HTMT2-an improved criterion for assessing discriminant validity in structural equation modeling

PurposeOne popular method to assess discriminant validity in structural equation modeling is the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). However, the HTMT assumes tau-equivalent measurement models, which are unlikely to hold for most empirical studies. To relax this assumption, the authors modify the original HTMT and introduce a new consistent measure for congeneric measurement models: the HTMT2.Design/methodology/approachThe HTMT2 is designed in analogy to the HTMT but relies on the geometric mean instead of the arithmetic mean. A Monte Carlo simulation compares the performance of the HTMT and the HTMT2. In the simulation, several design factors are varied such as loading patterns, sample sizes and inter-construct correlations in order to compare the estimation bias of the two criteria.FindingsThe HTMT2 provides less biased estimations of the correlations among the latent variables compared to the HTMT, in particular if indicators loading patterns are heterogeneous. Consequently, the HTMT2 should be preferred over the HTMT to assess discriminant validity in case of congeneric measurement models.Research limitations/implicationsHowever, the HTMT2 can only be determined if all correlations between involved observable variables are positive.Originality/valueThis paper introduces the HTMT2 as an improved version of the traditional HTMT. Compared to other approaches assessing discriminant validity, the HTMT2 provides two advantages: (1) the ease of its computation, since HTMT2 is only based on the indicator correlations, and (2) the relaxed assumption of tau-equivalence. The authors highly recommend the HTMT2 criterion over the traditional HTMT for assessing discriminant validity in empirical studies.

[1]  M. Sarstedt,et al.  A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling , 2015 .

[2]  Clay M. Voorhees,et al.  Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies , 2016 .

[3]  A. Goldberger,et al.  Estimation of a Model with Multiple Indicators and Multiple Causes of a Single Latent Variable , 1975 .

[4]  Jörg Henseler,et al.  Confirmatory Composite Analysis , 2018, Front. Psychol..

[5]  Daniel M. McNeish,et al.  Psychological Methods Thanks Coefficient Alpha , We ’ ll Take It From Here , 2022 .

[6]  K. Jöreskog Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests , 1971 .

[7]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory: , 1982 .

[8]  Herman Wold,et al.  Soft modelling: The Basic Design and Some Extensions , 1982 .

[9]  M. R. Novick,et al.  Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. , 1971 .

[10]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS , 2014 .

[11]  Gilbert A. Churchill,et al.  Relationships among research design choices and psychometric properties of rating scales: A meta-analysis. , 1986 .

[12]  R. Lennox,et al.  Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. , 1991 .

[13]  K. G. Jöreskog,et al.  Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests , 1971 .

[14]  Klaas Sijtsma,et al.  On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha , 2008, Psychometrika.

[15]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a comparison of four procedures , 2019, Internet Res..

[16]  Miguel I. Aguirre-Urreta,et al.  Statistical Inference with PLSc Using Bootstrap Confidence Intervals , 2018, MIS Q..

[17]  Gilbert A. Churchill,et al.  Relationships among Research Design Choices and Psychometric Properties of Rating Scales: A Meta-Analysis , 1986 .

[18]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  POSITIONING AND PRESENTING DESIGN SCIENCE RESEARCH FOR MAXIMUM IMPACT 1 , 2013 .

[19]  R. Gill,et al.  Conditions for factor (in)determinacy in factor analysis , 1998 .

[20]  F. Drasgow,et al.  The polyserial correlation coefficient , 1982 .

[21]  D. Campbell,et al.  Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. , 1959, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error , 1981 .

[23]  J. Henseler Composite-Based Structural Equation Modeling: Analyzing Latent and Emergent Variables , 2020 .

[24]  Christian Homburg,et al.  The loss of the marketing department’s influence: is it really happening? And why worry? , 2015 .

[25]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[26]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory , 1982 .

[27]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. , 1982 .

[28]  Theo K. Dijkstra,et al.  A Perfect Match Between a Model and a Mode , 2017 .

[29]  Mikko Rönkkö,et al.  An Updated Guideline for Assessing Discriminant Validity , 2020, Organizational Research Methods.

[30]  K. Bollen Multiple indicators: Internal consistency or no necessary relationship? , 1984 .

[31]  H. Winklhofer,et al.  Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development , 2001 .

[32]  Bruno D. Zumbo,et al.  Ordinal Versions of Coefficients Alpha and Theta for Likert Rating Scales , 2007 .

[33]  Wynne W. Chin The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. , 1998 .