Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies

By Clay M. Voorhees, Michael K. Brady, Roger J. Calantone, Edward Ramírez. 2016

1,932 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Marketing, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/526b70b3b844c1cc24150c37ae68d1811917ec1b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Marketing

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Meaningful Mediation Analysis: Plausible Causal Inference and Informative Communication (2017, background): “There are several criteria for discriminant validity (Voorhees et al. 2016).”
Augmented reality in support of Industry 4.0 - Implementation challenges and success factors (2019, background): “A common threshold is 0.5, which means that on average 50% of the variance of a measure explained through the latent variable [111].”
Discriminant Validity: A Comparison of CBSEM and Consistent PLS using Fornell & Larcker and HTMT Approaches (2021, background): “[7] is seemed limited for justification.”
It’s only natural: the mediating impact of consumers’ attribute inferences on the relationships between product claims, perceived product healthfulness, and purchase intentions (2017, background): “This AVE-shared variance comparison has recently been recommended as a standard for publication in marketing (Voorhees et al. 2016).”
ASSESSING REFLECTIVE MODELS IN MARKETING RESEARCH: A COMPARISON BETWEEN PLS AND PLSc ESTIMATES (2018, methodology): “Note, the Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion on assessing discriminant validity still able to perform suboptimal in marketing study (Voorhees et al., 2016), if researcher opt to use the PLSc estimation.”
Linking Managerial Coaching and Leader–Member Exchange on Work Engagement and Performance (2018, methodology): “Maximum shared variance (MSV), average shared variance (ASV) and heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) (Voorhees et al. 2016) were calculated to examine discriminant validity of the measurements.”
How to Measure Generalized Trust in News Media? An Adaptation and Test of Scales (2019, background): “It is then difficult to examine which factor influences another variable (Farrell, 2010) and it might introduce artifacts if two factors measure the same construct (Voorhees et al., 2016).”
The relationship between cultural values, cultural intelligence and negotiation styles (2019, neutral): “However, there are researchers who argue that this criterion related to the AVE is too restrictive and, instead, the AVE should exceed the shared variance (Farrell, 2010; Voorhees, Brady, Calantone, & Ramirez, 2016).”
Emotion Cycles in Services: Emotional Contagion and Emotional Labor Effects (2019, methodology): “Finally, we followed Voorhees et al.’s (2016) suggestion to examine the discriminant validity of the study measures by employing the AVE-SV (i.”