PLS model for assessing common method bias

Pull model with latent enminno method variance factor 

Construct Indicator indicator T-value indicator T-value Ac factor T-value Am  

In order to evaluate the measurement (outer) model, different criteria for reflective and formative constructs are applicable (Hair et al. 2011a). I will thus assess reliability and validity separately for both types of specification. 

Reflective constructs in PLS analysis need to be evaluated with respect to their Indicator reliability, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Hair et al. 2011a Hair et al. 2011b). 

Convei nt validity describes the extent to which extent the items convei e on their theoretical construct (Campbell and Fiske 1959). In PLS, convergent validity is measured via the average variance extracted, which should be higher than 0,5 to fulfill the criterion (Hair et aL 2011b). Average variance extracted measures the extent to which the average variance of the indicators is explained by its theoretic construct (Fomell and Larcker 1981). As indicated in Table 12 and Table 14, all the reflective constructs used are substantially above the cutoff value of 0,5, and convergent validity is established. 

---

Figure 11 PLS model for assessing common method bias This procedure has been first suggested by Liang et al. (2007), and has also been employed by others (e.g. Herath and Rao 2009). Use experience is originally a formative constructs, but has to be specified reflectively in order to being able to interpret the results for this test I compared two versions of the theoretic model, which only differed in the specification of the latent construct use experience (formative vs. reflective) (cf. Herath and Rao 2009 Liang et al. 2007). There were no qualitative differences between the two models. Thus both indicators of use experience were specified as reflective...

---