The Experts below are selected from a list of 261 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
A Sowell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Indexes of food and nutrient intakes as predictors of serum concentrations of nutrients: the problem of inadequate Discriminant Validity. The Polyp Prevention Trial Study Group.
The American journal of clinical nutrition, 1997Co-Authors: J R Marshall, A Bloch, B Caan, A Caggiula, S Quandt, W Kikendall, E Lanza, M Slattery, Frank Iber, A SowellAbstract:Nutrient indexes derived from food-frequency questionnaires have generally been regarded as acceptably valid for epidemiologic purposes. Evaluations of these indexes, however, have considered only their convergent Validity. We suggest that Discriminant Validity, or the ability to distinguish among exposures to different nutrients, is also important. Using baseline data from a large clinical trial, we tested the Discriminant Validity of indexes of intake of vitamin E, alpha-carotene, and beta-carotene. Our results suggest that the vitamin E index possesses neither convergent not Discriminant Validity, the alpha-carotene index adequate convergent and Discriminant Validity, and the beta-carotene index adequate convergent but no Discriminant Validity.
-
Indexes of food and nutrient intakes as predictors of serum concentrations of nutrients: The problem of inadequate Discriminant Validity
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1997Co-Authors: J R Marshall, A Bloch, B Caan, A Caggiula, S Quandt, W Kikendall, E Lanza, Frank Iber, Martha L. Slattery, A SowellAbstract:Nutrient indexes derived from food-frequency questionnaires have generally been regarded as acceptably valid for epidemiologic purposes. Evaluations of these indexes, however, have considered only their convergent Validity. We suggest that Discriminant Validity, or the ability to distinguish among exposures to different nutrients, is also important. Using baseline data from a large clinical trial, we tested the Discriminant Validity of indexes of intake of vitamin E, α-carotene, and β-carotene. Our results suggest that the vitamin E index possesses neither convergent nor Discriminant Validity, the α-carotene index adequate convergent and Discriminant Validity, and the β-carotene index adequate convergent but no Discriminant Validity.
Edward Ramirez - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Discriminant Validity testing in marketing an analysis causes for concern and proposed remedies
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2016Co-Authors: Clay M Voorhees, Michael K Brady, Roger J Calantone, Edward RamirezAbstract: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 (Joreskog 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.
-
Discriminant Validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2015Co-Authors: Clay M Voorhees, Michael K Brady, Roger J Calantone, Edward RamirezAbstract: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 (Joreskog 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.
J R Marshall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Indexes of food and nutrient intakes as predictors of serum concentrations of nutrients: the problem of inadequate Discriminant Validity. The Polyp Prevention Trial Study Group.
The American journal of clinical nutrition, 1997Co-Authors: J R Marshall, A Bloch, B Caan, A Caggiula, S Quandt, W Kikendall, E Lanza, M Slattery, Frank Iber, A SowellAbstract:Nutrient indexes derived from food-frequency questionnaires have generally been regarded as acceptably valid for epidemiologic purposes. Evaluations of these indexes, however, have considered only their convergent Validity. We suggest that Discriminant Validity, or the ability to distinguish among exposures to different nutrients, is also important. Using baseline data from a large clinical trial, we tested the Discriminant Validity of indexes of intake of vitamin E, alpha-carotene, and beta-carotene. Our results suggest that the vitamin E index possesses neither convergent not Discriminant Validity, the alpha-carotene index adequate convergent and Discriminant Validity, and the beta-carotene index adequate convergent but no Discriminant Validity.
-
Indexes of food and nutrient intakes as predictors of serum concentrations of nutrients: The problem of inadequate Discriminant Validity
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1997Co-Authors: J R Marshall, A Bloch, B Caan, A Caggiula, S Quandt, W Kikendall, E Lanza, Frank Iber, Martha L. Slattery, A SowellAbstract:Nutrient indexes derived from food-frequency questionnaires have generally been regarded as acceptably valid for epidemiologic purposes. Evaluations of these indexes, however, have considered only their convergent Validity. We suggest that Discriminant Validity, or the ability to distinguish among exposures to different nutrients, is also important. Using baseline data from a large clinical trial, we tested the Discriminant Validity of indexes of intake of vitamin E, α-carotene, and β-carotene. Our results suggest that the vitamin E index possesses neither convergent nor Discriminant Validity, the α-carotene index adequate convergent and Discriminant Validity, and the β-carotene index adequate convergent but no Discriminant Validity.
Clay M Voorhees - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Discriminant Validity testing in marketing an analysis causes for concern and proposed remedies
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2016Co-Authors: Clay M Voorhees, Michael K Brady, Roger J Calantone, Edward RamirezAbstract: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 (Joreskog 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.
-
Discriminant Validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2015Co-Authors: Clay M Voorhees, Michael K Brady, Roger J Calantone, Edward RamirezAbstract: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 (Joreskog 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.
E Lanza - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Indexes of food and nutrient intakes as predictors of serum concentrations of nutrients: the problem of inadequate Discriminant Validity. The Polyp Prevention Trial Study Group.
The American journal of clinical nutrition, 1997Co-Authors: J R Marshall, A Bloch, B Caan, A Caggiula, S Quandt, W Kikendall, E Lanza, M Slattery, Frank Iber, A SowellAbstract:Nutrient indexes derived from food-frequency questionnaires have generally been regarded as acceptably valid for epidemiologic purposes. Evaluations of these indexes, however, have considered only their convergent Validity. We suggest that Discriminant Validity, or the ability to distinguish among exposures to different nutrients, is also important. Using baseline data from a large clinical trial, we tested the Discriminant Validity of indexes of intake of vitamin E, alpha-carotene, and beta-carotene. Our results suggest that the vitamin E index possesses neither convergent not Discriminant Validity, the alpha-carotene index adequate convergent and Discriminant Validity, and the beta-carotene index adequate convergent but no Discriminant Validity.
-
Indexes of food and nutrient intakes as predictors of serum concentrations of nutrients: The problem of inadequate Discriminant Validity
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1997Co-Authors: J R Marshall, A Bloch, B Caan, A Caggiula, S Quandt, W Kikendall, E Lanza, Frank Iber, Martha L. Slattery, A SowellAbstract:Nutrient indexes derived from food-frequency questionnaires have generally been regarded as acceptably valid for epidemiologic purposes. Evaluations of these indexes, however, have considered only their convergent Validity. We suggest that Discriminant Validity, or the ability to distinguish among exposures to different nutrients, is also important. Using baseline data from a large clinical trial, we tested the Discriminant Validity of indexes of intake of vitamin E, α-carotene, and β-carotene. Our results suggest that the vitamin E index possesses neither convergent nor Discriminant Validity, the α-carotene index adequate convergent and Discriminant Validity, and the β-carotene index adequate convergent but no Discriminant Validity.