
Kind regards
RobDiBob
Ned Kock
May 7, 2017, 9:54:27 AM5/7/17
to pls...@googlegroups.com
Hi Rob. You may want to look at the post "The formative-reflective measurement dichotomy":
http://warppls.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-formative-reflective-measurement.html
The linked article discusses negative weights and indicator-construct links with instances of Simpson's paradox.
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
|
Message has been deleted
Rob DiBob
May 7, 2017, 11:03:56 AM5/7/17
to PLS-SEM
Am Sonntag, 7. Mai 2017 16:52:49 UTC+2 schrieb Rob DiBob:
Hi Ned,
thank you for the link to your paper. Unfortunately I am a newbie to the field of SEM and since english is not my mother tongue it is quite hard to follow the content of your certainly valuable paper. Would you mind giving me a quick step-by-step introduction on what to do in order to provide substantiated results and how to interpret the loadings/weights?
Thank you in advance for your help!
Kind regards from germany
Rob
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages