Abstract
Various social sciences researchers have always debated the operationalisation of formative or a reflective measurement in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). This paper aims to offer guidance on formative and reflective measurement model assessment in PLS-SEM. First, this paper explores and discuss the similarities and differences between the formative and reflective measurement model. Next, this paper reviews the practice of measurement model assessment for formative and reflective construct based on the latest methodological background. Finally, this paper proposes a set of guidelines in classifying the formative and reflective constructs and the steps in assessing the formative and reflective measurement model. This paper addresses the issue of measurement misspecification in PLS-SEM assessment by providing logical guidelines for researchers. This paper also helps to explain and suggest appropriate PLS-SEM assessment for researchers as they plan future research projects.
Highlights
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) is a second-generation data analysis technique in the family of structural equation modelling ([1]; [2])
This paper reviews the practice of measurement model assessment for formative and reflective construct based on the latest methodological background
This paper proposes a set of guidelines in classifying the formative and reflective constructs and the steps in assessing the formative and reflective measurement model
Summary
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) is a second-generation data analysis technique in the family of structural equation modelling ([1]; [2]). Measurement model; PLS-SEM; structural equation modelling; formative; reflective. PLS-SEM involves a two-step approach which revolves around the estimation of the measurement model right before an analysis is done for the structural model. It is known as an iterative algorithm which has the ability in separately solving out the blocks of the measurement model and later estimates the path coefficients in the structural model. The use of reflective indicators is interchangeable, and to a certain extent, it can even be removed Another critical differentiation between the two models is whether the measurement items possess any correlation. In reference to the formative model, all measurement items are not necessary to appear having a high correlation, while the reflective model stipulates that there is a need for all measurement items to be highly correlated
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Analysis and Applications
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
