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

Clay M. Voorhees (), Michael K. Brady (), Roger Calantone () and Edward Ramirez ()
Additional contact information
Clay M. Voorhees: Michigan State University
Michael K. Brady: Florida State University
Roger Calantone: Michigan State University
Edward Ramirez: University of Texas at El Paso

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2016, vol. 44, issue 1, No 8, 119-134

Abstract: Abstract The results of this research suggest a new mandate for discriminant validity testing in marketing. Specifically, the authors demonstrate that the AVE-SV comparison (Fornell and Larcker 1981) and HTMT ratio (Henseler et al. 2015) with 0.85 cutoff provide the best assessment of discriminant validity and should be the standard for publication in marketing. These conclusions are based on a thorough assessment of the literature and the results of a Monte Carlo simulation. First, based on a content analysis of articles published in seven leading marketing journals from 1996 to 2012, the authors demonstrate that three tests—the constrained phi (Jöreskog 1971), AVE-SV (Fornell and Larcker 1981), and overlapping confidence intervals (Anderson and Gerbing 1988)—are by far most common. Further review reveals that (1) more than 20% of survey-based and over 80% of non-survey-based marketing studies fail to document tests for discriminant validity, (2) there is wide variance across journals and research streams in terms of whether discriminant validity tests are performed, (3) conclusions have already been drawn about the relative stringency of the three most common methods, and (4) the method that is generally perceived to be most generous is being consistently misapplied in a way that erodes its stringency. Second, a Monte Carlo simulation is conducted to assess the relative rigor of the three most common tests, as well as an emerging technique (HTMT). Results reveal that (1) on average, the four discriminant validity testing methods detect violations approximately 50% of the time, (2) the constrained phi and overlapping confidence interval approaches perform very poorly in detecting violations whereas the AVE-SV test and HTMT (with a ratio cutoff of 0.85) methods perform well, and (3) the HTMT.85 method offers the best balance between high detection and low arbitrary violation (i.e., false positive) rates.

Keywords: Discriminant validity; Theory testing; Monte Carlo simulation; Measurement; Structural equation modeling; Survey research; PLS; PLS-SEM; HTMT; Heterotrait-monotrait (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (241)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:joamsc:v:44:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11747-015-0455-4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.springer ... gement/journal/11747

DOI: 10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science is currently edited by John Hulland, Anne Hoekman and Mark Houston

More articles in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().