Higher-Order PLS-PM Approach for Different Types of Constructs
- PDF / 1,297,415 Bytes
- 30 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 20 Downloads / 197 Views
Higher‑Order PLS‑PM Approach for Different Types of Constructs Corrado Crocetta1 · Laura Antonucci1 · Rosanna Cataldo2 · Roberto Galasso2 · Maria Gabriella Grassia2 · Carlo Natale Lauro3 · Marina Marino2 Accepted: 13 November 2020 © The Author(s) 2020
Abstract Partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM) has become very popular in recent years, for measuring concepts that depend on different aspects and that are based on different types of relationships. PLS-PM represents a useful tool to explore relationships and to analyze the influence of the different aspects on the complex phenomenon analyzed. In particular, the use of higher-order constructs has allowed researchers to extend the application of PLS-PM to more advanced and complex models. In this work, our attention is focused on higher-order constructs that include reflective or formative relationships. Even if the dispute between formative models and reflective models is not exactly recent, it is still alive in current literature, for the most part within the context of structural equation models. This paper focuses attention on theoretical and mathematical differences between formative and reflective measurement models within the context of the PLS-PM approach. A simulation study is proposed in order to show how these approaches fit well in different modeling situations. The approaches have been compared using empirical application in a sustainability context. The findings from the simulation and the empirical application can help researchers to estimate and to use the higher-order PLS-PM approach in reflective and formative type models. Keywords Partial least squares-path modeling · Higher-order constructs · Formative constructs · Reflective constructs
1 Introduction Over the last 30 years, many researchers have focused their attention on measuring the importance of constructs and the nature of the relationships between constructs. The focus of their scientific works, regarding reflective and formative relationships, has been primarily on identification and estimation issues (Blalock 1982; Bollen and Lennox 1991). The choice between formative or reflective models has enjoyed increasing attention in the literature of the recent years (Andreev et al. 2009; Diamantopoulos et al. 2008; Coltman et al. * Corrado Crocetta [email protected] Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
C. Crocetta et al.
2008; Jarvis et al. 2003; MacKenzie et al. 2005; Petter et al. 2007). As Howell et al. (2007) write, “the works of Bollen and Lennox (1991), MacCallum and Browne MacCallum and Browne (1993), Edwards and Bagozzi (2000) and Bollen and Ting (2000) have given conceptual and methodological tools to deal with observable formative and reflective indicators. [...] Researchers in a number of disciplines are now opting to depart from the dominant reflective measurement tradition in the social sciences, choosing instead to develop and use formative measures. Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer (2001) presented guideline
Data Loading...
