Thank you very much. Please tell me. Can i test these tow types of validity by testing the correlation between each item and its construct and between the constructs? Hope my question is clear.
Checking the Convergent and Discriminant validity through Correlation matrix is for the initial stage only right ? How do you differentiate this method through, Average Variants extracted through factor analysis and the Composite Reliability method ? Or through CFA method ?
Definitely this will be an initial analysis. We should calculate AVE or assess data for FL condition too. You may visit this video on link below. ua-cam.com/video/-sHrebIWxBU/v-deo.htmlsi=3GhzNUKh3wUzXu7g
Many thanks for your video , can you please explain how we report this in a written manner ( to publish it in a scientific Journal ). Should we do the PCA for each measure scale alone ? or for all the scales in the same time and how we interpreted the results of the PCA ?
PLEASE, Is exploratory factor analysis the same as convergent and discriminant validity? I am a little bit confused. Thanks in advance for your reply. Should we do both convergent and discriminant validity, construct validity using EFA in one study?
Your video is really good,,,,You explained that the values should be between 0.3 and 0.7,,,,for discriminate you said it should be below...can you pls tell the reference
Thanks, Komal. This explanation is based on two references. 1. John, O. P., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Measurement: reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 339-369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This study stipulates that correlation items within the construct should be greater than outside the construct. 2. Ratner, B. The correlation coefficient: Its values range between +1/−1, or do they?. J Target Meas Anal Mark 17, 139-142 (2009). doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.5 Values between 0.3 and 0.7 (-0.3 and −0.7) indicate a moderate positive (negative) linear relationship.
ua-cam.com/video/uA9b79Yu--c/v-deo.html I have calculated the HTMT ratios based on these correlations in this video based on the following reference. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115-135 (2015). doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Is the validity also affected by the size of sample? I use the sample size of 30 and it shows less correlation among several indicators in some variables.
Hello, thank you for the video. I have a question. I saw your another video, it explains how to assessing discriminant validity using HTMT or Fornell-Larcker. Are we just choose one between this method, HTMT, or Fornell-Lacker? Or, is there some condition when we can use this or that? Can I just use this method for assessing convergent and discriminant validity? Thank you in advance.
Fornell Larcker condition was developed first. Later, in 2015, HTMT ratios approaxh emeregd and refuted the use of Fornell Larcker. However, some journals might requie one particular assessment.
@@shafacindanusabila5229 This is still a valid approach. The HTMT ratio assessment is an advancement in the approach of assessing the correlation of items within a construct and outside the construct. John, O. P., and Benet-Martínez, V. (2000) proposed comparing items correlation of the items. Later, Henseler et al. (2015) developed the HTMT ratio which is basically a ratio between the correlation of items within the construct and the correlation of items with the items of other constructs. John, O. P., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Measurement: reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 339-369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115-135 (2015). doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
@@shafacindanusabila5229 Probably, you can first write an interpretation of Fornell Larcker's condition. Then, compare the correlation of items. Finally, close with HTMT ratios.
Best and simplified explanation l have watched so far. Thank you 😊
I am humbled by your kind word
Jamaica here. This is a most excellent presentation.
Thank you very much. Please tell me. Can i test these tow types of validity by testing the correlation between each item and its construct and between the constructs? Hope my question is clear.
@@noonatatao687 Thanks for your question. You will need to calculate correlation among the items for convergent and discriminant validity.
Checking the Convergent and Discriminant validity through Correlation matrix is for the initial stage only right ? How do you differentiate this method through, Average Variants extracted through factor analysis and the Composite Reliability method ? Or through CFA method ?
Definitely this will be an initial analysis. We should calculate AVE or assess data for FL condition too. You may visit this video on link below.
ua-cam.com/video/-sHrebIWxBU/v-deo.htmlsi=3GhzNUKh3wUzXu7g
Many thanks for your video , can you please explain how we report this in a written manner ( to publish it in a scientific Journal ). Should we do the PCA for each measure scale alone ? or for all the scales in the same time and how we interpreted the results of the PCA ?
thank you so much for your kind words. I will share a link to the written interpretation soon.
@@educationalinsightskarachi4969 many thanks it's much appreciated
Hi, any specific reason for selecting "one-tailed"; what if we choose to do it with two tailed? Regards
would love to know as well
We use one-tailed when testing directional hypotheses
very informative👍
PLEASE, Is exploratory factor analysis the same as convergent and discriminant validity? I am a little bit confused. Thanks in advance for your reply. Should we do both convergent and discriminant validity, construct validity using EFA in one study?
Convergent and discriminant validity is a part of CFA. You may use it after EFA as a part of CFA.
Your video is really good,,,,You explained that the values should be between 0.3 and 0.7,,,,for discriminate you said it should be below...can you pls tell the reference
Thanks, Komal. This explanation is based on two references.
1. John, O. P., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Measurement: reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 339-369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This study stipulates that correlation items within the construct should be greater than outside the construct.
2. Ratner, B. The correlation coefficient: Its values range between +1/−1, or do they?. J Target Meas Anal Mark 17, 139-142 (2009). doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.5
Values between 0.3 and 0.7 (-0.3 and −0.7) indicate a moderate positive (negative) linear relationship.
ua-cam.com/video/uA9b79Yu--c/v-deo.html
I have calculated the HTMT ratios based on these correlations in this video based on the following reference.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115-135 (2015). doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Follow up video is needed on reporting findings. The actual report.
Thanks for your suggestion. I definitely do it soon
ua-cam.com/video/uA9b79Yu--c/v-deo.html
I guess you would like this video on HTMT ratios for the assessment of discriminant validity.
Is the validity also affected by the size of sample? I use the sample size of 30 and it shows less correlation among several indicators in some variables.
It is slightly improved. But it is mainly affected by wording of questions
Hello, thank you for the video. I have a question. I saw your another video, it explains how to assessing discriminant validity using HTMT or Fornell-Larcker. Are we just choose one between this method, HTMT, or Fornell-Lacker? Or, is there some condition when we can use this or that? Can I just use this method for assessing convergent and discriminant validity? Thank you in advance.
Fornell Larcker condition was developed first. Later, in 2015, HTMT ratios approaxh emeregd and refuted the use of Fornell Larcker. However, some journals might requie one particular assessment.
@@educationalinsightskarachi4969 what about using the pearson's correlation?
@@shafacindanusabila5229 This is still a valid approach. The HTMT ratio assessment is an advancement in the approach of assessing the correlation of items within a construct and outside the construct. John, O. P., and Benet-Martínez, V. (2000) proposed comparing items correlation of the items. Later, Henseler et al. (2015) developed the HTMT ratio which is basically a ratio between the correlation of items within the construct and the correlation of items with the items of other constructs.
John, O. P., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Measurement: reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 339-369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115-135 (2015). doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
@@shafacindanusabila5229 Probably, you can first write an interpretation of Fornell Larcker's condition. Then, compare the correlation of items. Finally, close with HTMT ratios.
nice
Thanks
Thanks but the video lacks clarity
I will enhance video quality in future