6. Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis in SmartPLS || Dr. Dhaval Maheta

#sem, #smartpls, #construct, #latent, #model, #cta, #confirmatory, #tetrad
Email: [e-mail]
Twitter: / dhavalmaheta77
LinkedIn: / dhaval-maheta-320200153
Facebook ID: / dhaval.maheta.37
Telegram ID: t.me/DhavalMaheta

[@user-he9og2mx8q]

Dear Professor,
Thank you for your invaluable videos. You mention the 80% rule regarding the decision of whether the construct is formative or reflective. Is there any source for this? Thank you very much!

[@bandungmee]

TQ Dr
This is impressive and easily explained.
However, in my measurement model, only a few constructs were listed in the Table. Is it due to the lower number of indicators? Can we proceed with the CTA-PLS test in this situation, or should the robustness check for the structural model instead?
What should we do if the model was found in a different type? I measured the DV as formative; however, the CTA-PLS output identified it as reflective.
Thanks a lot

[@joelkeats7192]

Sir.. you have used 80% of the combinations as being significant to determine whether it is reflective or not - so anything less than 80% means it is formative?

[@DhavalSaifaleeAaryash]

Yes

[@user-bs7dt1rj9p]

Dear Professor,
I ran a CTA Analysis and found that 4 of 9 cases have p-value less than 0.05, meaning 44% of all combinations and led to a formative model. Is this enough to say that the model had to be formative? I'm asking you because If I am looking at the CI low adj and CI up adj most of the correlations are -+, meaning that the model has to be reflective. Thank you very much!

[@DhavalSaifaleeAaryash]

CTA is not a silver bullet. If literature suggest that your construct is formative. Moreover, the statement nature is of "consequences" then it is reflective but if it is "causes" then it is formative