Thank you so much for your sharing, Sir! It helps me a lot! Yet, I met a problem. The Amos software notes that "The model is probably unidentified. In order to achieve identifiability, it will probably be necessary to impose 1 additional constraint." It would be much appreciated if you could answer my question when you are free. Thanks a lot!
Sir, thank you so much for your videos as they have been very helpful. Please I have a question - You noted around the 9th minute that if there is common method bias, then the latent variable should be retained while assessing the structural model - please do you have a video where you have done this? I have a second issue - I have two models, and the CFA ran successfully but the when I introduced the latent variable, one of the models just did not run. I have checked thoroughly and can't find any mistakes... any advise would be appreciated.
I am glad you liked the videos. I am sorry there is no video on that yet. Did you check common method bias using Harman Single Factor Test? Sometimes, if one test is not providing the desired results we can go for another. I take it as an advantage of multiple techniques.
Yes, I did and that gave me better results. But I was thinking the Latent factor was more reliable so I wanted to check using that as well. Thanks again, all your videos have been super helpful
Thanks, sir for the session. My question is; if we have differences between the models' DF = 2 and CMIN is more than 10, it means we have a common bias. So, what is next? Do we need to include the common factor in the SEM. If it is added, the conceptual model will be changed by adding the Common factor which is not conceptually related.
@@researchwithfawad Thanks, Prof. Latif. Should I follow this for reference of Latent Common Method Factor --> Collier, J. E. (2020). Applied structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic to advanced techniques. Routledge? Please confirm.
thank you for this sir. sir i wanna ask, what if we use the composite variable (average of the items) in the structural model, do we need to include common method bias?
@@researchwithfawad thank you for your answer sir. for clarification, we will check and include common method bias if we plan to use the latent variable which include the indicators right? but if we plan to use composite variable, then we dont need to check or include it right?
Assalamu'alaikum Fawad. Thank you for your video. I have a question. I have a research model with 2 IV, 1 Mediator, and 1 DV. I did CFA with those 4 variables and including CLF. And then I want to test H1: X1 --> M --> Y. Should I include X2 as covariance in H1? I find the results are different whether I include or exclude X2. Thank you in advance for your reply.
@@researchwithfawad Thank you Fawad for the clear answer. I wonder if you have and could share any reference or journal article that mentioning this way? I have searched and could not find it. Most articles only mention how to test the whole research model using CLF and not to test the hypothesis after doing CFA with CLF
hello sir, what would I interpret if my results from latent common method factor and original cmin difference comes in negative form like -88. is it correct?
Aoa sir. Hope you are doing well. Thank you so much for helping in data analysis of my thesis.Sir if you have pdf for this book. Kindly share Applied Structural Equation Modeling using AMOS Basic to Advanced Techniques ByJoel Collier 2020
Can you please help with providing a reference that used this method? I'm very confused because of ruclips.net/video/abzt5zTkCxk/видео.html it seems like comparing models WITH common method factor that is not equally constrained is the most accurate?
Thank you for such an easy way to make us understand
It's my pleasure
Interesting method, thank you so much, prof.
Thanks. I am glad you liked it.
MashaAllah sir.
Thanks. I am glad you liked it.
MashaAllah sir je
Thanks. I am glad it was helpful.
Thank you so much for your sharing, Sir! It helps me a lot!
Yet, I met a problem. The Amos software notes that "The model is probably unidentified. In order to achieve identifiability, it will probably be necessary to impose 1 additional constraint."
It would be much appreciated if you could answer my question when you are free.
Thanks a lot!
Oh, I solved this problem. Thank you so much for your attention to this matter.
Glad to hear that. Still want to know more about the issue. Watch this video
ruclips.net/video/-eIwo7Wu4so/видео.html
Sir, thank you so much for your videos as they have been very helpful. Please I have a question - You noted around the 9th minute that if there is common method bias, then the latent variable should be retained while assessing the structural model - please do you have a video where you have done this?
I have a second issue - I have two models, and the CFA ran successfully but the when I introduced the latent variable, one of the models just did not run. I have checked thoroughly and can't find any mistakes... any advise would be appreciated.
I am glad you liked the videos. I am sorry there is no video on that yet.
Did you check common method bias using Harman Single Factor Test? Sometimes, if one test is not providing the desired results we can go for another. I take it as an advantage of multiple techniques.
Yes, I did and that gave me better results. But I was thinking the Latent factor was more reliable so I wanted to check using that as well. Thanks again, all your videos have been super helpful
thanks a lot Dr. Fawad, pleas the difference between qui-square in two models was 21 , is this difference significant?
Please check the video again for significance of differences
Thanks, sir for the session.
My question is; if we have differences between the models' DF = 2 and CMIN is more than 10, it means we have a common bias. So, what is next? Do we need to include the common factor in the SEM. If it is added, the conceptual model will be changed by adding the Common factor which is not conceptually related.
Yes, common latent factor is included. No conceptual framework is not changed. This is analytical that is just conceptual.
@@researchwithfawad Sir, do you have a video demonstrating this situation?
sir, is there any acceptable level of common method bias in case of 5 point likert scale?
Is your difference significant, if so you have a common method bias issue
In the case of higher order construct (HOC), should we add the "common_method" variable in calculating/assessing the CFA of HOC with LOC?
If there is a HOC, you can do it with HOC
@@researchwithfawad Thanks, Prof. Latif. Should I follow this for reference of Latent Common Method Factor --> Collier, J. E. (2020). Applied structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic to advanced techniques. Routledge? Please confirm.
Yes, please.
thank you for this sir. sir i wanna ask, what if we use the composite variable (average of the items) in the structural model, do we need to include common method bias?
Pleasure. No,
@@researchwithfawad thank you for your answer sir. for clarification, we will check and include common method bias if we plan to use the latent variable which include the indicators right? but if we plan to use composite variable, then we dont need to check or include it right?
Yes you can using individual items.
Assalamu'alaikum Fawad. Thank you for your video. I have a question. I have a research model with 2 IV, 1 Mediator, and 1 DV. I did CFA with those 4 variables and including CLF. And then I want to test H1: X1 --> M --> Y. Should I include X2 as covariance in H1? I find the results are different whether I include or exclude X2. Thank you in advance for your reply.
I am glad you liked it. Please do covary the 2 IVs
@@researchwithfawad Thank you Fawad for the clear answer. I wonder if you have and could share any reference or journal article that mentioning this way? I have searched and could not find it. Most articles only mention how to test the whole research model using CLF and not to test the hypothesis after doing CFA with CLF
Refer to the book on AMOS by Joel Collier.
@@researchwithfawad Thank you Fawad, I will check it
Assalamualaikum sir. The difference in chi square should be less than 3.84? My original model value is 329.725 and CMB is 328.814 =0.911
WAS. The value is low. Results are fine.
@@researchwithfawad Common method bias doens't exist right sir for my result? The threshold is 3.84 sir??
hello sir, what would I interpret if my results from latent common method factor and original cmin difference comes in negative form like -88. is it correct?
Check if it is significant or not and report accordingly as in the video.
Aoa sir. Hope you are doing well. Thank you so much for helping in data analysis of my thesis.Sir if you have pdf for this book. Kindly share
Applied Structural Equation Modeling using AMOS
Basic to Advanced Techniques
ByJoel Collier 2020
Thanks for watching. Please buy the book online.
hello sir, plz help me to know why my model is not running and output is not showing up after adding common bias?
Any error message?
@@researchwithfawad no sir
Try to redo it, it must give some kind of error message, check the output text window.
Can you please help with providing a reference that used this method? I'm very confused because of ruclips.net/video/abzt5zTkCxk/видео.html it seems like comparing models WITH common method factor that is not equally constrained is the most accurate?
Please refer to
Collier, J. E. (2020). Applied structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic to advanced techniques. Routledge.
How to do it in smartpls
Please search Common Method Bias in PLS on RUclips.